The conceptual framework guiding the development of curriculum and instruction practices in
the English as a second language (ESL) classroom has undergone significant modification
during the last fifteen years. This shift in pedagogical theory has resultedin the increasing use
of student-centered communicative approaches inthe classroom. These approaches include
process writing, process reading, communicative competence, and whole language (Goodman,
1989; Heymsfeld, 1989; Shanklin & Rhodes, 1989, inMoya, S. & O’Malley, J. M, 1994) and
are distinguished by their focus on language functions and meaning and the processes of
learning.
However, proponents of process-oriented curricula and instruction claim that traditional
assessment techniques are often incompatible with current ESL classroom practices. Studies
by experts like Brandt, 1989, Shepard, 1989, Rothman, 1990b, and Wiggins, 1989b concluded
that standardized testing is seen as particularly irrelevant to process learning (Moya, S. &
O’Malley, J. M, 1994). Because of the incompatibility of process learning and product
assessment, educators have begun to explore alternative forms of student assessment.
Among these forms, portfolio is increasingly cited as a viable alternative to standardized
testing in evaluating student progress (Moya, S. & O’Malley, J. M., 1994, Anderson, N. 1999,
Somchoen Honsa, 2002, Day, R., 1993).
Despite the significance of portfolio assessment in the development of curriculum and
instructions, research on this area has been surprisingly scarce. Also, in the division where I
work – Language Skills Division II, Department of English – American Language and
Cultures (DEALC), this method has not yet been applied officially and systematically in
evaluating the reading skills of the second year students.