Effects of portfolio-based assessment on EFL students’ conceptions and approaches to writing

Abstract

Researches in general education as well as in language teaching have clearly shown the pivotal role conceptions of learning played on students’ learning outcome. However, there are paucity of researches on instructional and assessment schemes that promote deep conceptions of writing. The main objective of this study, therefore, was to examine the effects of Portfolio-Based Assessment (PBA) on EFL students’ conceptions and approaches to writing. To this end, a pretest posttest control group quasi-experimental research design was adopted, and two sections were chosen from first-year Natural Science Stream students at Wollo University, Dessie Campus. From the two groups, totally 60 participants were chosen randomly, and four types of data collection instruments namely; conceptions of writing scale, essay writing tests, interviews and reflection sheets were employed. The quantitative data were analyzed mainly by using one sample t-test and independent samples t-test, and the qualitative data were also analyzed thematically. During the intervention that stayed for 8 weeks, the students in experimental groups were assessed by writing portfolios. The students in controlled group, however, were assessed by using conventional assessment schemes. As the findings revealed, significant changes in students’ conceptions of writing and writing performances were observed between participants in experimental and controlled groups. The findings suggest that PBA influences EFL students’ deep and meaningful conceptions of writing by way of supporting their independent and out-of class learning endeavor. Moreover, the findings hold implications for using PBA to boost EFL students’ writing self-efficacy beliefs and concern for reflection and revision.

Keywords:

• Portfolio-Based Assessment
• Conceptions of Writing
• Alternative Assessment

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Improving the quality of students’ learning by changing the nature of the learning environment has been known for long. Different researches, therefore, have clearly shown the interconnection between the teaching learning environment and the learners’ conceptions and approaches to learning. Accordingly, if students are exposed to learning environments that foster surface approaches to learning, they would start learning superficially. On the contrary, if the learning environment required them to have deep conceptions of learning, students could start to learn meaningfully and effectively. This study, therefore, highlights the contributions of portfolio-based assessment to change EFL students’ conceptions and, approaches to writing. This study suggests implications to use portfolio assessment in EFL writing classes where students are grappled with unsupported learning environments. Moreover, the findings have also implication to look for other instructional and assessment schemes that promote deep and meaningful conceptions and approaches to learn writing.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

Starting from the 1990s, there have been changes in the conceptions of teaching and learning from the behaviorist to the constructivist model of teaching and learning, and the theoretical implication of the constructivist view of learning is making classroom instruction student-centered, learner-directed, authentic, problem-based, and collaborative (Westwood, 2004, PP. 20–22, 2008, PP. 3–5). This change in focus, theory and epistemological beliefs of instructional practices has also paved the way to the integration of alternative assessment (Richards & Renandya, 2002, P. 335). In principle, the integration of alternative assessment has become mandatory for two sound reasons. Firstly, conventional assessment was found problematic to fit in well with the nature of the classroom practice (Moya & O'Malley, 1994, P. 13). Secondly, it is difficult to gauge success in instructional practices by merely employing traditional paper and pencil assessment schemes (Astrin, 1993 and Shepard, 2000 as cited in Janisch et al., 2007, P. 223)

In EFL writing classes, particularly in Ethiopian universities, there were attempts to make the instructional practices compatible with the constructivists’ conception of learning. For instance, the findings of Yonas (1996), Mesfin (2013), G. Habtamu and Mohammed (2004) witnessed EFL teachers’ attempt to make their writing lessons process-based. Moreover, the changing roles of EFL teachers and students were clearly observed in the Nationally Harmonized Curriculum for Undergraduate Program. A case in point, the descriptions of the course Basic Writing Skills (EnLa 1012) revealed that “lecture, group work, interactive tutorial sessions (group and pair work/discussions and individual work (independent learning)” were some of the recommended methods of teaching basic writing (Ministry of Education, 2013, PP. 26–27). However, there was a gap in integrating assessment schemes compatible with the constructivists’ conceptions of teaching and learning writing skills. A descriptive study on the practices of teaching and learning writing skills at Wollo University revealed that teachers rarely employed alternative assessment schemes such as peer assessment and self-assessment, and they never employed portfolio assessment and oral-conference G. Habtamu and Mohammed (2004).

In 2008, the Ministry of Education (MoE) made thorough assessment of the teaching system and introduced reform issues that possibly improve the quality of education in Ethiopian higher learning institutes. As stated in Education Development Roadmap (EDR) (2018–30), the reform emphasizes producing holistic and balanced citizens by way of promoting “higher order thinking” and “problem solving” skills. To this end, the EDR document highlighted integrating out-of-class learning and authentic assessment (Ministry of Education, 2018). Subsequently, higher education curriculum modification was made, and the modification mainly introduced the idea of using first-year as a preparation stage for the rigor of university courses. It should be noted that previously students came to Ethiopian universities after they had gone through two years of preparatory schooling in their respective high schools. This curriculum modification demanded a change in the design of courses as well as teaching materials. Consequently, writing which previously was taught as an independent course started to be offered by integrating with other language skills in 2020.

This curriculum modification has been made with the premise of the reform issues, such as out-of class learning and authentic assessment. Unfortunately, the change has also prompted institutional regulation of assessment schemes in order to synchronize the practices of assessment across a large group of students. A case in point, for the course Communicative English Skills II, the department of English Language and Literature at Wollo University permitted only 25% for formative assessment, but the remaining 75% is dedicated to mid-term and final examination. As the lion’s share of the assessment is allocated to paper-and-pencil tests, students and teachers are potentially attracted to exam-oriented teaching and superficial learning approaches. Moreover, students’ appeared to have very high concern to score good grade in order to maximize their opportunity to join the departments they aspire. This is for the reason that placements to different schools and departments are being done mainly by students’ first year cumulative grade point average (CGPA). The teaching system, therefore, appeared to be competitive and examination oriented. According to Biggs and Tang (2007, P.169) examination dominated teaching systems dictate students to use surface conceptions of learning.

Generally, the curriculum modification appeared to consider the possibility of fostering out of class learning and authentic assessment. However, the teaching as well as the assessment practices in EFL writing classes continued the same way. More importantly, the pressure of time to cover courses contents, the wash back effects of examinations and institutional regulation of assessment schemes seriously hampered the possibility of fostering deep and meaningful learning in writing classes. To that end, there is a lack of coherence among learning objectives, instructional activities and assessment schemes. This mismatch in teaching premises and assessment schemes inspired the researchers to conduct a study on the role of PBA to foster deep and meaningful conceptions’ of learning in EFL writing classes.

1.2. Statement of the problem

Researches on students’ learning and development have clearly shown the possibility of changing students’ learning outcome by way of changing their conceptions and approaches to learning. In this regard, phenomenographic researches on conceptions of learning evidenced two contrasting approaches to learning: quantitative or surface approaches, and qualitative or deep approaches (Duarte, 2007; Purdie & Hattie, 2002; Ramsden, 1992; Marton, 1981 as cited in Duarte, 2007). In the same way, Lavelle (1993); Karabinar (2014); Lavelle and Bushrow (2007); E. Lavelle and N. Zuercher (1999, 2001); Lavelle and Guarino (2003) have used the surface- and deep-approaches to learning paradigm to study students’ conceptions, approaches and outcomes of writing. Accordingly, instructional and assessment schemes that foster deep and meaningful conceptions of learning have gained much attention in the recent years.

Especially in higher education, deep and meaningful conceptions of learning have become one of the key attributes of learning. To that end, nurturing learning environments that foster deep conceptions of learning has become the focus of teaching in higher education. As some researchers strongly argued, “in higher education, students’ learning is more influenced by their perceptions of the educational environment than by the actual educational practices” (Entwistle, 1991 as cited in D. Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008, P. 3). Other researchers (such as Ramsden, 1992, P. 62; Trigwell et al., 1999, P.58) also supported the noticeable effects of learning environments on students’ learning experiences and learning outcomes. However, setting up learning environments that ensure deep approaches to learning is still one of the challenges of teaching in higher education (Mladenovici et al., 2022, P.256).

Teaching writing in EFL context, basically, needs supportive learning environments that facilitate students’ learning and development. However, setting up supportive learning environments in EFL writing classes cannot easily happen. There are multifaceted contextual constraints that suppress EFL teachers’ effort to set up a well-functioning learning. For instance, undergraduates in Ethiopian universities are coming to universities without sufficient preparation. Different researchers such as Molla (2009), M. Habtamu (2018), Abayneh (2009), and Meron (2015) affirmed that EFL students in Ethiopian high schools learned writing skills in unsupported learning environments that negatively influence students’ development as a writer. Some of the common constraints of the learning environments were found to be lack of time to practice writing, back wash effects of examinations, and design and presentation of writing exercises in the text books.

There are also other manifestations of surface and superficial conceptions of teaching and learning. For example, the teaching of writing at universities could not bring the desired effects on students’ writing performance. Different researchers clearly affirmed undergraduates’ stronger limitations to write effectively in English. The findings of Adege (2016), Assefa (2007), Bekele (2011), G. Habtamu and Mohammed (2004), Mesfin (2013), S. Habtamu (2018) Geremew (1999); Zeleke (2017) clearly supported this claim. Students’ failure to write effectively at university level seemed to have direct connection with their surface conceptions and approaches to learning writing skills. According to Ramsden (1992, P.53) and Gibbs and Coffey (2004, P.89), poor learning outcomes in general have clear association with surface conceptions of learning. By the same token, students’ poor performance in writing can also be attributed to their surface and superficial conceptions of writing.

Additionally, students’ poor engagement in revision writing can be the other manifestation of surface conceptions of writing. If students get the opportunity to revise, they focus on surface or superficial changes. In line with this idea, (Dawit, 2003, P. 42; Hayes et al., 1987, P.177; Wallace & Hayes, 1991, P. 55) stated that EFL writers usually employ surface approach to revise texts. EFL teachers also give comments and feedbacks that focus on “language specific errors and problems” (Zamel, 1985). This compelled students to get accustomed to surface revision. More importantly, students with surface conceptions of writing strongly believe in studying grammar and language rules to improve their writing skills. In line with this view, M. Habtamu (2018, P. 141) states that EFL students in three Ethiopian universities “believe that the grammar and mechanics aspects of writing and not meaning should be emphasized”. All these researches confirm the students’ tendency to surface conceptions of writing.

Researchers have already started looking for solutions to EFL students’ writing problems, and as one potential remedy, using alternative assessment schemes is gathering momentum recently (Gipps, 1994 as cited in Farahiam et al., 2018, P.1). Alternative assessment schemes have lots of unique features that change the affordances of the teaching and learning environments in writing classes (Cunningham, 1998, P. 119; D. H. Brown, 2003, P 13; Richards & Renandya, 2002, P. 335).

Portfolio assessment, as a type of alternative assessment scheme, has been widely employed in writing classes, and researches on the effects of PBA, by and large, have confirmed the positive contributions of PBA on EFL students’ writing performance. For instance, Ghoorchaei et al. (2010); Tabatabaei and Assefi (2012), Taki and Heidari (2011) Nezakatgoo (2011) experimented PBA on Iranian students and confirmed the positive effects of PBA on students’ writing performance. Similarly, Yurdabakan and Erdogan (2009) in Turkey and Kalra et al. (2017) in Thailand investigated the effects of PBA on EFL students writing skills. The results confirmed the constructive effects of PBA on students’ writing skills. Other researchers also tried to explore the effects of PBA on writing sub-skills. For instance, Roohani and Taheri (2015) in Iran, Obeiah and Bataineh (2016) in Jordan, and Prastikawati et al. (2016) in Indonesia employed PBA and confirmed the positive effects of PBA on writing sub-skills such as focus, content and organizations of the text

Similarly, researches on the attributes of the changes observed on students’ writing performance as a result of PBA focus on two important dimensions: changes in the psychological attributes of the learners and changes in their writing habits. Consequently, some studies evidenced the effects of PBA on the different learner attributes such as Locus of Control Orientations, motivation, metacognitive awareness and learner autonomy. For instance, PBA was found to foster students’ internal Locus of Control Orientations (Ezell & Klein, 2003; Shirvan & Golparvar, 2016). Portfolio was also found to influence Iranian students motivation for reading (Hosseini & Ghabanchi, 2014), and metacognitive awareness (Farahiam et al., 2018). Moreover, PBA positively influenced the autonomy of Iranian freshman undergraduate students (Khodadady & Khodabakhshzade, 2012) and Iranian pre-intermediate learners (Afshr & Bastami, 2012). In the same way, other studies further confirmed the positive effects of PBA on Iranian students’ active engagement in writing process such as planning, revising and editing (Boumediene et al., 2016; Fahim & Jalili, 2013).

As far as the researchers’ knowledge is concerned, no previous study has investigated the effect of PBA on EFL students’ conceptions of learning in general, and writing in particular. This research, therefore, was planned to fill the existing research gaps in different respects. Firstly, there are scarcities of researches about instructional as well as assessment schemes that foster students’ deep conceptions of writing. In this regard, Lavelle (2007, P.227) suggested that the future direction of research in the approaches-to-writing model, is experimenting interventions that foster deep approaches to learning. Other researchers (such as Biggs et.al. 1999 as cited in Lavelle, 2007, P.227) also recommended checking the cross-cultural validity of the model as a research niche.in the area. Secondly, as we have already seen, the effects of portfolio assessment on students’ writing performance have been tried out in different nations such as Iran, Indonesia, Jordan, Thailand and Turkey where English is used as a foreign language, but it has not yet been tried out in Ethiopian context. Accordingly, this research was designed to fill the aforementioned research gaps by looking for answers to the following research questions:

RQ 1. What are first-year students’ conceptions and approaches to writing?

RQ2. Does portfolio assessment have effects on EFL students’ conceptions and approaches to writing?

RQ 3. Does portfolio assessment have effects on EFL students writing performance?

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Conceptions & Approaches to Writing, and the Learning Environment

The 3p model of learning by Biggs and Moore (1993 as cited in Dart et al., 2000, P.263) has been widely used to explicate the connection among three interlinked factors in the teaching context, namely presage—process and product factors. The presage factor incorporates students’ characteristics (such as conception of learning, motivation, prior knowledge, and abilities) and context of teaching (such as curriculum, method, assessment etc). The process factors also refer to approaches to a learning task which show students’ propensity to surface learning or deep learning. Finally, the product factor refers to the quality of learning such as qualitative, quantitative and affective. Likewise, in the approaches-to-writing model of Lavelle (1993, 2007), there are interdependent and bidirectional relationships among triad elements of the learning process: conceptions—approaches—outcomes. Literally, students’ conception influences their approach to learning that, in turn, influences their learning outcome. Researchers such as (E. Lavelle & N. Zuercher, 1999; Karabinar, 2014; Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Lavelle, 1993, 1997) have used the model to study students’ writing conceptions, approaches and outcomes as well.

The term “conceptions” is defined in different ways. For instance, according to Devlin (2006, P.112) the term “conception” is considered synonymous with beliefs, orientations, approaches and intentions. On the contrary, some researchers defined conception as an umbrella term that comprises the others. A case in point, Thompson (1992 as quoted in Opre, 2015, P. 2030) states that the term “conceptions” refers to “general mental structure, encompassing, beliefs, meanings, concepts, propositions, rules, mental images, preferences and the like”. Lam and Kember (2006, P. 694) also defined conceptions as beliefs that guide “perception of situations” and “shape action”. Other researchers also considered conceptions as interpretations of a phenomenon (Ramsden, 1992; Marton, 1981 as cited in Duarte, 2007; Pratt, 1992 as quoted in Devlin, 2006, P.112). In the context of this research, the term “conceptions” is viewed as framed view of writing that accommodates students’ implicit and explicit beliefs, presumptions or thinking about composing in English. This framed view of writing is manifested on students’ structured set of actions, or approaches to writing.

2.2. Approaches to Writing: Surface and Deep

The term “approaches to writing” is defined as “the relationship between the beliefs that writers have about writing and the patterns of writing strategies that they employ” (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007, P.808); they tried to further delimit the meanings of “approaches to writing” by comparing and contrasting “writing approaches” with other related constructs such as “writing strategies” and “writing styles”. They defined writing strategies as “patterns of writing tactics to achieve … writing goals”. In other words, strategies are relatively stable constructs that involve writing tactics such as (brainstorming, outlining, drafting, free writing, etc.). On the other hand, writing styles have shown individual differences in strategy use. Styles are unique and personal use of strategies. More importantly, writing approach refers to a notion that combines “beliefs about writing” and “writing strategies” as a single entity.

Unlike, writing strategies and writing styles, the nature and type of writing approaches are determined by the simultaneous effects of the writer’s beliefs and the affordances in the learning environment. To put in another way, the students’ conceptions and approaches to writing are dynamic and modifiable constructs that are largely determined by the interaction of the writer and the learning environment (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007, P.808). Similarly, Biggs and Tang (2007, P.29) further strengthen this idea that “surface and deep approaches to learning are not personality traits, as it sometimes thought, but are most usefully thought of as reactions to the teaching environment.” Likewise, Ramsden (1992, P,40) and Gorodetsky et al. (1997, P.424) affirmed the possibility of a change in conceptions and approaches to learning whenever there is a change in the affordances of the learning environment. As Gorodetsky et al. (1997, P.424) further affirmed, the change in the affordances of the learning environment can possibly be a change in practice or exposure to new knowledge. Accordingly, the nature of the writing environment plays pivotal role to determine the type of approach adopted by the writers. As Lavelle and Bushrow (2007 P.808) state:

when writing environments are aligned to include meaningful, integrated tasks and assessments, writers are likely to take a meaningful approach. When writing environments are marked by disparate tasks or superficial assessments and fuzzy objectives, writers’ may be cued to adopt a more superficial or repetitive/reorganizational strategy in writing.

All things considered, writers’ propensity to approach the act of composing tends to reflect two contrasting views of learning to write along a continuum: surface approaches and deep approaches to writing (E. Lavelle & N. Zuercher, 1999 P.6; Lavelle & Guarino, 2003; Lavelle & Zuercher, 2001).

On the basis of Lavelle’s (1993) Inventory of Process in College Composition, five different factors that shape the students’ approaches to writing were identified. Two of the factors (such as reflective—revisionist and elaborative) have been identified as deep approaches to writing, and the remaining three factors (such as low self-efficacy, spontaneous—impulsive and procedural) have been regard as surface approaches to writing.

The first factor, “reflective—revisionist” is an approach that invites students to be analytic, critical and impersonal. Reflective-revision approach entails writing as a continuous discovery of meaning by way of rewriting or revisiting. Reflection also supports the revision by letting the writers introspect on the issue.

The second factor is elaborative conception of writing that invites writers’ personal meanings and self-investment, so elaborative writers’ view writing as symbolic, audience driven and communication focused. In addition, elaborative writers usually go beyond the task requirements and elaborate ideas, views and experiences by way of getting involved in the situation. Thus, elaborative writers use different ways of making sense of the world by way employing visualizing, self-referencing and analogy and metaphor.

The third factor is spontaneous impulsive conceptions of writing. Writers with spontaneous- impulsive conceptions of writing perceived writing as a one touch activity, so they have shown little propensity to revise their writings. Spontaneous-impulsive writers usually perceived rewriting or revisiting as a lack of writing competence, so they usually write without planning.

The fourth factor is low self-efficacy beliefs which refers to students’ self-perceived beliefs about their capability to perform activities considered to improve the quality of their writings. Writers with low self-efficacy beliefs are known for their doubtful approach, low confidence, and negative affect to writing. Moreover, they valued studying grammar and punctuations to improve writing skills.

Finally, procedural conception of writing is supposed to be a barrier that deters writers from being creative and open minded. Accordingly, writers with procedural conceptions of writing usually focus on pleasing the teacher by way of meeting the procedures set by the teacher. Thus, students with procedural conception usually value assignments with specific directions, instructions and details or procedures such as number of lines or number of pages, and time required to complete the task. More importantly, their goal of writing is confined on getting good grade, so students are not interested in assignments for self-development.

2.3. Affordances of PBA in Teaching and Learning writing

Portfolio is defined as an assessment scheme that focuses on “encouraging students to collect and store work samples overtime for later evaluation purpose” (Forester and Masters, 1996 cited in Westwood, 2008 P. 75). Similarly, the definitions given by different scholars such as Coffin et al. (2003); Cunningham (1998); J. Brown and Hudson (1998, P.664); Hyland (2003,P.233) also underscored the three generic features of PBA: collection of evidences that attested learning and development, selection of learning evidences for assessment, and reflection on learning experiences.

In teaching writing, PBA has additional affordances that facilitate students’ engagement and learning. In line with this idea, Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000, P. 35) stated that most of the basic characteristics of PBA have made learners the center of learning. Moreover, the PBA scheme is developmental, authentic, and adaptive to diverse teaching and learning contexts. These features also attested the dominant role of learner-centered approach in portfolio-based assessment (Richards & Renandya, 2002, P.335; Moya & O’Malley, 1994; Astrin,1993 & Shepard,2000 as cited in Janisch et al., 2007). A well-thought-out writing portfolio, therefore, encompasses additional affordances that promote meaningful learning.

2.2.1 Opportunities for out -Of—Class Learning

PBA has different features that promote out-of-class practicing and independent learning of writing. For one thing, portfolio requires presenting more than one works that show the range of students’ effort. Collection of students’ works has made PBA distinct from the other traditional forms of assessment. This characteristic has given possibility for learners to show their capability to write in multiple ways. In addition, it also gives teachers opportunity to assess students’ capability from multiple perspectives (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, PP. 32–33). On the other hand, PBA is an open form of assessment that gives students the freedom to show their effort on the basis of their personal choices and interests. In addition, students can also be given the opportunity to select samples from their portfolios for independent assessment. The collection of learning evidences and the selection of samples for assessment have made PBA less teacher-controlled and more student-directed. One of the merits of PBA is its potential to influence students’ effort to meet the required standards of the portfolio protocol. In principle, learning in the context of universities is expected to be self-directed, independent and multi-directional.

2.3.1. Feedback and Delayed Evaluation

One of the basic characteristics of a well-designed portfolio assessment is delayed evaluation. In teaching writing, delayed evaluation “promotes revision by providing both time for revision to occur and motivation to revise”, and the very nature of portfolio assessment calls for “a plan for further revision” (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, P. 34–36). In the same vein, Clark (2003, P.201) states “portfolio assessment takes into account the need for … thoughtful revision overtime”. In line with this idea Hyland (2003, P.233) stated that the integration of portfolio assessment in ESL writing classes emanates from the incongruence between the assessment of students’ writing performance through timed writing tests and the limitations of inexperienced writers to manage the writing activities within constrained writing contexts. Accordingly, timed writing tests are usually done with limited opportunity to choose a topic of the writer’s interest and to revise and redress the writing problems. Portfolio assessment, however, improves the writing context since it gives students an opportunity to consult different sources of information that make the text rich in ideas. Besides, students also get a chance for seeking feedback from different sources (such as teachers and peers) and accommodate the feedbacks before the final assessment.

2.3.2. Reflection on Learning and self-assessment

The other important feature of portfolio assessment that promotes learner engagement in revision writing is students’ engagement in reflection and self-assessment. Witte (2013, P.34) states” revising is a slow, arduous, laborious and complex task in which one must reflect over time on the piece of writing and the changes that might be needed”. In the same way, Barkaoui (2007, P.88) has recognized the importance of reflection in order to develop the students’ capability to revise texts effectively. Reflection is the soul of portfolio because portfolio could not be a “static presentation of what a student has done” (Cunningham, 1989, 143). All that has made learning student-centered and introspective is reflection. In general, Hamp-Lyons and Condon (2000, P.36) summarizes the importance of reflection and self-assessment as follow: “Portfolio designs usually call for some kind of reflective writing about the portfolio as a whole, or a self-assessment that often involves discussing the process that led to the written products and a plan for further revision”. This condition empowers students’ involvement to control their own progress or development as a writer.

2.3.3. Multiple drafts and Recursive Revision

Reflective experiences, self-assessment schemes and delayed evaluations promote the production of multiple drafts through recursive revision. In line with this idea, Sze (2002, P.21) states “in the context of multi draft process writing, revision is an integral part of the process”. In conventional assessment, students receive feedback usually from the writing teacher. In addition, the students do not have any sound rational to revisit their work on the basis of the comments given because the marking and grading of the students’ work ended beforehand. On the other hand, PBA gives students more opportunity to accommodate the comments given by the teacher or their peers. This will help the students redress the limitations of their work before the final assessment. This introspection on the given comments is expected to be the most important aspect of learning writing skills because the assessment scheme promotes the use of multiple drafts and recursive revisions through a process that emphasizes “drafts, revisions and feedback” (Coffin et al., 2003, P. 88). The other merit of multiple drafting is its potential to have data that clearly show “the amount of learning and the kinds of learning” by way of tracing students’ development through the recursively produced multiple drafts (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, P. 37)

2.3.4. Holistic View of Learning and Development

PBA has a capability to entertain diversity by way of promoting multiple ways of getting solutions (D. H. Brown, 2003, P. 13; Richards & Renandya, 2002, P. 335). This important feature emphasizes holistic view of learning. Conventional assessment, however, is reductionist because it lacks integration and wholeness. That is why conventional assessment oversimplifies the complex process of composing and student development as a writer. This reductionist approach reflects in the feedback delivery mode of teachers that follow conventional assessment scheme. As we know, writing teachers that follow reductionist approach usually deliver feedback after fixing grades to students’ writings. Accordingly, the students accustomed to move on the next essay without paying attention of the feedbacks given on their previous writings. This condition, consequently, confined the transfer of learning experiences from one learning context to the other or from one genre to the other on the bases of the given feedback (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000, P. 35) Portfolio assessment, however, promotes holistic view of learning and transfer of experiences from one learning context to the other.

2.4. Researches on the Effects of PBA

PBA is one of the most widely employed and researched assessment schemes in writing classes. Accordingly, different nations tried out PBA by conducting empirical researches. Researches on the effects of PBA on EFL learners’ writing performances have been summarized, but the summary specifically focused on significant and related contributions.

Nezakatgoo (2011) made PBA intervention study on 40 Iranian university students and confirmed the positive effects of PBA on students’ writing skills and their final examination scores. Kalra et al. (2017) also made a quasi-experimental study on 56 senior undergraduate university students majoring Business English in an International university in Thailand. The findings of the study revealed the constructive effects of portfolios on Tahi university students’ writing performance. Similarly, Yurdabakan and Erdogan (2009) conducted a quasi-experimental study on Turkish preparatory school students. PBA contributed to significant changes on students’ writing performance, but portfolio assessment was not found to have similar effects on students’ reading and listening skills.

Different researches also specifically focused on examining the effects of PBA on writing sub-skills. The findings about writing sub-skills appeared to be consistent with the findings about students’ general writing performance. Accordingly, Roohani and Taheri (2015), conducted a study on 44 undergraduate Iranian EFL students at two universities. The participants’ age ranged 20–25. The study focused on examining the effects of PBA on EFL students’ expository writing ability, and the findings of this study witnessed the positive effects of PBA on students’ writing ability. Moreover, PBA constructively influenced writing sub-skills such as focus, support and organization, but it was not found to influence vocabulary and conventions significantly. Additionally, Prastikawati et al. (2016) conducted a quasi-experimental study on 62 fourth semester students’ of English department, PGRI University of Semarang, Indonesia. The findings clearly revealed the positive effects of portfolio on students writing skills and writing sub-skills such as content, organization, vocabulary, grammar and mechanics.

Ghoorchaei et al. (2010) also studied the effects of PBA on undergraduates at Isfahan University, Iran. Similarly, Tabatabaei and Assefi (2012) also conducted a study on Iranian EFL learners majoring English teaching. These studies confirmed the constructive effects of PBA on students’ overall writing ability (essay writing skills) and writing sub-skills such as focus, elaboration, convention, organization, and vocabulary. In addition, Taki and Heidari (2011) conducted a study on young Iranian learners (their age ranged between 17 and 25). The study was experimental in design with random assignment of participants. The findings also favored the positive effects of PBA on students’ writing skills and writing sub-skills. Obeiah and Bataineh (2016) also studied 10^th grade students in Jordan, and their findings revealed significant improvement on students’ writing performance, and writing sub-skills such as focus development, organization and content.

As far as the researcher’s knowledge is concerned, the following researches have tried to explore the justifications from the perspective of changes in students’ psychological orientations. Ezell and Klein (2003), for instance, researched the impact of PBA on grade eight students’ Locus of Control orientations and attested the positive impact of PBA to promote students’ internal locus of control orientation. Similarly, Shirvan and Golparvar (2016) researched the general English learners’ locus of control orientations and came up with findings that supported the positive contribution of PBA to improve students’ internal locus of control orientation. Farahiam et al. (2018) also conducted an experiment on 69 undergraduate students in a city university in Kermanshah, Iran. The findings revealed the contributions of PBA to empower students’ metacognition and their writing skills. Khodadady and Khodabakhshzade (2012) explored the effects of PBA on 60 freshman undergraduate university students in Tabaran University, Iran. The findings of the study revealed that PBA enhanced students’ autonomy and writing ability as well. Hosseini and Ghabanchi (2014) have also researched the effects of PBA on 65 female university students and come up with the results that attested the positive contribution of PBA on EFL students reading ability as well as their motivational orientations towards reading skills.

The other groups of the research that focused on the justification of the improvements in students’ writing performance focus on the impact of portfolio to improve the process of writing a text. The following researches have seen the changes in process aspect of learning writing skills while PBA is implemented. Boumediene et al. (2016), for instance, have seen the contribution of portfolio assessment on the students’ writing process. The study was experimental in design and used self- reported data collected through students’ questionnaire, and the results of the study revealed that the use of portfolio assessment significantly improved students’ behavior to practice process writing: planning, drafting, revising and editing. Similarly, Fahim and Jalili (2013) conducted experimental study on the impact of portfolio-based assessment on students’ writing performance and editing ability. The findings have shown positive contribution of PBA on the general editing ability of students in experimental group.

3. Methods and Materials

3.1. Research Design

The study employed an embedded quasi-experimental research design with pre-test post-test control groups. The qualitative data were embedded within the broader framework of the quantitative design, and the purpose of mixing the data was to get context rich data, and to triangulate the findings of the study. This design was chosen on the basis of the following rationales. Firstly, educational intervention studies are frequently done to look for solutions that alleviate the real problems in the classroom. Using intact groups, therefore, is expected to predict the feasibility of the intervention in the real classroom situation (Bekele, 2011, P.73). Second, pre- and post-test control group design is preferable to establish strong causal relationships by way of minimizing threats to internal validity, such as maturation effects. Above all, the intervention needs relatively extended time that would make other single group experimental designs inconvenient.

3.2. Participants

The participants of the study were 60 first year undergraduates enrolled for the course “Communicative English Skills II” in the College of Natural Science at Wollo University, Dessie Campus, Ethiopia. The College of Natural Science was chosen purposively considering the practical implications of the findings for a large number of target groups. As the Ministry of Education (2018, P.53) confirmed in Ethiopian high schools the students in natural science stream outnumbered the students in social science stream, and as a policy nearly 70% of the students are prepared to join natural science stream. The participants’ age ranged from 18 to 21. There were 14 sections of students in Natural Science stream in 2020/21 academic year. Totally, seven teachers were assigned by the department to offer the course communicative English Skills to students in the Natural Science stream. From the seven teachers assigned by the department, the experimenter was chosen purposively on the basis of his specialization (MA in TEFL), teaching experience, academic merits and willingness to participate in the study. The experimenter was assigned to teach three different classes. All the three classes were taken as available samples because the students had already been assigned into different sections by the registrar office randomly. From the three sections assigned to the experimenter, two sections were selected randomly by drawing lots. The two sections were also randomly assigned as controlled and experimental group by simple lottery method. From the intact groups having 46 and 52 in experimental and controlled groups respectively, totally 60 participants (30 students from each group) were selected randomly by using simple random sampling applet.

3.3. Instruments

3.3.1. Conceptions of Writing Scale

The conceptions of writing scale, namely Inventory of Processes in College Composition (IPICC) scale of Lavelle’s (1993) originally consisted of 72 items. However, Lavelle (2007) consists of 70 items, but five items were repeatedly used in related constructs. The items can broadly be categorized into two approaches: surface and deep approaches. The surface conceptions are further categorized into three distinct subscales: Low self-efficacy, Spontaneous-Impulsive and Procedural conceptions of writing. Deep conceptions, on the other hand, are also categorized in to two subscales: Elaborative conceptions and Reflective- Revisionist conceptions of writing. The scale was generally designed in a way that respondents showed their level of agreement or disagreement in a five point Likert scale. Most of the items were adopted and some of the items were reworded in order to minimize conceptual difficulty of the items. However, the modification was made without altering the essence of the original items. The modification partly was made on the basis of the researchers’ expectations. Moreover, after the pilot study, the researchers had thoroughly observed students’ responses to the scale and identified words, phrases and sentences repeatedly circled, underlined and left without responses as clues to make further modifications. To illustrate the modification with examples, the original item which says, “Revision is making minor alterations—just touching things up and rewording.” was modified as “Revision is making minor changes—just touching things up and rewording.”. In addition, the item which originally says “I try to entertain, inform or impress my audience” was modified into “I try to meet different purposes through my writing such as entertaining, informing and impressing my audience”.

3.3.2. Essay writing tests

Two essay writing tests (pre and posttests) were designed by the researchers. The pretest was intended to collect baseline data about students’ writing performance, and to check the homogeneity of the groups before the intervention. Accordingly, participants in both groups were given two different writing topics (for pre and posttest) to freely compose expository essays. The free writing testing scheme was preferred for two main reasons. First, writing skill is best measured by direct writing. Second, controlled and guided writing tests can have potential threats to test validity attributed to participants’ reading skills, their word power and familiarity with the test formats. Expository writing genre was also selected considering the emphasis given for this genre in the teaching material, and the students’ essay writing experiences. Accordingly, list of essay writing topics were compiled from different online sources, and four topics that possibly fit the students’ age, needs and interests were identified by the researchers after a thorough analysis of the topics. The chosen topics were given to three EFL teachers, and rated to select the best two topics. On the basis of the teachers’ ratings, two writing topics such as “New traditions or life styles that come out of the COVID-19 situations” and “The advantages of science and technology” were employed as a pretest and a posttest respectively. The students were ordered to compose an essay of 150–250 words in 60 minutes time.

3.3.3. Interview

Interview guidelines were designed on the basis of the literature about students’ conceptions of writing. The interview questions were open ended in order to help the researchers probe deep into the participants’ beliefs and practices of writing. From the 60 participants in both groups, totally ten participants (five students from each group) were chosen purposively to participate in the pre-intervention interview. Likewise, five students from the experimental group were also selected for the post-intervention interview. The type of interview employed was semi-structured interview, but the guidelines were the frame of reference to tune the interview. Otherwise, there were follow up questions that initiate students to give further illustration. In-depth interviews were expected to uncover students’ deep-laid beliefs and practices of writing. The interview was intended to be held in English, but some students appeared frustrated to narrate freely their beliefs and practices of writing in English. Thus, on the basis of the participants’ choice interviews were conducted by and large in Amharic. The scripts were transcribed verbatim and literally translated in to English by a seasoned EFL teacher, and verified by a translation expert. Some of the interview guidelines were “How do you write paragraphs or essays in English?”; “What do you feel whenever a writing assignment is given?”; “Could you explain in detail the major steps that you follow to produce a paragraph or essay in English? And “Could you explain your major concerns while writing paragraphs or essays?”

3.3.4. Reflection sheets

The reflection sheet was designed by the researchers to collect data only from students in experimental group. The participants’ were given three different types of self-assessment rubrics: summary & conclusion writing self-assessment rubrics, paragraph writing self-assessment rubrics, and essay writing self-assessment rubrics. The main purpose of the self-assessment sheets was to encourage students’ learning and introspection on the task by putting a check mark in front of the statements in the rubrics. The students’ were encouraged to reflect after self -assessment and peer-assessment experiences. Reflections in this portfolio focused on the students’ experiences that could possibly be evidences of changing conceptions and practices of writing. Students in experimental group, therefore, were delivered reflection sheets with six prompts that initiate them write about their writing experiences. Accordingly, students’ were informed to reflect on occasions that significantly influence their learning on the basis of their personal choice. It was compulsory to reflect at least after three important writing experiences: writing summaries and conclusions, writing paragraphs and writing essays. In addition, students were offered the opportunity to write general reflection at the end of portfolio compilation process. The reflection prompts are given with enough space to write on. Some of the prompts were “Major difficulties or problems that I faced in doing writing tasks/activities are”; “Important points that I have learnt from the writing activities that I have completed recently”; “Has this experience shown any deficiencies in your writing skills? What are they ?

3.4. Validity and Reliability

The PBA training manual, the portfolio protocol, and self-assessment rubrics were designed by the researchers. To keep the validity of the materials, comments and feedbacks were sought from two seasoned ELT experts in Addis Ababa University. Amendments and improvements were also made on the basis of the comments given in order to make the materials conducive and feasible to the research context. In addition, interview guidelines and reflection sheets were also designed by the researchers. To hone the instruments for the intended purpose, interview guidelines and reflective prompts were revised and refined on the basis of the comments given by the two ELT experts from Addis Ababa University. Moreover, the questionnaire was adapted from Lavelle (2007); all the 70 questionnaire items were used. However, some items were modified by the researchers to adapt them to the context of Ethiopian students. Items that consist of phrasal verbs, technical terms and difficult vocabularies were rephrased. The questionnaire was pilot tested on thirty first year students, and the internal consistency of the students’ responses was checked using Cronbach’s alpha and the internal consistency of the items used was found to be .711. Items that potentially increase the alpha coefficient “if deleted” were identified and rephrased. Essay writing tests were also assessed by two seasoned EFL experts using Jacobs et al. (1981) ESL composition profile, and the inter rater reliability of the scorers for writing sub-skills (content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics) totally were found to be 0.859 and 0.933 for the writing pretest and post-test respectively.

3.5. Experimental Procedures

First, the experimenter was chosen purposively and given a training that focused on the basic features of portfolio assessment. Second, a week after the beginning of the course, pre-intervention measures were administered using essay writing tests, conceptions of writing scale and semi structured interview. The results of the essay writing test confirmed the homogeneity of the groups in their writing performance before the treatment. In the same way, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in their conceptions and approaches to writing. After taking the base-line data and checking the homogeneity of the groups, the experimenter required students in the experimental group to compile their portfolios on the basis of the portfolio protocol, which was a method to align course goals and students’ freedom to collect items. The students were also given clear orientation about the portfolio assessment.

Both groups were taught by the same teacher, using the same teaching material (a module centrally designed by Ministry of Education) and writing activities, but the students’ in control group were not given the opportunity to reflect on their learning experiences, to rework their assignment for delayed evaluation, to get involved in an assessment scheme that valued out of class practicing as well as self—assessment, and to seek feedback from multiple sources. As the focus of the study was on assessment, the instructional delivery mode was expected to be similar, theoretically. However, there were changes in instructional delivery mode instigated by changes in assessment modes because assessment is inseparable from instruction in practice. The experiment stayed for eight weeks (three hours per week).

As different researchers confirmed, changing the teaching context by way of assessment potentially changes the students’ characteristics that possibly change the nature of instruction in writing classes. However, except the changes in the instruction as a result of the assessment scheme, the teaching material and the writing tasks employed were the same, but the differences between the two groups were the assessment schemes employed. The detailed features of portfolio assessment delayed evaluation, reflection, opportunity for recursive revisions, seeking feedback from different sources and holistic view of learner development could be the potential distinctions between the experimental and controlled groups. Finally, post intervention data were collected a week before the end of the semester by using the conceptions of writing scale, a post intervention essay writing test and post intervention in-depth interview.

• The Portfolio-Based Assessment (PBA) Protocol

PBA is an open form of assessment that can be designed and implemented in several ways. Accordingly, PBA protocol was intended to minimize discrepancies in practical implementation of the assessment scheme, and it was also planned to maximize the replicability of the research in other contexts. More importantly, PBA protocol was indispensable to operationalize the design of the assessment and to make the intervention responsive to the intended purpose. The basic premises of PBA in the context of this research are presented as follow. First, PBA is tuned with the course objectives and the contents of the course outlines. The portfolio activities, therefore, were designed to give students more opportunities to meet the preset course goals and unit objectives. Secondly, PBA was designed in order to have both compulsory and optional activities. Compulsory activities were teacher-directed activities, but optional writing activities were student-controlled. Thirdly, students could seek feedback from diverse sources and recursively revise the texts and write reflection on the base of their writing experiences. Students were also expected to showcase their level of progress to meet the course goals by selecting texts for final assessment. In addition, the students were given orientations to reflect on their writing experiences. Finally, students were expected to write unit reflections at the end of each unit, and general reflection at the end of the course. (See Appendix 1: for a Detailed scheme of the experimental procedures)

3.6. Analysis of the Data

Students’ questionnaires were analyzed on the basis of the grand mean score for all the items that refer to the five different elements of students’ conceptions of writing as measured by Lavelle’s (2007) IPICC. The values of negative items (such as item 3,5, 20, 45,46,57,69) were calculated by way of reversing the values given for the scales. Analysis of the pre-intervention data was done by using expected mean values of the five different constructs of students’ conceptions of writing. For procedural, spontaneous Impulsive, and Low Self Efficacy beliefs, mean values higher than the given expected means favor participants’ surface conceptions of writing, and mean values lower than the expected means also favor participants deep conceptions of writing. In the same way, for Elaborative, and Reflective-Revision conceptions of writing mean values higher than the expected mean values favor participants’ deep conceptions of writing, and mean values lower than the expected mean values favor their surface conceptions of writing. Accordingly, one sample t-test was employed to check the difference between the actual and expected mean values. Similarly, independent samples t-test was employed to make comparisons between independent groups. Paired sample t- test was also employed to check reliability and validity of the findings by comparing pre and post intervention results in one group.

The students’ pre-intervention and post intervention essays were judged by using Jacobs’s et al. (1981) ESL Composition Profile that focused on Content, Organization, Grammar, Vocabulary, and Mechanics. Jacob’s composition profile consists of four levels of performance: very poor, fair to poor, good to average and excellent to very good. The minimum expected score is 34 and the maximum expected score is 100. Considering the minimum value given, the expected mean for the different aspects of writing has been calculated by looking for the midway between the minimum and the maximum values.

The effect sizes or the power of the findings were calculated by using Cohen’s d formula. Cohen’s d is a preferable effect size measure of t-test comparisons, and the interpretations of the effect size measures were done as suggested by Cohen: 0–0.2 = weak effect, 0.21–0.50 = modest effect, 0.51–1.0 = moderate effect and>1.0= strong effect (Muljs, 2004,PP.136–139)

The qualitative data collected through in-depth interview and reflection sheets were analyzed thematically by using qualitative content analysis. From different schemes of content analysis, what Hsieh and Shannon (2005) called conventional content analysis, was employed. This scheme mainly aimed at describing a phenomenon of the research interest. In the analysis process, the transcribed-data were read carefully, and meaningful chunks or codes were identified by the researchers. Then, common themes or categories that embrace different descriptions were identified. After that, further categorizations were made repeatedly by separating and merging categories. Finally, limited number of categories were identified and reported by supporting the claim with highlighting quotes directly from the text. That shows major tendencies in the participants’ conceptions and approaches to writing. The presentation of the data, however, focuses on the implications and interpretations of the codes to the research question.

RQ.1: What are first year students’ conceptions and approaches to writing?

One of the objectives of this research was describing undergraduate students’ conceptions and approaches to writing before the intervention. Describing existing conceptions and approaches would help us rationalize the importance of the intervention. As we can infer Table 1, the negative t-values of the one sample t-test evidenced the students’ poor writing performance in all the five aspects of writing. Accordingly, the students’ writing performance was found to be significantly below the expected average in all the five writing sub-skills such as content (t = −14.93, P < 0.05), organization (t = −7.82, P < 0.05, vocabulary (t = −11.93,P<.05), language use (t = −15.15, P < 0.05) and mechanics (t = −17.29, P < 0.05).

Table 1. One Sample t-test of EFL students’ Pretest Writing performance

	Expected mean	Mean	Std. Dev.	T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
								Lower	Upper
Content	21.5	16.34	2.67	−14.93	59	.000	−5.1583	−5.849	−4.467
Organization	13.5	11.37	2.10	−7.82	59	.000	−2.1250	−2.668	−1.582
Vocabulary	13.5	11.06	1.57	−11.93	59	.000	−2.4333	−2.841	−2.025
Language use	17.5	11.82	2.9	−15.15	59	.000	−5.6750	−6.424	−4.926
Mechanics	3.5	2.39	.49	−17.29	59	.000	−1.1083	−1.237	−.980

Regarding the students’ conceptions of writing before the treatment, the one sample t- test results (see Table 2) by and large evidenced students’ surface conceptions of writing. Accordingly, the mean values of all the three features of surface conceptions of writing were significantly higher than their corresponding expected means (procedural t = 9.741, P < .05, spontaneous impulsive t = 3.034, P < .05, and low self-efficacy t = 2.646,P<.05). In the same way, the students’ deep conceptions of writing (Reflective Revisionist) was found to be below the expected mean, but the difference was not significant (t= - .9 23, P > .05). The mean value for Elaborative conceptions of writing was found to be higher than the average, and the difference was found to be significant (t = 11.503, P < .05).

Table 2. One Sample t-test of EFL students’ Pre-intervention Conceptions of Writing

	Expected mean	Mean	Std. Dev.	T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
								Lower	Upper
Procedural	30	35.77	4.586	9.741	59	.000	5.767	4.58	6.95
Spontaneous Impulsive	33	35.00	5.106	3.034	59	.004	2.000	.68	3.32
Low-Self Efficacy	42	43.57	4.586	2.646	59	.010	1.567	.38	2.75
Elaborative	69	83.05	9.461	11.503	59	.000	14.050	11.61	16.49
Reflective Revisionist	36	35.53	3.916	−.923	59	.360	−.467	−1.48	.55

The analysis of the pre-intervention interview revealed six themes that support students’ surface conceptions of writing: knowledge about the importance of writing, affect for writing and revising, habit of writing in English, major concerns to improve quality of writing, assertiveness or self-confidence, and self-perceived problems to write in English.

Firstly, students in both groups could not clearly express the pivotal role writing plays in their academic or professional endeavor. A case in point, one student appeared to conceive writing as a repertoire of the study skills because the student conceived writing mainly as rewriting notes to make “the long writing short” or to make “the notes precise and easy to remember”. The other student witnessed that he focused on using an application that changes what has been written in Amharic into English. “I write in Amharic and change in to English by application” His major goal focuses on looking for immediate solutions that help him meet the requirements of the course rather than doing activities that change his long-term academic goals.

The second issue that shows the students’ surface conceptions of writing is the students affect and practice of revising. Accordingly, students with surface conception of writing usually make less revising in their endeavor to produce a paragraph or an essay. Students say, “I prefer reading than writing” “I do not advice assessment focuses on writing” In addition, students have the view that writing as a one touch activity because they said “I write and submit as it is”, “I write cancel and write on the next page”, “I write slowly not to delete what I write” In addition, they do not have positive feelings to writing and revising.

The third theme that shows students’ surface conception of writing is their habit of writing in English. As revealed in the interview, most of the students do not have the habit of writing in English unless ordered by the teacher. The students’ writing orientation, therefore, is strongly adhered to getting grade or mark. One student said “I do not give attention if it is not marked” The other student also said “I give attention if I submit my writing”. The students’ effort was considered teacher dependent, and it was also dependent on the teacher’s assessment scheme. Moreover, the students’ writing experience is confined on the procedures given by the teacher “ I follow the procedures given by the teacher”

The fourth theme that indicates the students’ surface conception of writing is the major concerns of writers in order to improve the quality of their paragraphs or essays. Most of the students responded that their focus to improve the quality of their writing focuses on making cosmetic or surface changes. They say “I improve capitalization like tense”, “I improve accuracy”, “I take in to consideration my hand writing” “I consider first passive or active forms” However, one student said that he added other points that made the topic clearer.

The fifth theme that evidenced the students’ surface conception of writing is students’ less assertiveness regarding their English writing skills. Students, for instance, say, “I like writing in English but not capable”, “my writing results show my writing problem”, “teachers should consider the writing condition”. Students appeared to talk about others even if they were asked to express their experiences. This shows their non-assertiveness way of communication. “Some students do not have writing experience”, “Some students do not write a single line in exam”. Students seemed to blame university teachers, for the teachers focused on writing, and one student says “teachers in university like to examine writing”.

Finally, students’ self-perceived writing problems also evidenced the students’ surface conceptions of writing. Students frequently mentioned that their major problems to write effectively are lack of knowledge in grammar, agreement, and using appropriate words. These issues reflect students’ limited understanding of their own limitations to write effectively.

The pre intervention results by and large revealed students’ poor writing performance and their surface conceptions’ of writing. The results, therefore, confirmed the importance of the intervention (Portfolio-based assessment) in order to look for solutions that bridge the gap in students’ conceptions of writing as well as their writing performance.

• Is there any difference between EG and CG in their Writing Performance before the treatment?

An independent sample t-test was employed to check the homogeneity of experimental and controlled groups in writing performance before the treatment. To choose an appropriate statistical method, Shapiro-Wilk normality test was performed and the distribution of the variables revealed normality of the data (W = .96, P > 0.05) for CG and (W = .963,P > 0.05). Accordingly, parametric test was used to check differences between groups (Refer to Table 3).

Table 3. Shapiro-Wilk Normality of writing skills pretest score

Tests of Normality
	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a			Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	Df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Pretest CG	.156	30	.061	.960	30	.308
Pretest EG	.116	30	.200*	.963	30	.377

Note: *. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

Moreover, to compare the two groups using independent sample t-test, Levene’s test for equality of variances should be checked. As we can infer Table 4, the F values for Levene’s test for equality of variances in writing sub-skills were found to be (content 0.87, organization 0.385, vocabulary 0.517; Language use 0.332, and Mechanics 0.187) with sig. values (P > .05) for all writing sub-skills. So, the assumptions for homogeneity of the variances were accepted, and the possibility of comparing the mean values was also confirmed.

Table 4. A t-test for Independent samples (Pre-intervention Writing Performance)

	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	F	Sig.	T	Df	Sig
Content	EG	30	16.633	2.8525	.5208	.187	.667	.842	58	.403
	CG	30	16.050	2.4995	.4563
Organization	EG	30	11.450	2.1946	.4007	.385	.537	.274	58	.785
	CG	30	11.300	2.0410	.3726
Vocabulary	EG	30	10.883	1.7205	.3141	.517	.475	−.897	58	.373
	CG	30	11.250	1.4309	.2612
Language Use	EG	30	11.867	2.7945	.5102	.332	.567	.110	58	.913
	CG	30	11.783	3.0504	.5569
Mechanics	EG	30	2.433	.5529	.1010	1.785	.187	.647	58	.520
	CG	30	2.350	.4385	.0801

As the independent samples t-test results revealed, the mean differences between the experimental and controlled groups were not found to be statistically significant in all the five writing sub skills: content (t = .842,P>.05), organization (t = .274,P>.05), vocabulary (−.897,P>.05), language use (.110,P>.05), Mechanics (t = .647,P >.05). The result of this independent samples t-test evidenced the homogeneity of the experimental and controlled groups in their writing performance before the intervention.

• Is there any difference between EG and CG in their Conceptions of Writing before the treatment?

For the variable conceptions of writing, the F-values for Levene’s test were found to be (Procedural, 0.554; Spontaneous Impulsive, 0.119; Low Self Efficacy, 0.028; Elaborative 0.548 and Reflective Revisionist, 2.631) with sig. values (P > .05) for all the five factors of students’ pre intervention conceptions of writing. Accordingly, the assumption for homogeneity of the variances was met. (See, Table 5.)

Table 5. A t-test for independent Samples (Pre-intervention Conceptions of Writing)

	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	F	Sig.	T	Df	Sig
Procedural	EG	30	36.23	4.869	.889	.554	.460	.786	58	.435
	CG	30	35.30	4.316	.788
Spontaneous Impulsive	EG	30	35.10	5.047	.921	.119	.732	.150	58	.881
	CG	30	34.90	5.248	.958
Low-Self Efficacy	EG	30	44.23	4.681	.855	.082	.775	1.129	58	.264
	CG	30	42.90	4.467	.816
Elaborative	EG	30	83.73	9.154	1.671	.548	.462	.556	58	.580
	CG	30	82.37	9.866	1.801
Reflective Revisionist	EG	30	35.60	3.645	.665	2.631	.110	.131	58	.896
	CG	30	35.47	4.232	.773

Students’ in experimental and controlled groups were also found to be homogeneous in their conceptions of writing before the intervention. As the independent sample t-test result for equality of means revealed no statistically significant difference was observed in any one of the five variables treated about writing conceptions (procedural t = 0.786, P > 0.05), spontaneous impulsive (t = 0.15, P > 0.05), low self-efficacy (t = 1.12 P > .05), elaborative (t = 0.556 P > 0.05), and reflective revision (t = 0.131 P > 0.05). In other words, students in experimental and controlled groups were found to be homogeneous in their essay writing performance as well as conceptions of writing before the beginning of the intervention.

• Is there any difference between EG and CG in their Writing Performances (WP) after the treatment?

For the post intervention test, the F-values for Levene’s test for equality of variance revealed the possibility of comparing the post intervention mean values of writing sub skills. F-values for (content 1.553, organization 0.263, vocabulary 0.241, language use, 1.718 and Mechanics, .075) at (P > 0.05) revealed the homogeneity of the variance. (Refer to Table 6.)

Table 6. A t-test for Independent Samples (Post Intervention Writing Performance)

Variables	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	F	Sig.	T	Df	sig
Content	EG	30	20.15	2.2635	.4133	1.553	.218	4.229	58	.000
	CG	30	17.2	3.0783	.5620
Organization	EG	30	14.2	2.0786	.3795	.263	.610	5.125	58	.000
	CG	30	11.45	2.0776	.3793
Vocabulary	EG	30	14.65	2.13	.3889	.241	.626	6.389	58	.000
	CG	30	11.133	1.1332	.3895
Language Use	EG	30	15.917	2.7919	.5097	1.718	.195	4.57	58	.000
	CG	30	12.0	3.7738	.6890
Mechanics	EG	30	2.917	.5584	.1019	.075	.786	2.122	58	.038
	CG	30	2.617	.5363	.0979

After the intervention, mean differences were observed between experimental and controlled group in their essay writing test results. In other words, the writing test results of students in experimental group exceeded the test results of the students in controlled group, and the differences were found to be statistically significant (see Table 4.6). Accordingly, the positive t- value in content (t = 4.229, P < .05), organization (t = 5.125,P<.05), vocabulary (t = 6.389,P<.05), language use (t = 4.57,P<.05)) and Mechanics (t = 2.122,P<.05) revealed the positive changes in all the five aspects of writing. In addition, the Cohen’s effect size values (d = 1.09), (d = 1.32), (d = 2.06) and (d = 1.18) for content, organization, vocabulary and language use respectively suggested strong practical significance. However, the Cohen’s effect size value (d = 0.54) for mechanics suggested moderate practical significance.

• Is there any difference between EG and CG in their conceptions of writing (CW) after the treatment?

The F-values for Levene’s test were found to be (Procedural, 9.463; Spontaneous Impulsive, 0.214; Low Self Efficacy, 0.078; Elaborative,1.789 and Reflective Revisionist,0.167) with sig. values (P > .05) for all the five factors of students’ post intervention conceptions of writing. Accordingly, the assumption for homogeneity of the variances for independent samples t-test was met.

Regarding students’ conceptions of writing, mean differences were observed between experimental and controlled groups after the treatment. As the independent samples t-test results revealed the mean differences between the two groups were found to be statistically significant except the Spontaneous Impulsive conceptions (t = .414, P > .05) and Elaborative conceptions of writing (t = 1.339, P > .05). Accordingly, differences in students’ Low Self-efficacy Beliefs (t = −2.556, P < .05), Procedural conceptions (t = −2.363, P < .05) and Reflective Revision (t = 3.61, P < .05) were found to be statistically significant (see Table 7). Further, Cohen’s effect size values (d= −0.61), (d= −0.66) and (d = 0.93) for Procedural, Low Self Efficacy and Reflective Revisionist conceptions of writing respectively suggested moderate practical significance.

• Paired (dependent) samples t-test (for comparing Pre-Post mean scores)

Table 7. A t- test for Independent Samples (Post Intervention conceptions of Writing)

Variables	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	F	Sig.	T	Df	Sig
Procedural	EG	30	34.38	4.346	.807	9.463	.063	−2.363	58	.002
	CG	30	36.53	2.417	.441
Spontaneous Impulsive	EG	30	35.31	5.238	.973	.214	.645	−.414	58	.681
	CG	30	35.87	5.090	.929
Low-Self Efficacy	EG	30	40.76	3.851	.715	.078	.781	−2.556	58	.013
	CG	30	43.43	4.174	.762
Elaborative	EG	30	87.79	9.908	1.840	1.798	.185	1.339	58	.186
	CG	30	84.73	7.520	1.373
Reflective Revisionist	EG	30	38.66	3.763	.699	.167	.684	3.610	58	.001
	CG	30	35.37	3.222	.588

Similarly, Table 8 shows that the mean differences of the pre and post intervention measures of students’ in EG were found to be statistically significant in most of the variables measured. However, the mean differences between pre intervention and post intervention measures of some of the variables such as procedural conceptions of writing, (t = 1.835, P > .05) Spontaneous-Impulsive conceptions of writing (t = 0.242, P > 0.05, and Elaborative conceptions (t = −1.52, P > 0.05) were not found significant. Even if there are changes in the mean values of the variables that favor the positive contribution of portfolio assessment to make students less procedural between the two groups, the difference in procedural conceptions of writing was not significant. Accordingly, the sample size the and the period of the intervention could be possible causes of the existence of a difference which was not found to be significant. Spontaneous impulsive and elaborative conceptions were not statistically significant, and these factors already were identified as non-responsive between groups. Additionally, Cohen’s effect size values (d = −2.01, d = −1.99, d = −2.82, d = −2.81 and d= −1.61) for Content, Organization, Vocabulary, Language Use and Mechanics respectively suggested strong practical significance to improve students’ writing performance. Similarly, Cohen’s effect size value (d = 1.159, andd = −1.11) for Low-Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Reflective-Revisionist conceptions of writing respectively suggested that PBA has strong practical significance. In the same way, the Cohen’s effect size values for Procedural (d = 0.68) and Elaborative (d = −0.56) conceptions of writing suggested moderate practical significance of the results to make students less procedural and more elaborative respectively.

Table 8. A t-test for Dependent Samples (Comparing EG and CG pre—post mean scores)

	Experimental Group			Controlled Group
	T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)
CONT 1 - CONT 2	−5.424	29	.000	−2.078	29	.047
ORG 1 -ORG 2	−5.385	29	.000	−.433	29	.668
VOCA 1 - VOCA 2	−7.597	29	.000	.319	29	.752
LANG 1 - LANG 2	−7.591	29	.000	−.395	29	.696
MECH 1 - MECH 2	−4.350	29	.000	−3.395	29	.002
PRO 1 - PRO 2	1.835	29	.077	−1.235	29	.227
SPI 1 - SPI 2	.242	29	.811	−.726	29	.473
LSE 1 - LSE 2	3.122	29	.004	−.439	29	.664
ELA 1 - ELA 2	−1.520	29	.140	−1.031	29	.311
RR 1 - RR 2	−3.006	29	.006	.093	29	.927

As it is depicted in Table 8, the paired samples t—test of the students in CG evidenced no significant differences were observed between the pre-intervention and post intervention measures of students’ conceptions of writing. Moreover, the mean differences in the three aspects of writing (organization, vocabulary and Language use) were not found significant. However, the mean differences in the two aspects of writing (content (t = −2.078, P < 0.05) and mechanics (t = −3.395, P < 0.05) were found to be significant. As we have seen the results of the other variables, conventional assessment has less power to influence conceptions of writing, but still it has contribution to improve students’ writing performance mainly the content and mechanics of writing. This can be attributed to the nature of teaching and assessment, and the students’ course experience. Moreover, the Cohen’s effect size values (d = −0.77 for content andd = −1.26 for mechanics) suggested moderate and high practical significance of conventional assessment on content and mechanics respectively. Similarly, conventional assessment was found to have modest effect on procedural conceptions of writing (d = 0.45). However, Cohen’s effect size values (d = 0.16, d = 0.11 and = −0.14) for Organization, Vocabulary and Language Use respectively evidenced the weak effects of conventional assessment on the aforementioned writing sub-skills. Similarly, the Cohen’s effect size values (d = −0.26, d = −0.16, d = −0.38, d = 0.34) suggested the weak effects of conventional assessment on students’ Spontaneous Impulsive, Low Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Elaborative and Reflective Revisionist conceptions of writing respectively.

Post intervention interviews with students in experimental groups were employed to collect data about students’ conceptions of writing after the intervention. The thematic analysis of the interview transcripts yields six different themes or categories. The themes are expected to show the students’ post intervention conceptions of writing. The categories focus on the learners’ views about six interdependent features of writing: importance of writing, writing process, practicing, self-beliefs, perceived writing problems, and autonomy.

• Conceptions about the importance of writing

After the intervention, portfolio writing experience has given students the opportunity to understand the merits of effective writing. Accordingly, the students witnessed the importance of learning English in general and learning writing skills in particular. “Now … we understand the depth of the subject matter”, “I start to give attention to English lessons … ”, “we found the assignment interesting”, “Students appeared to think of the possibility of learning in future. “It is also very good for our future.”, “I have problems, and I know that I have to improve. I have not yet studied or worked on the problems I have, but still I improve in this way.” “If they try it,they will be benefited” Portfolio also imakes students proactive to feel less worried about examinations. “When I get myself ready for examination, I found portfolio a useful tool.” Students also appeared to observe the role of writing for communication and mutual understanding. “I have learnt how to attract the readers and how to get the attention of the audience.”

• Conceptions of Writing as a Process

After the intervention, students’ responses revealed their changing conceptions of writing as a process. Students conceived that good writing involves planning. “when I try to write, first I planned ““I plan as I write the portfolio” “first I planned and second I draft.” “‘I write my ideas in accordance of my plans’ Moreover, the students appeared to emphasize rewriting or revising. Students appeared to write first drafts with little difficulties. ‘I did not know what has been said draft previously.’ ‘It is difficult to write at a time’. ‘I rewrite again by revising the problems.’ I draft freely without any you see on the draft” “I write it as draft”. “I revised it and rewrite the final draft”. Students also appeared to know the dynamic nature of writing, and the possibility of changing ideas and words freely at any time. “You make changes of words freely.” “You improve something for the second time.” “I improve what I have seen as a problem on the spot or on the draft”. The results of the analysis of the data collected through reflective diaries were found to be consistent with the results of the post intervention interview. Accordingly, students clearly stated that drafting and rewriting have impact on the quality of their writings. As one student, claimed “first made to improve of my writing quality by using draft. Draft is most important because I can’t worry about word choice or tenc[s]e After that I organized my writing and the I copy on the second paper” “I plan[n]ed to improve of my writing quality by using writing stag[e] like drafting using improve my writing system and I try every time”.

• Conceptions on the importance of Practicing

One of the manifestations of surface conceptions of writing is students’ beliefs about the possible ways of improving writing skills. In the pre intervention scheme students conceived studying grammar and vocabulary as a possible way of improving writing competence. However, after the intervention, students started to reflect the significance of practicing. “procrastination makes writing difficult” “what I have learnt important is going directly in to practice without delay or procrastination.”, “Now writing became compulsory”, “I expected that I improved something about my writing skill.” Students’ reflection also supported the changing conceptions of improving ones writing skills. Students conceived that the quality of writing is excelled by way of consistent practicing on every day basis. “Practicing and trying again and again for writing”, “daily writing tasks are necessary to have a good writing experience”

• Conceptions of Self -Beliefs

Learning writing the hard way through compiling portfolios was a frustrating experience at the beginning because students did not have adequate experiences and background knowledge. After students went through writing portfolios, the experience helped them boost their confidence to write in English. “I can’t write anything at past classes” “I learn from this something when I write portfolio.”, “Yes, I have got new experiences.” “I need to write without any fear or frustration”. “I find rewriting the improved version on a new sheet interesting”; “I remember points that I missed while writing”;“we have been informed to write freely” “I did not afraid to write”. The analyses of the students’ reflective diaries also support the changing conceptions in students’ assertiveness to write in English. Portfolio compilation experience generally boosts students’ assertiveness to write in English and their writing fluency as well. As one student explained the idea in his own words, “before writing of portfolio I don’t have writing hand speed. After portfolio I write many letters by short period of time”. The student seems to express the changes that he has seen in writing fluency.

• Perceived Writing Problems after the intervention

After the intervention, changes were observed on students’ conceptions of their major writing problems. Accordingly, students started pointing out deep writing and revision concerns. “It does not keep flow of ideas”, “it has a problem of coherence” ; “the sentences do not keep the flow of ideas”. Second, students appeared to see their writing problems from a broader perspective as their writing problem is rooted in their previous schooling experience. They conceived that their problem is lack of experience and fear. “when I am writing portfolio my paragraphs lack flow of idea ““because by background learning” “because I can’t write anything at past classes” “I fear and I don’t know that”. Students’ also started to reflect on the basic limitations of their previous learning experiences. “Teaching in the previous grades from 9–12 emphasizes grammar”; “grammar knowledge only would not make us effective writers” “we were not given this kind of things in our previous grade” “in our previous grades teachers did not compel us to write.” The analysis of the data from the reflection sheet was consistent with the results of the interview. Thus, students conceived that their writing problems are “lack of organization of ideas”, “lack of flow of idea”, “ weak argumentation” “failing to structure ideas effectively” “lack of background knowledge” “I have to be less writing experience” “I have to know that my level are less than matured” “lack of confidence in writing by English”

• Conceptions about Autonomy

Portfolio compilation experience appeared to changed students’ view about learning in general and writing skills in particular. Portfolio has made learning student-directed and given them opportunity to write about oneself. “I write on the given issues but I did not copy.” “I select activities and write on the given activities”, “It helps you revise what you have learnt previously”. Students also expressed the experiences of looking for other sources of knowledge to complete their writing tasks. “you can use references”, “when you take from references, you cannot take everything directly”,”by consulting dictionaries”. Students also started to integrate learning experiences with their own experiences in life which gives meaning and immediacy to their learning experiences. “I relate what I write with my life” “There are places where I write on my personal issues”, “I write about all my questions and doubts”; “I express my character.” Similarly, students’ reflection commentary revealed that portfolio enhances students’ independence as well as interdependence. Students have responsibility individually at the same time it motivates students to seek advice and comments from others. One student has said “I am writing this portfolio based on my background knowledge, to discuss some friends, and read the text book. During this time I am reflect my reading and writing skill.”

4. Discussion

The rigor of higher education strongly demanded students’ deep conceptions of writing, but the instructional and assessment strategies employed in Ethiopian universities seemed to favor students’ surface conceptions of writing. This research, therefore, was designed to investigate the contributions of PBA to promote EFL students’ deep conceptions of writing and their writing performance. As the analysis of the data revealed, PBA, by and large, was found to influence EFL students’ deep conceptions and approaches to writing positively. Accordingly, students’ in experimental group were found to be significantly less procedural, more efficacious, and more reflective-revisionist in their conceptions’ of writing.

Unlike conventional assessment, portfolio assessment was found to promote autonomous and self-directed learning that helped students be less procedural. The qualitative data have also witnessed the changing conceptions of students about the importance of writing in general and autonomy (independent practicing) in particular. This finding is consistent with the findings of previous studies by Farahiam et al. (2018) and Khodadady and Khodabakhshzade (2012). These findings confirmed the positive effects of PBA on learners’ metacognitive awareness and learner autonomy respectively.

Regarding students’ efficacy beliefs, the differences in self-efficacy beliefs score between the experimental and the controlled groups was found to be significant. In addition, the qualitative data also revealed the changing conceptions of students’ self-beliefs after the intervention. This in general reflects the contribution of PBA to boost students’ self-beliefs to write in English. Even if the researched were not directly on university students’, and on students’ self-beliefs, the findings of Shirvan and Golparvar (2016) and Ezell and Klein (2003) appeared to favor the findings of this study. For one thing, PBA was confirmed to improve internal locus of control which was also confirmed to determine students’ attribution of success to their own effort and self-belief. This finding is also consistent with related findings of Hosseini and Ghabanchi (2014) that attested the constructive effects of portfolio to promote learners’ motivation to reading. Even if the findings are not directly on writing skills, it should be noted that reading and writing are interconnected and integrated. Researchers such as (Pajares, 2003, P.153) confirmed that self-beliefs have a latent power to change students’ life in a constructive or destructive way. Thus, writing teachers should play attention to develop students’ competence as well as their assertiveness.

The other attribute of the deep conception of writing, Reflective-Revision Conceptions of writing, was also found to be statistically significant. As a result, we can deduce that portfolio assessment had more positive effects to make learners’ more reflective-revisionists. As the qualitative data revealed, changes were also observed on students’ self-perceived writing problem from surface and superficial errors to deep and integrated writing problems. The basic features of portfolios—reflection and revision— played pivotal role to promote students’ deep conceptions of writing. In line with this finding, Italo (1999) states “students” writing seem to improve significantly when they rewrite their originals. This may suggest that the practice of rewriting is vitally important to foster improvement in writing classes” (P.203)

On the other hand, Spontaneous-Impulsive Conception of writing and Elaborative Conceptions of Writing were not found to be statistically significant. Spontaneous-impulsive Conceptions mean scores of students both in experimental and controlled groups were found to be comparable before and after the intervention. As the qualitative data revealed, portfolio promotes practicing free writing, writing academic and nonacademic texts on different topics of interest, and producing first drafts with little or no effort in order to boost students’ creativity and confidence. These issues might have their own contribution for the non-responsive findings about students’ Spontaneous-Impulsive Conceptions of writing.

The mean score for Elaborative Conceptions of Writing, however, was found to be greater than the expected mean in pre intervention measure. As a result, students in both groups conceived that they employed elaborative approaches in their EFL writing, but this result was found to be incoherent with the students’ actual writing performance. This mismatch in elaborative conceptions and writing performance was attributed to students’ over estimation of their writing skills and their immature beliefs about sound writing. After the portfolio compilation experience, there was an increase in the mean score of the students’ elaborative conceptions of writing, but the difference was not found to be significant.

Regarding the writing performance of students, the findings of this study evidenced the positive contribution of PBA on EFL students’ writing performance in general. The findings also revealed significant changes on writing sub-skills such as content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics. These result were consistent with the findings of Nezakatgoo (2011), Kalra et al. (2017), Roohani and Taheri (2015), Prastikawati et al. (2016), Tabatabaei and Assefi (2012), Tabatabaei and Assefi (2012), Taki and Heidari (2011). However, there is a slight discrepancy with the findings of Roohani and Taheri (2015). In this study, PBA was not found responsive in two writing sub skills such as vocabulary and conventions. The discrepancies can be attributed to contextual variations and distinctions in assessment rubrics.

5. Conclusions and Implications of the study

PBA gives students opportunity to consistently practice writing on the basis of the directions given by the teacher as well as their own personal choice, and the assessment scheme gives students the opportunity to self-assess and self-regulate their learning and progress. Moreover, the students are given time and opportunity to demonstrate their effort and commitment through delayed evaluation till the end of the semester. As the findings of the study revealed, PBA was found to influence students’ conceptions of writing and their writing performance positively. Accordingly, after the intervention, students in experimental group were found to be less procedural, more efficacious, and more reflective revisionist than students in controlled group. However, no significant changes were observed on students’ spontaneous-impulsive and elaborative conceptions of writing. With regard to students’ writing performance, PBA helped EFL learners improve their writing performances in terms of content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics of writing.

The findings of this study have implications to teach writing skills to undergraduates in Ethiopian universities. First, undergraduates have come to university from an examination oriented teaching and learning environments where students accustomed to surface conceptions of writing. First year, however, is a transition between high school and the rigor of university courses that require deep conceptions of writing. Thus, the findings of the study suggest the use of PBA to make the transition smooth, and pave the way to learning courses that require writing and meaningful learning. Second, portfolio assessment gives students more opportunity to practice writing, and this experience boosts students’ confidence to write and communicate through writing. This will have more constructive influence on students’ future academic as well as professional endeavor. Thirdly, portfolio’s potential to influence students’ conceptions of learning constructively entails the use of the assessment scheme mainly for instructional purpose because practitioners usually have doubts on the practicability portfolio assessment in large classes. Finally, the study has also implications to use PBA to foster deep and meaningful learning in general or in EFL classes.

Future Directions of Research

The findings of this study established the possibility of fostering deep and meaningful learning in EFL writing classes by using PBA, an alternative assessment scheme. To that end, more intervention studies are required to validate the contributions of other alternative assessment schemes to promote deep conceptions and approaches to writing. Accordingly, the effects of self-assessment, peer-assessment, and reflection on students’ conceptions and approaches to writing could be potential areas of research endeavor both in EFL or ESL context. Furthermore, this study illustrates the effects of PBA on Ethiopian university students’ conceptions and approaches to writing and their writing performances. Yet, other researchers can replicate this study in other context in order to broaden the current knowledge about the uses of PBA in EFL writing classes. More specifically, spontaneous-impulsive and elaborative conceptions of writing appeared to be non-responsive to PBA, so further qualitative studies can be conducted to find out plausible reasons for such discrepancy. Finally, students’ conceptions and approaches to writing can be influenced by the EFL teachers’ conceptions of teaching writing. Teachers’ conceptions of writing, therefore, can be untapped area of researches in EFL & ESL context.

Ethical Issues

The study was quasi-experimental, and it was not done in contrived teaching and learning environments. This is for the reason that the intervention focuses more on activities to be done out of class. The participants were informed about the objectives of the study, and gave their consent to participate on voluntary basis. More importantly, the research scheme was examined and approved by the department for being free from any potential harm on participants. The participants in controlled group were given orientation about portfolio-based assessment and the prominent features of the assessment scheme after the intervention.

Abbreviations

CG - Controlled Group; CW - Conceptions of Writing; EFL - English as a Foreign Language; EG - Experimental Group; MoE - Ministry of Education; PBA - Portfolio-Based Assessment; RQ - Research Questions; WP - Writing Performance

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants of the study for their willingness to participate in the study. In addition, we would like to forward our sincere gratitude to Italo Berisso (PhD), Balew Mekonnen (PhD), Hailom Banteyirga (PhD) and Tamene Kitila (PhD) all from AAU, for their constructive comments that improve the quality of this study. We are also grateful to all reviewers for their critical and constructive comments that helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Habtamu Gebrekidan

Habtamu Gebrekidan is studying PhD in ELT at Addis Ababa University (AAU). He received MA in TEFL from the same University in 2007. He has extensive teaching experiences in different Higher Learning Institutes in Ethiopia, Arba Minch University and Wollo University. His research interest focuses on teaching writing, alternative assessment, professional development, critical thinking, and conceptions of teaching and learning.

Assefa Zeru

Assefa Zeru is an assistant professor in ELT. He is one of the seasoned staffs in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Addis Ababa University. He received his PhD from Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad (India). He coauthored one article on a reputable journal. He served as a managing editor of the Journal of Ethiopian Studies, AAU. His research interest focuses on teaching writing in higher education, academic writing, professional development, reflective teaching and teacher education.

Appendix 1.

Detailed scheme of the experimental procedures

Table

Compulsory Activities	Experimental group	Controlled group
Activity 1.3.; Activity 1.4. Activity 2.3; Activity 2.5 Activity 3.5 Activity 4.4. writing summary and conclusion	Students do all activities chosen as compulsory activities writing summaries, paragraphs, essays: get comments from different sources Self and peer assessment: students are given rubrics(three types of rubrics that were designed for summaries & conclusions, paragraphs and essays) Drafts: students are encouraged to rewrite and attach any evidences that show the gradual development of their writings (drafts, notes, outlines, etc) Compulsory Reflections: Students’ write reflections on three distinct writing experiences: summary & conclusion writing, paragraph writing and essay writing Optional Reflections: students can reflect on any significant learning experiences on the basis of their choice Collection : students collect all evidences till the end of the semester, but throughout the semester discussions and conferences continued with the teacher At the end of the semester, students were informed to select one exemplary summary, and one paragraph for final assessment	Students do all activities chosen as compulsory activities Writing Summaries, paragraphs, and essays: students write summaries, paragraphs and essays individually and in groups. Students can receiving feedback from peers or others, but (feedback is mainly expected of the teacher) Writing the final draft : students were learnt about drafting, but drafts were not considered in assessment. Only the final draft is considered. Receiving feedback : students receive feedback mainly from the teacher and the teacher gave marks and move on to the next writings Tests, in class writings and individual and group writing assignments were given to assess students’ development Tests and assignments were given
Activity 1.10. Activity 2.14 Activity 3.10 Activity 1.15.; paragraph writings
Activity 1.12 Evaluating reports
Activity 5.9. Writing an Essay
Optional Writing Activities:
Writing activities other than the compulsory activities given in the module were also optional activities additional writings on the prompts given by the teacher; students were encouraged to write on any topic of their interest	Choose topics and write paragraphs, essays, and notes on the basis of their personal choice; Students were informed that the final assessment was going to give credit to students’ effort and commitment.	Students were advised to do out of class writings on the basis of their interest to develop their writing skills, but there is no specific direction given to write and present their independent writings for assessment
General Reflection	Students were required to write general reflection on their Portfolio compilation experiences	Students were not required to reflect on their course experiences