VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
University of Languages and International Studies
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION
GRADUATION PAPER
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE AUTHENTICITY OF
THE WRITING PORTFOLIOS FOR THE 2
ND
YEAR
FAST-TRACK STUDENTS IN THE SECOND
SEMESTER AT FELTE, ULIS, VNU
Supervisor: Duong Thu Mai, PhD.
Student: Nguyen Dieu Hong
Course: QH2010.F1.E2
Ha Noi, May 2014
ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA TIẾNG ANH SƯ PHẠM
KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ TÍNH THỰC TIỄN CỦA HỒ SƠ BÀI
VIẾT DÀNH CHO SINH VIÊN NĂM 2, TỔ CHẤT LƯỢNG
CAO, KHOA TIẾNG ANH SƯ PHẠM, ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI
NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Tiến sĩ Dương Thu Mai.
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Diệu Hồng
Khoá: QH2010.F1.E2

HÀ NỘI – THÁNG 5 NĂM 2014
ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Nguyen Dieu Hong, QH2010.E2, being a candidate for
the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited

International Study) has made attempt to improve writing assessment standard by
including portfolios in the writing courses. To meet the goal of this activity, it is,
therefore, necessary that authenticity goes hand in hand with such method.
Nevertheless, that how the quality is evaluated is unspecified. To tackle this
problem, the present study aims at building a framework for authentic writing
portfolios, then applying that framework to investigate the authenticity of the
writing portfolios for the second- year fast-track students at ULIS, VNU. Four
phases with three qualitative methods were employed for well-rounded results. The
findings indicated that the framework for authentic writing portfolios should
include five main dimensions: Tasks, goals, context, assessment criteria, and roles
of assessors. With regard to the writing portfolios for the second- year fast-track
students at ULIS, VNU, the authenticity was demonstrated to a certain extent, yet
some improvements were still needed. The study hopefully will benefit researchers
and teachers who are interested in the same topic.
Key Words: Language assessment, authenticity, writing competence, and writing
portfolios.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2: LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT, AUTHENTICITY AND WRITING
PORTFOLIO 7
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35
4.1. FINDINGS FROM DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 49
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 76
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 85
APPENDICES 87
REFERENCES 126
LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS
TABLES
Table 1 Task characteristic (Bachman & Palmer, 1996)

With numerous conflicting theories concerning writing, writing assessment
has undergone immense changes throughout centuries. In the past, writing was
taught based on product-oriented approach in which “students are encouraged to
mimic a model text, usually is presented and analyzed at an early stage”
(Gabrielatos, 2002, p.5). Consequently, timed testing seemed to be an appropriate
method to assess students’ writing capacity. Then, the notion that writing is a
process was introduced.
Kroll (2001) has defined this view as follows:
The “process approach” serves today as an umbrella term for many types of
writing courses. What the term captures is the fact that student writers
engage in their writing tasks through a cyclical approach rather than a
single-shot approach. They are not expected to produce and submit complete
and polished responses to their writing assignments without going through
stages of drafting and receiving feedback on their draft, be it from peers
and/or from the teacher, followed by revision of their evolving texts. (p.
220)
In other words, the progress of brainstorming ideas, drafting, reviewing and
editing are essential in writing. Consequently, it is more difficult to assess EFL
students’ writing abilities than native speakers’ in timed writing assessment (John,
1991). Conforming to this point, Song and August (2002) point out that a set time
during a writing test does affect test takers’ simultaneous concentration on L2
writing needed skills and culturally related issues in the process of writing. From
1
this perspective, traditional timed testing seemed to be inadequate in writing
assessment.
The need for a supplementary assessment method leads to the born of
writing portfolios. While standardized tests are incapable of reflecting a complete
picture of students’ needs and learning, writing portfolios are proved to be very
useful. Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000) hold that “portfolio provide a broader
measure of what students can do, and because they replace the timed writing

the authenticity of such assessment method. It is, hence, necessary to produce more
research on that field. Additionally, in the current semester (semester 2, 2013-
2014), the 2
nd
year fast-track students at FELTE, ULIS, VNU has experienced a
new type of writing portfolios of which course designers have high expectations.
Owing to the fact that authenticity was of essence in writing portfolios (Estrem,
2004), evaluating the authenticity of those portfolios might offer some
contributions to the development of the writing course. All of the above mentioned
reasons have led to researcher’s decision on conducting a study entitled: “An
investigation into the authenticity of the writing portfolios for the 2nd year
Fast-track students in the second semester at FELTE, ULIS, VNU”.
1.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.
This study aimed at building a framework to evaluate authenticity in writing
portfolios and then investigating the authenticity of the writing portfolios for the
second- year fast-track students at ULIS, VNU based on that framework. Thus, the
research focuses on two questions:
- What aspects of the authenticity need to be demonstrated in writing
portfolios?
- From the teacher perspective, which aspects of authenticity are
demonstrated in the writing portfolios for the 2nd year Fast-Track students
in the second semester at FELTE, ULIS, VNU?
3
1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY.
First, according to the course syllabus (Appendix 3 p.102), there were five
types of genre about academic writing included in the writing portfolios for the 2nd
year Fast-Track students in the second semester at FELTE, ULIS, VNU. However,
under time constraint, this research just focused on three main entries:
argumentative essay, informative synthesis and argumentative synthesis.
Second, owing to the time limit, the samples of the third phase-observations

make the respondents most comfortable to express their ideas. All the interviews
were recorded with the interviewees’ acceptance. Notes were prepared as well.
During the process of observation, the researcher recorded and took notes all
needed information from the writing lessons (for example, appendix 3, p. 95).
1.6. AN OVERVIEW OF THE REST OF THE PAPER
The rest of the paper includes five chapters as follows:
Chapter 2 (Language Assessment, Authenticity and Writing Portfolios)
provides the background of the study including key concepts and the discussions of
the related studies. This is also the instrument of the first research method-
document analysis.
Chapter 3 (Research Methodology) describes the methods and instruments
of the study, as well as the procedure employed to carry out the research.
Chapter 4 (Findings) presents all collected data.
Chapter 5 (Discussion and Implication) analyzes and summarizes major
findings. The author’s suggestions to resolve remaining problems related to
authenticity in the writing portfolios for the Fast-track students were given as well.
5
Chapter 6 (Conclusion) summarizes the main issues discussed in the paper,
the limitations of the research as well as some suggestions for further studies.
Following this chapter are the References and Appendices.
In this chapter, the researcher has elaborated on these following points:
(1) Statement and rationale of the study
(2) Aims of the study
(3) Scope of the study
(4) Methods of the study
(5) An overview of the rest of the paper
Summary
The paper has provided the rationale for the study by stressing the role of
authenticity in writing portfolios as well as disclosing the research gap. The
framework of the paper has also been explained through the two research

paper-and-pencil tests, oral questioning, students’ homework performance and so
on. Besides, assessment provides teachers with data about their own teaching and
assists students in understanding their own learning progress (Duncan & Dunn,
1989).
2.1.1.2. Test
The notion of test is quite similar to the one of assessment. However, they
are not synonymous terms. Tests “ occur at identifiable times in a curriculum when
learners master all their faculties to offer peak performance, knowing that their
responses are being measured and evaluated, while assessment is an ongoing
process that encompasses a much wider domain” (Brown, 2010, p. 4). In other
words, all tests are assessment but not all assessments are tests.
As stated by Carroll (1968), “a psychological or educational test is a
procedure designed to elicit certain behavior from which one can make inferences
about certain characteristics of an individual” (p. 6). Based on this definition,
Bachman (1990) considers a test a measurement instrument created to implement
the elicitation of an individual’s behavior regarding a specific sample. Similarly,
Nitko (2001) defines a test “as an instrument or systematic procedure for observing
and describing one or more characteristics of a student using either a numerical
scale or classification scheme” (p. 5). In this study, for the sake of updated
information, Nitko’s definition of test is adopted.
2.1.1.3 Measurement
The term “measurement” mentions a “process of quantifying the
characteristics of a person according to explicit procedures and rules” (Bachman,
1990, p. 7). It is a procedure in which a specified attribute or characteristic of a
person is assigned numbers (scores). Such numbers show the degree to which he or
she acquires the attribute. From the preceding definitions, it can be seen that not all
8
types of assessment yield measurement. A procedure describing students by
qualitative labels or categories is a salient example. “Measurement” is a smaller
term than “assessment”.

language required in test tasks and the one used in everyday life is a matter of
concern. Thus, although paper-and-pencil tests are easy to grade, it cannot be
denied that they provide little evidence of what a language learner can actually do
with the language.
In the early 1990s, in a culture of rebellion against the notion that traditional
tests were versatile tools to measure all people and all skills, a novel concept
labeled “alternative assessment” emerged. It assembles “additional measures of
students- portfolios, journals, observations, self-assessments, peer-assessments, and
the like in an effort to triangulate data about students” (Brown, 2010, p. 251).
Nowadays, in language courses and programs throughout the world, educators are
dealing with the more student-centered agenda (Alderson, 2002). Consequently,
alternative assessments have become more and more popular and hold “ethical
potential” (Lynch, 2001, p. 228) in the promotion of fairness and the balance of
power relationships in the classroom. Nevertheless, some issues related to different
types of alternative assessments have arisen. According to Brown (2010),
practicality and reliability of language assessment tend to be lower. To illustrate,
one of the main problems of writing portfolios (a method of alternatives
10
assessment) is “low inter-rater reliability, consistency of scores because teachers
are not used to the concept of assessment” (Nezakatgoo, 2010, p.32). In addition,
though alternative assessment is strongly believed to provide a wider place for
“authenticity”, it is interesting to note that authenticity is also a matter of concern.
Back to the early 1990s, Bachman and Palmer (1996) included
“authenticity” into the qualities of a good test due to two reasons. First, it connects
the test task to the domain of generalization; and second, it may enable test takers
to perform at their best. However, the authentic label is often placed on different
types of alternative assessments such as performance-based assessment or
portfolios without regard to whether the tasks are similar to those valued outside
the classroom (Frey. B, 2012). From the aforementioned analysis, there is little
doubt that in this day and age, authenticity is one of the special considerations in

Since the early 90’s, authenticity in language assessment has captured the
attention of numerous teachers, educators, theorists and researchers throughout the
world. There have been hundreds of books as well as journal articles written about
such complex topic. The literature on how authenticity should be understood and
demonstrated in language assessment is, hence, extensive, too. Within the limited
scope of this research, only three magnificent views are expounded.
Concerning the domain of test, Bachman and Palmer (1996) consider
authenticity “the degree of correspondence of the characteristics of a given
language test task to the features of a TLU (target language use) task” (p.23) (figure
2).
Authenticity
Figure 2: Authenticity (Bachman& Palmer, 1996)
12
Characteristics of
the TLU task
Characteristics of
the test task
Moreover, they develop a framework (Table 1-Appendix 1) as the basis for
test designers to design an authentic test task. Their framework embodies a set of
five aspects of test authenticity: setting, test rubric, input, expected response, and
relationship between input and response.
First of all, “setting” consists of three physical circumstances “under which
either language use or testing takes place” (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, p. 48). They
include the physical settings, participants, and time of tasks. Second, with regards
to test rubric, it contains “those characteristics of the test that provide the structure
for a particular test tasks and that indicate how test takers are to proceed in
accomplishing the tasks” (p. 50). The characteristics of rubrics include: the
structure of the test, instructions, the duration of the test and how the language will
be evaluated or scored. Third, input refers to material involved in a given test task
or TLU task, “which test takers or language users are expected to process in some

“authenticity” seems to be broader. The author does not only pay attention to test
but also language assessment in general. Nonetheless, his own conception is merely
given without a justification or further supporting details. Thus, from researcher’s
perspective, Nitko’s arguments of authenticity seem insufficiently persuasive.
Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004) also propose another definition of
authentic assessment. To them, an assessment is authentic if it requires task takers
to “use the same competences, or combinations of knowledge, skills, and attitudes,
that they need to apply in the criterion situation in professional life” (p. 69). Basing
on such notion, the researchers build a five-dimensional framework for authentic
assessment (Figure 3- Appendix 1, p. 86). As its name implies, that framework
concludes five aspects.
14
The first one is “task” which “resembles the criterion task with respect to the
integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, its complexity and its ownership” (p.
71). Moreover, authentic task should be seen as relevant and meaningful by
different people. Besides, physical context is mentioned as one dimension with
fidelity; kind and amount of available resources, and time listed as three branches.
In consonance with Resnick’s view of the relationship between social system and
learning-out-of-school activities, Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner (2004)
comprise “social context” in their framework. The fourth and the fifth one are
“assessment result” and “criteria” used to assess such result is the final dimension.
While formulating their argumentation, Gulikers, Bastiaens and Kirschner
(2004) conducted a systematic literature review. Different viewpoints are discussed
critically before the conclusion is stated. Additionally, the three authors carried out
an empirical research with students and teachers from a nursing college in order to
examine whether such dimensions are complete or not. An electronic group support
system (GSS) at the Open University of the Netherlands was used as research tool.
According to the collected results, their framework is adequate. However, that
framework is initially developed to shed light on the concept of authenticity in
general. There is no evidence that it can work appropriately in language education

There would be no ball-points, no typewriters, no word processors, no
Internet […]. But such lists of objects also miss the point. The world we live
in has been indelibly marked by the written world, shaped by the technology
of writing over thousands of years.
In her opinion, writing is “a miracle”, yet the question is: how that “miracle”
is conceptualized? Lannon (1989) considers writing “the process of transforming
the material discovered by research inspiration, accident, trial and error, or
16
whatever into a message with a definite meaning-writing is a process of deliberate
decision” (p. 9). Besides, Hamp-Lyon and Kroll (1997) talk about writing as “an
act takes place within a context, that accomplishes a particular purpose, and that is
appropriately shaped for its intended audience” (p. 8). In a similar vein, Sperling
(1996) declares: “writing, like language in general, is a meaning making activity
that is socially and culturally shaped and individually and socially purposeful”
(p.55). Another definition is stated by Syahid (2010):
Writing can be defined as a mental and physical process of expressing
thought and feelings by forming words into a sequence of arranged
sentences leading to the creation of meaning and the information. The
writing itself is influenced both by the personal attitudes and social
experiences that the writer brings to writing and the impacts of the particular
political and institutional contexts. It is also a process that what is written is
influenced by the constraints of genre. (p. 20)
From those perspectives, it is obvious that writing involves an intentional,
interactive, creative and complicated cognitive process.
The term “competence” is generally defined as “the ability to do something
well, measured against standard, especially ability acquired through experience or
training and linguistically, knowledge of a language that enables somebody to
speak and understand it”(Microsoft Encarta, 2009). Besides, Richard and Smith
(2002) add an entry of competencies related to competency-based teaching.
According to them, competencies are “descriptions of the essential skills,

18