This article is © Copyright 2000 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction.

Portfolio portraits from a Finnish EFL classroom

Portfolios in EFL teaching in Finnish upper secondary school

Pirjo Pollari
Teacher Training School, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Prologue

In 1994 we ‑ three teachers and I as a teacher/researcher ‑ introduced portfolios into our teaching of English as a foreign language in two Finnish upper secondary schools. Portfolios were tried out as a new vehicle for teaching, learning and assessment as well as a means for students to negotiate their own syllabuses within the given framework. Hence, student empowerment, learner‑ centeredness and self‑directed learning were the key concepts of this experiment. The topic area of the portfolio course was culture. 
First, this article discusses the concept of the portfolio, then describes the portfolio process in the classroom and, finally, presents some authentic portfolio profiles and portraits of the participating students with their own, unedited comments.
 
The portfolio

In a school context, a portfolio is a selection of student work, usually collected and selected by the student him/herself for a particular purpose. The portfolio exhibits the student’s efforts, progress, and achievements over a period of time. Usually, the work also exhibits the student’s own choice and interests. The portfolio should include a description of its purpose and goals as well as of the criteria for selection and assessment. Preferably, it should also contain the student’s own reflection on and evaluation of both the selected work and the process of studying and learning. (See e.g. De Fina, 1992; Paulson et al., 1991)

Accordingly, the portfolio is an individual and learner‑centered tool for learning and assessment. Its purpose and function may vary, and so may its form and contents as well as the process of producing and compiling it. At first, however, a portfolio is often a working portfolio, also called a process portfolio, which contains a variety of pieces of work with all their versions. The working portfolio thus documents the whole process of studying and learning. 
Normally, students select some of their pieces of work at the end of a course or a term, for example. Students also assess the selected pieces and state their criteria for selection. The final showcase portfolio thus usually represents the students’ best work showing their strengths. Naturally, the criteria for selection depend on the purpose of the portfolio. 
The basic ideas of the portfolio approach fit into the constructive and socio‑constructive views of learning. According to these views, teaching should be flexible and it should emphasize the learners’ capacities. Students should be active agents of their learning, not merely passive receivers of information. Learning is a product of the learner’s own actions and it is based on the learner’s prior skills and knowledge but also on his or her experiences and interests. Effective, meaningful learning is usually goal‑oriented and self‑regulated: the student is committed to the goals and, therefore, takes control over his or her learning in order to reach those goals. If the learner has a say in defining the goals and deciding the content and methods, learning is usually more relevant to the learner and, thus, more effective. (See e.g. De Corte, 1993.)

The process

The approximately hundred students who participated in the experiment were all in the second grade of the upper secondary school ‑ aged 17 or 18 ‑ and they had been studying English for almost nine years, 2 ‑ 3 lessons a week. During the three years of the upper secondary school, the students have 6 ‑ 8 thematically based English courses, each consisting of approximately 35 lessons. For the portfolio experiment we chose the “culture course” ‑ culture meaning here mainly literature, music, arts, film and theatre, for instance.
In addition to studying English and some forms of culture, a central idea of the portfolio experiment was to promote learner‑centered and self‑directed learning. We wanted the students to take greater responsibility for their own work but also to have the freedom and power to make decisions concerning their studying. We also wanted them to learn to set their own goals as well as to assess their work and learning and state their criteria. And, most importantly, we wanted our students to feel ownership of their learning and of their abilities to communicate in English. In other words, we wanted to empower our students as learners of English.	

Getting started

At the very beginning of the course, we discussed the basic requirements of the portfolio course with the students. First of all, each student was expected to produce at least four pieces of work dealing with different aspects of culture for their working portfolios. The pieces were to be diverse both in their content and form. Moreover, both oral and written language ‑ listening, speaking, reading and writing ‑ were to be used either in the products or in the working process. The students were also told that they should assess and select themselves some of their work for their final showcase portfolios at the end of the course. The final portfolios would then be used as the basis of their course grades.	
We also discussed the criteria for assessing portfolios: the work should exhibit a variety of topics and modes, it should display the student’s involvement in and responsibility for his/her work, and use of English should be fairly clear and fluent. Self‑assessment was also considered important. Accordingly, the main emphasis being on effort, content and fluency, grammatical correctness and a good command of vocabulary alone were not the most important criteria for outstanding work. 
Next, the students were asked to make a preliminary plan for their work and start working on their first project. Even though the students were also offered some ideas and background materials, and the teacher and other students were there to help, setting one’s own goals and planning one’s work was not easy for everybody.

Work in progress: self‑directed work and class conferences

Out of the usual 35 lessons, the students had about 15 classroom lessons. Some of them were class conferences which were held once a week and there the students were asked to go through each other’s work and comment on it in small groups in order to improve it. To make peer‑assessment easier, we gave students some basic questions that they might use as a starting point: 
What was the best or the most interesting thing in this piece of work? 
Was there something you would like to know more of, or something you did not quite understand? 
How  would you improve the work? 
What did you learn from it?
 
In general, the students considered giving and getting feedback very difficult, yet also helpful. The teachers also tried to monitor and comment on the students’ work while it was in progress and thus provide immediate feedback as well as support and help.

Otherwise, the students were free to study when and where they preferred. The students were asked to write down notes about their studying in their working logs so that both the students themselves and we teachers could monitor their working processes. Inside and outside the classroom, the students worked both on their own and in pairs or small groups. In case of any problems, they were encouraged to come and ask the teacher for help. 
During the course each student produced four or five different pieces of work. Book, film or TV reviews were, as expected, very popular, as were portraits of artists and their art. There were also various posters and essays. However, a considerable number of students had wanted to express themselves and create something of their own. There were poems, short stories, fairytales, cartoons, and even songs, radio plays or short films. All in all, even though a few students defined culture in a very narrow way as only consisting of literature or fine arts, the diversity of student work really showed that no standard text book could possibly define and deal with culture as  creatively as the students themselves could!

Showcase portfolios

At the end of the course the students were asked to choose two or three of their pieces of work for their final showcase portfolios. The showcase portfolio also included a prologue introducing the portfolio and the student to the reader:
This is my Portfolio, which includes four works. I have chosen two of them for my final grading. Music is very important to me but in this project I have tried to expand my perspective by making my works of the visual arts, music, literature and theatre. ‑ ‑
I have tried to make my language ability better and I believe that I have been successful in this aim. However I hope that my mistakes in my works don’t prevent you from understanding the contents.

The students were also asked to assess the pieces they had selected. The students often emphasized the amount of work and effort, the working process, and learning outcomes as well as the personal relevance of the piece.
Second work I’ve chosen is my Picasso ‑ work. It’s my best work, it’s most comprehensive. I’ve used several sources and did lots of work. It may not seen in this work, but I for example learned hugely new words. I also invested in works looks.

Amadeus has been a truly influential film in my life and I simply wanted to share my passion with others. 

The last piece in the final portfolio was an epilogue summing up the student’s reflections on his/her learning and on the course in general. Most students ‑ regardless of their prior success in English ‑ considered the course a positive and encouraging, even empowering, experience. However, some students were more cautious. Naturally, there were a few students who did not like the course at all.
I’m glad we decided to do something new instead of doing the same things year after another. This was absolutely worth doing.

I think portfolio is, at the end, good thing. But only when it’s given as a special project. If every school subject begins to use it, the idea loses it’s charm.

I didn’t like this system at all. Too much work all at once.

Finally, the showcase portfolio as a whole was assessed by the teacher according to the criteria discussed at the beginning of the course: the main emphasis was thus on the effort and involvement of the student as well as on the comprehensibility and content of the work.
The evaluation was not always easy. Grading the portfolios proved particularly difficult and even frustrating ‑ how to transform all that work, effort, and creativity into a single grade? Therefore, in addition to the actual grade, the teacher gave a more comprehensive verbal assessment of the portfolio focusing on its strengths but also pointing out possible areas of improvement. The narrative assessment, even though it took a lot of the teacher’s time, was considered very important both by the teachers and students.

Portfolio profiles and portraits

Some time after the experiment all the portfolios were analysed qualitatively in terms of learner empowerment and students’ own reactions towards the portfolio approach (see Pollari, 1998). A vast majority ‑ c. 80 % ‑ of the students had liked the portfolio approach at least to some extent. Approximately an equal majority were also considered to have taken charge of their new learner role actively and responsibly. However, there were also different reactions to the portfolio approach. The following four profiles or portraits try to illuminate the wide range of these reactions from the most positive and empowered to the other extremes. Naturally, the majority of the students fell between these extremes.

Absolutely Fabulous

Among the students who both liked the portfolio approach and also took charge of their work actively, there were several students who experienced moments of flow, feelings of total absorption and involvement in their work (see Csikszentmihalyi 1990), during their portfolio processes. This student, however, is one of the two exceptional cases whose working processes appeared to be constant flow from start to finish:
Fabulous! Just a perfect course for me. I could design my timetable myself, choose my topics. The best course in English so far!! 

The student’s whole working process seemed smooth and absorbing. She had several ideas and was very keen to start working immediately. She went to the library to gather information about possible topics and then started processing those about which she could find enough information. She proceeded systematically: she made a plan for her portfolio and allotted some time for portfolio work after most school days. Nevertheless, she also worked when she got inspiration. She processed several pieces simultaneously and did not suffer from hurry or stress at any point during the course. The student herself considered the learner‑centered freedom and responsibility of the portfolio approach the reasons for her effort and enthusiasm; otherwise, she did not regard herself as a particularly diligent student. The following extract from her prologue sums up both her portfolio process and products:
First I started to do the portrait of Emily Dickinson. I read her poems and searched information about her. Although it took a lot of time to do this portrait, I think that it was very interesting and meaningful.
After getting the first version of the portrait of Dickinson ready, I started to search information Isadora Duncan. It was quite easy to make the portrait of her, because there were lots of books, which tell about her, in library. I think that Duncan is very interesting person to become familiar with. She has had so unusual life.
The third part of my workfile is the poem / the song which I wrote myself. As a starting point I had a postcard, which has Albert Edefelt’s painting on it.
At last I wrote an essay about my own hobby, dancing. It came quite easily, because I didn’t have to search any information.

In addition to the contents and language, the student had also invested a lot of time in the visual design of her work. All her pieces were handwritten in different printing styles which illustrated either the era or the personality of the topic, or of the student herself. For example, the portrait of Emily Dickinson was a booklet written and ornamented in the 19th century style on watercoloured paper, and the poem/song the Harbour of Life was painted to look like an old message in a bottle recovered from sea. 
For me mean the appearances of my works a lot. It’s important for me, that they look carefully‑finished. I have tried to get something from my own personality in those works. Perhaps I waste a lot of time, when I did them, but the main thing is that I’m contented with them.

The student considered all her pieces good and important for herself and, thus, leaving two out of four pieces proved somewhat difficult. Finally, she chose three for the final assessment: the portraits of Emily Dickinson and Isadora Duncan and the poem/song. She introduced and assessed the pieces separately describing also the working process in detail. For her, the whole portfolio process was full of experiences of personal relevance, flow and empowerment:
Monday 18th 	time 19.00 ‑ 22.00
‑ ‑ I just finished this poem, which name is “The Harbour of Life”. I can’t describe in words what kind of feelings I had when I wrote it. I think that I never have succeeded better in writing my thoughts to words, to poem. Perhaps for everybody else this poem sounds strange, but for me it means a lot!

Misery 

Among the circa hundred students there were four students who clearly disliked the portfolio approach but who, nonetheless, worked hard and responsibly. All these students were girls. Their earlier success in English, when measured in grades, varied from poor to satisfactory. For two of them the portfolio process seemed to cause considerable stress and anxiety throughout the whole course. The following student is one of the two. 
Throughout the working process the student felt that this kind of a working method was not for her: she was afraid that she would not be able to assume the responsibility and would not therefore be able to finish her pieces on time. She also pointed out that her English was not good enough for independent work. Nevertheless, she started working immediately and worked rather systematically every week. Consequently, she completed all her work ‑ also the prologue, epilogue and self‑assessments ‑ well in time. 
The student seemed very error‑centered: nearly all her comments dealt with her “bad English” or grammatical mistakes. On the whole, the student was very discontented with her work. She introduced herself and her work in the prologue as follows:
I have to studied in English nine years. Still I am ignorant of the language. My works are very terrible.

Most of the pieces in her portfolio ‑ a portrait, a record review, an essay about Sting’s concert and a film review ‑ were rather short, approximately 150 ‑ 200 words long. Because she considered her work so poor, she had refused to show any of her pieces to the teacher for feedback during the working process.	
All in all, the portfolio approach did not seem to suit this student. She drudged alone, very stressed and worried about the responsibility and the quality of her work, but still declining others’ help. Moreover, the portfolio approach also appeared to discourage and disempower her as a learner and user of English:
This course made me once again conscious of the fact that I don’t know any English, and I most probably will never even learn.

Easy Living

A stark contrast to the constant anxiety of the Misery student was presented by five male students who took the course rather lightly in terms of effort invested in it but who also liked the course, mainly because of its easiness. This student is one of them:
Making the portfolio was actually very easy. I have nothing to complain about that, but sometimes I wish I could do something challenging. 

At the beginning of the portfolio course the student had rather ambitious and original plans, but about two weeks later he abandoned them because they had proved too difficult. Instead, he wrote four essays: a portrait of Giger’s art, an essay on science fiction and “the feeling that Sci‑Fi gives me”, a film review and an essay on TV commercials. All the pieces were about 300‑400 words long: they were fluent but somehow a little unpolished. The student’s logbook conveys the feeling that he had produced the pieces rather effortlessly, without a long working process or very much deliberation. He did not seem to aim at perfection, nor at extending or expanding his skills: 
“I reckoned that the level in here didn’t need to be awfully high, I just wrote like ordinary English essays, essays of 300‑400 words.”

Also, there was very little self‑assessment in the portfolio: for instance, the student did not select any of his pieces for the final assessment. It seemed that he had felt that it was enough to produce the required pieces to demonstrate his English skills ‑ everything else was unnecessary. 
However, the student seemed a little disappointed with his effort during the portfolio course. He had planned to produce a better portfolio but he was “too lazy” and somehow he lost interest:

“A lazy student is lazy and a hard‑working one is always hard‑working.”

He also offered another reason for his lack of effort: he suspected that good students ‑ like himself ‑ would not invest any more work in their portfolios than was necessary to demonstrate their skills and to get a good enough grade:
“They know that they are good at English and so they don’t bother to put that much effort or work into it ‑ at least I didn’t ‑ in my opinion I’m good enough at English for a senior secondary school student.”

The Opponents: Portfolio is hell

Finally, there were nine students, all male, who neither liked the portfolio course nor really tried to work very actively or responsibly. The students’ previous success in English did not seem to account for their dislike: their previous grades ranged somewhat evenly between poor and very good. However, seven out of these nine students were in the same English group: 
“Well, there was somehow an impression about it nearly in the whole group that it just didn’t really sort of interest us.”

Among the nine students, the attitudes towards the portfolio approach varied from slightly negative to strongly negative:
The course wasn’t very rewarding or productive for me, which, of course, was mostly because I’m neither very cultural nor very hardworking.

What do I have to say about this course? To answer that question would take more foul, unprintable words than I could write so I leave them out now.

Furthermore, the amount of effort and time invested in this course varied; some students were perhaps a little ashamed of their laziness, whereas some nearly boasted of how little time they had used.
“Personally, it’s not for me, I’m that much lazy a person.”

When somebody evaluates my works, I hope she’ll notice how little time I used. I think that my works are almost good for works made in that little time.

Most of these students disliked culture as a topic and, moreover, they felt that they had not learnt much, if anything.
I don’t really know about learning anything new, perhaps my writing may have improved a bit.

A complete waste of time. Students are forced to produce utterly senseless pieces of work about uninteresting topics. The whole course was totally useless because you don’t learn anything here but, instead, you use the things you already know.

Many of these students doubted their own diligence and responsibility in taking charge of their studies. However, they seemed to regard their English skills as reasonably good in actual practice. All in all, they preferred teacher‑directed teaching because they experienced it either easier or more effective: the portfolio approach simple was not to their liking:
I don’t recommend this kind of study method (as an experiment, a change or not even to revenge the wrong doing I was submitted to) to anyone. This demands much too much work and still doesn’t teach what I think we should learn at school. Thus, I absolutely prefer the traditional teacher‑directed teaching. This isn’t sensible for the teacher either, she’ll have to correct all the stuff at the same time. 
I demand a lot from the school ‘s English teaching because I consider language and their studies important. I know only one proper teaching method and that is not the portfolio.

Epilogue

The portfolio experiment taught us all that student‑centered and self‑directed learning is not an easy option. As the profiles and portraits above show, some students are more willing and also more able to accept responsibility for their own learning. The teacher’s role as a facilitator or counselor of learning requires a lot from the teacher as well. The teacher should support, guide, encourage, and help whenever needed but, then again, refrain from guiding and controlling whenever her help is not called for. But it is not always easy to tell the difference. 	
Nevertheless, the teacher’s new role can also be very rewarding. We teachers learnt to know our students better as persons, not only as students of English, and vice versa. We also learnt in actual practice that there are various ways of learning and teaching, and different ways may suit different people. Therefore, despite our difficulties, and our rather radically student‑directed approach, we found the portfolio experiment a very positive experience.	
 But most importantly, a vast majority of our students found the portfolio approach a positive and refreshing opportunity to both direct their studies and demonstrate their skills in a more learner‑centered manner. We all ‑ both students and teachers ‑ learnt to appreciate the potentials the students have, if only given a proper chance to be involved in the decision‑making in order to find the goals, tasks and methods that suit them best. 

The experiment has now become part of our everyday practice as we have continued the portfolio approach in the culture course year after year.  And, inspired by our students’ comments, we will go on:
For myself this course gave a lot of self confidence and I got a feeling that I can do something even though my grades are so bad.

Thank you for doing something differently.

Note: the students comments in italics were originally written in English, those in plain format have been translated from Finnish

References
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.
De Corte, E. Learning theory and instructional science. Paper presented at the Final Planning Workshop of the ESF‑Program “Learning in Humans and Machines” in St. Gallen, Switzerland, March 5‑6, 1993.
De Fina, A. 1992. Portfolio Assessment: Getting Started. New York: 				Scholastic Professional Books.
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. P. &  C. A. Meyer. 1991. ‘What makes a portfolio a 			portfolio?’Educational Leadership  48/5: 60‑63. 
Pollari, P. 1998. “This is my portfolio.” Portfolios as a vehicle for student 		empowerment in their upper secondary school English studies. The department of English, University of Jyväskylä. Unpublished Licenciate thesis.