Abstract
The study intends to offer an alternative assessment method—learning portfolio assessment—for writing classes to enable students in the technological and vocational education system to complete English writing courses with comfort, ease, and confidence. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether students under portfolio assessment experience greater satisfaction in writing class than those under traditional test assessment. After developing a writing portfolio assessment framework, an instructional procedure, and a writing scoring rubric for the writing class, the researchers used a student satisfaction questionnaire and interviews to elicit whether portfolio assessment offers an effective and continuous measure of students’ learning outcome and progress in the writing course. The results show that students under portfolio assessment experience greater satisfaction in writing class than those under traditional test assessment in terms of instructional objective, instructional material/method, teacher’s qualities, class climate/environment, assessment, and overall satisfaction. In addition, being active participants in their learning process, students are offered a chance to reflect upon their development, growth, and progress over time.

Key Words: Portfolio Assessment, student satisfaction, scoring rubric, technological and vocational education

Introduction
There are two education systems in Taiwan—the general education system and the technological and vocational education system. In the last two decades, the technological and vocational education system has played an important role in educating students in becoming professionals and contributing to Taiwanese economic and industrial development. As the global economy progresses, it is essential that students in the technological and vocational education systems acquire English communication skills to meet the needs of entering the World Trade Organization. Hence the Taiwan Ministry of Education has declared that a project for enhancing students’ English proficiency should be implemented (Huang, 2002).In English learning environments in Taiwan, technological and vocational education students do not have much chance to use English, not to mention to speak or communicate with teachers, classmates, or even native English speakers (Cifuentes & Shih, 2001). Nevertheless, the entrance examination mechanism, as well as Taiwanese culture, places great emphasis on learning achievement, and students with superior learning achievement do not choose a technological and vocational education system but instead choose a general education system to continue their higher education (Su, 2005). Most of the students choosing to enter the technological and vocational education system are those not performing well in learning achievement, including English performance (Lin, 1996; Oh, 1997). 

Besides the English knowledge background, there is a big difference in the English curricula, textbooks, exposure, and instructional time between the students in the technological and vocational education system and the students in the general education system (Chen, 1986; Huang, 2004; Su, 1997; Su, 2005). The reason for these differences lies in the different educational goals between the two education systems. The goal of technological and vocational education is to develop students’ professional skills—either basic or advanced skills—in order to let students enter the blue collar job market after graduation, while the goal of the general education system is to develop students’ academic knowledge or an aptitude for management or independent research in order to enter high-level administration or research positions in the white-collar job market after graduation (Taiwan Ministry of Education, 2004). Because technological and vocational education is career-oriented, with the goal of training professionals to meet the demands of national economic growth, industrial changes, and technological advancement, this education system has focused on courses teaching professional knowledge and specialized skills. As a result, English courses have been ignored and downplayed. Also, these initial differences lead to consequent different learning outcomes between the students in the technological and vocational education system and students in the general education system (Huang, 2004).

For the above reasons, research has shown that the students in the technological and vocational education system have low self-confidence and motivation in learning. In extreme cases, students may feel that they are inferior to those students in general high schools and universities, and many experience low self-esteem and test anxiety (Huang, 2004; Su, 1997; Su, 2005; Wu, 2001). To make matters worse, many lose interest and motivation in English learning or even give up. The only motivation for these students to attend English courses can be to avoid failing the courses. The paper intends to offer an alternative assessment method—learning portfolio assessment—of writing classes to enable students in the technological and vocational education system to complete English writing courses with comfort, ease, and confidence. After developing a writing portfolio assessment framework, an instructional procedure, and a writing scoring rubric for the writing class, the researchers attempt to investigate whether the students under the portfolio assessment experience greater satisfaction in the writing class than those under the traditional test assessment. Traditional product-oriented assessments cannot give a complete picture of students’ growth, nor can they validly evaluate students’ performance, and instead frustrate these students. In order to meet individual students’ needs, reflect individual students’ effort, and perceive their progress in the English writing course, the researchers use the ongoing writing portfolio to evaluate students’ growth. Under the portfolio assessment, students’ longitudinal process performance can be evaluated (Morton, 1991; Options, 1993). Hence, assessment would be more individual and holistic.

Portfolio and Portfolio Assessment on English Writing
Research has shown that the English proficiency abilities of students in the technological and vocational education system fall significantly behind those of the students in the general education system (Lin, 1996; Ou, 1997). In addition, the lower English proficiency abilities frustrate these students and let them lose their motivation to learn English. The core problem of English teaching in technological and vocational education lies in the inadequacy of English class time, the students’ background knowledge, and their motivation to learn English (Hung, 1994; Lin, 1996; Ou, 1997; Yang, 1994). Having realized that students in technological and vocational education do not perform well in their learning achievement and therefore possess low confidence and motivation in learning, in order to let the students go through English courses with comfort, ease, and confidence, the authors propose a learning portfolio assessment for these students, offering teachers a number of ways to evaluate students’ learning, including learning process and learning outcomes (Gottlieb, 1995). Hence, the learning portfolio serves not only as a guide for students in making choices, in demonstrating how they can reason, create, and reflect upon discussion issues, but also it offers teachers a useful device to assess students’ achievement, effort, and improvement.
Learning portfolios are collections of relevant works reflecting students' individual efforts, development, and progress over a period of time. The aim of learning portfolios is to provide students, teachers, parents, and administrators with an overview of students’ growth over time, including students' abilities, knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Flippo, 1997; Hamm & Adams, 1991; Mathews, 1990; Tierney, Carter, & Desai, 1991). In addition, at the end of a semester or a unit of instruction, portfolios can be submitted for a summative evaluation, as it is useful for teachers to review the contents as a whole.

Based on Barrett’s definition, a portfolio is a purposeful collection of students’ works exhibiting these students’ effort, progress, and achievement in one or more areas (Barrett, 2001). According to Simon and Forgette-Giroux (1994), a portfolio is defined as a cumulative and continuous collection of entries selected and reflected on by students in order to assess their competency development. Paulson, Paulson, and Meyer (1991) gave an extensive definition of portfolio. They define a portfolio as a purposeful collection of students’ work, not only exhibiting students’ effort, progress, and achievement, but also demonstrating students’ participation in selecting contents and selecting the criteria for assessment.
One advantage of portfolio assessment is that it leaves students a chance to reflect upon their development, growth, and progress over time. Also, it offers teachers a chance to think about their students’ problems thoroughly (Nolet, 1992). Resisting standardization, simplification, and formalization, portfolio assessment reflects the “strength, needs, and individuality” of each unique student (Steward, 1993, p. 522).
To sum up, portfolio assessment can arouse students’ learning motivation and facilitate students’ learning process (Paulson, et al., 1991; Nolet, 1992; Cole, Struyk, Kinder, Sheehan, & Kish, 1997). Compared to conventional test assessments, portfolio assessment offers a more accurate reflection of students’ learning (Dutt-Doner & Gilman, 1998; Steward, 1993). In addition, the application of portfolio assessment enhances students’ skills in organization and development, as well as interpersonal communication. Being independent learners, students can take responsibility for their own learning (Ballard, 1992). Furthermore, portfolio assessment helps students build up their self-confidence and facilitate their engagement in the learning process (Wolf, 1993).

Method
In order to explore the effects of portfolio assessment on technological and vocational students’ writing class, two classestotaling88 students were selected as the experimental group and the control group. By flipping a coin, the class 1A, with 45 students, was chosen as the experimental group, while the class 1B, with 43 students, was chosen as the control group. The control group received the traditional test assessment, while the experimental group received the portfolio assessment. The experiment was implemented for eight weeks, two hours a week, in 2006. In the beginning, the students in the experimental group were told about the portfolio assessment. They had to keep all their writing assignments in their writing portfolio for ongoing review and revision afterwards, including draft, summary writing, and so forth. Figure 1 shows the framework of the writing portfolio assessment.

Due to the lack of guidance to assess writing portfolios, the writing scoring rubric was developed after a series of panel discussions, which were designed to reflect the objectives of the writing course for students in the technological and vocational education system. The rubric consists of focus, content, organization, spelling and grammar, and word usage sections. Each section was measured on a scale of 1-10 and could be considered separately. The writing scoring rubric is shown in Appendix A.

In this eight-week English writing class, students went through the following stages: discovering ideas for writing; deciding on a writing topic; brainstorming and free writing; writing an outline; drafting, redrafting, revising; and finally submitting a formal paper. In the stage of discovering ideas for writing, students were taught to be familiar with a variety of prewriting techniques and strategies to stimulate their creative thinking. They were also encouraged to explore various ways to express their ideas. In the topic-deciding stage, after doing research in the library or on the Internet, students decided on a topic in which they were interested. In the brainstorming and free writing stage, students found inspiration and wrote freely. In this stage, students were told not to care too much about their spelling, grammar, and punctuation problems.

After completing the brainstorming and free writing process, students collected ideas and information related to the writing topic. In the stage of writing an outline, students organized the information they had gathered and put it in order. By collating notes related to similar concepts, students arranged major ideas and supporting details. In the drafting stage, students began to write a rough draft and to see whether the topic they chose was suitable for developing writing. In the redrafting stage, students were required to continue to draft and redraft their papers. They could give drafts to their friends, peers, classmates, or teachers, asking for comments and suggestions for improving them. Furthermore, during this process, students were to always keep in mind whether the use of language, the organization of writing, and the expression of ideas could be comprehended by the reader.
In the paper-revising stage, students were required to keep rereading their paper to see whether there was any change needed to improve it. The redrafting and revising stages could last for six or seven weeks, as students redrafted and revised their paper as many times as they wished to “polish” it (Winterowd & Murray, 1985). In addition, they were also encouraged to stand back and look at it from the reader’s point of view to see whether it was necessary to add some details to help readers understand the paper. The checklist in Table 1 proposed by Winterowd and Murray (1985) was used during the redrafting and revision process.

Table 1. Checklist for Redrafting and Revising (Winterowd & Murray, 1985, p. 20)

In the final stage, submitting the formal paper, students handed in their writing portfolio. This included the final paper and all the notes, outlines, drafts and revised papers leading to the final paper.

After developing a writing portfolio assessment framework, an instructional procedure, and a writing scoring rubric for the writing class, in order to explore the effects of the portfolio assessment on technological and vocational students’ English writing and to determine whether the students under the portfolio assessment experienced greater satisfaction than those under the traditional test assessment, the researchers used a student satisfaction questionnaire revised from Wang’s questionnaire (2006) to measure students’ satisfaction in the writing course. Students’ evaluation of the coursework is important for teachers, as students’ satisfaction with the course indicates students’ willingness to recommend this course to others (Chadwick & Wick, 1987).

The student satisfaction questionnaire was made up of 34 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questionnaire was written in simple English so that students would be able to respond easily. It was reviewed by three experienced English teachers. According to the feedback of the teachers, a little modification was made to make the statements clearer. Also, in order to establish the validity of the questions on the questionnaire, the questionnaire was first read by 58 students studying in the vocational and technological institutes to ensure that the respondents could understand the questions without ambiguity. In addition, while administering the survey, the presence of a researcher in the classroom offered additional interpretation assistance to the students.

The questionnaire is given in Appendix B. In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test the internal consistency reliability. Figure 2 shows the experimental design of the study.

In order to triangulate the quantitative data, student interviews were also adopted to elicit the students’ opinions and reflection upon the English writing class in which portfolio assessment was used. All the interviews were tape-recorded and conducted in Mandarin Chinese. The responses from the randomly selected interviewees were transcribed, analyzed, and synthesized. In order to encourage honest responses and protect the students’ identities, pseudonyms were used for the interviewees. In order to generate convincing interpretations, the interviews were fully transcribed and translated by the researchers. The translated data was further examined by a bilingual teacher.

Results
This study used Cronbach’s Alpha to test the internal reliability of each category of the questionnaire. Generally speaking, a minimally acceptable level of reliability is 0.7, and 0.8 or greater is preferable (Churchill, 1979). That is, the nearer the result is to 0.8, the more internally reliable is the scale. The reliability coefficients for the categories in the student satisfaction questionnaire are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Reliability coefficients/Cronbach’s Alpha for the categories in the student satisfaction questionnaire

Category	Control Group	Experimental Group
Instructional Objective	0.7473	0.8454
Instructional Material/Method	0.8310	0.8591
Teacher’s Qualities	0.9017	0.7991
Class Climate	0.8335	0.9076
Assessment	0.8934	0.8500
Overall	0.9413	0.9356

In addition, after t-tests, the results of both groups’ overall satisfaction are illustrated in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, regarding students’ instructional objective, the mean of the control group is 10.07, while the mean of the experimental group is 11.83, higher than its counterpart. The p-value is less than 0.01, smaller than 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference between these two groups in terms of instructional objective. As for instructional material/method, the mean of the control group is 51.86, while the mean of the experimental group is 56.70, higher than its counterpart. The p-value is less than 0.01, which is smaller than 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference between these two groups in terms of instructional material/method. As for teacher’s qualities, the mean of the control group is 17.91, while the mean of the experimental group is 20.81, higher than its counterpart. The p-value is less than 0.01, which is smaller than 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference between these two groups in terms of teacher’s qualities. As for the class climate, the mean of the control group is 27.64, while the mean of the experimental group is 32.00, higher than its counterpart. The p-value is less than 0.01, which is smaller than 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference in class climate between these two groups. As for assessment, the mean of the control group is 13.38, while the mean of the experimental group is 15.76, higher than its counterpart. The p-value is less than 0.01, which is smaller than 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference in assessment in these two groups. As for overall student satisfaction, the mean of the control group is 117.73, while the mean of the experimental group is 137.11, higher than its counterpart. The p-value is less than 0.01, which is smaller than 0.05, which indicates that there is a significant difference in student satisfaction in these two groups.

Table 3. Independent t-test result of the student satisfaction questionnaire

Test	Group	Mean	S.D.	t	p-value
Instructional	Control	10.07	1.72	-5.023	0.00**
Objective	Experiment	11.83	1.56
Instructional	Control	51.86	6.50	-3.699	0.00**
Material/Method	Experiment	56.70	5.72
Teacher’s	Control	17.91	3.49	-.4.491	0.00**
Qualities	Experiment	20.81	2.46
Class Climate/	Control	27.64	4.19	-4.728	0.00**
Environment	Experiment	32.00	4.45
Assessment	Control	13.38	3.00	-3.805	0.00**
	Experiment	15.76	2.88
Overall	Control	117.73	15.99	-.6.108	0.00**
	Experiment	137.11	13.60

Experimental group: N=43; control group: N=45
S.D.=Standard Deviation
**p-value＜0.01

Based on the t-test results for the student satisfaction questionnaire shown in Table 3, the students under the portfolio assessment experience greater satisfaction in the writing class than those under the traditional test assessment. The results of the interviews also demonstrate that the portfolio assessment has a positive effect on the students’ English learning process. The students like being actively involved in the English learning process. Some interview excerpts are as follows:
*With the assistance of my learning portfolio, I begin to pay attention to my learning progress and monitor my learning process.
* Before, I used to sit quietly and passively received teachers’ instruction.
Teachers controlled the whole learning process. But in this class, I can control my learning pace and get involved in my own learning process.
* My learning portfolio helps me understand my problems in writing. I enjoy discussing with the teacher the writing problems shown in my learning portfolio. It helps me understand myself and my learning process. 
In addition, the students feel that the writing portfolio serves as a good example to enable them to understand their grammar and writing problems.
* I like to talk with my teacher about my writing portfolio. The portfolio offers
some assistance to let me realize my grammar and writing problems, for it can offer some good examples to let the teacher illustrate my problems. 
* I know there is something wrong with my English grammar. Before, I did not dare ask teachers about my grammar problems. I was afraid my teachers or classmates would criticize my poor English. With the assistance of a writing portfolio, it would be easy for me to understand my grammar problems.
From the above interviews, it can be seen that the portfolio assessment has a positive effect on these students’ English learning outcome. The students like being actively involved in the English writing process, and with the assistance of a personal portfolio, they can realize and further address their writing problems.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether portfolio assessment has potential positive effects on the English writing class of vocational and technological education. The study revealed that the students undergoing the portfolio assessment experienced greater satisfaction in the instructional objective, instructional material/method, teacher’s qualities, class climate, and assessment. The findings of the data analysis are described as follows.

1. The students showed positive responses to instructional objectives based on the portfolio assessment.
Based on the results of the students’ responses to the instructional objective dimension, the students reflected that the course’s objectives corresponded with their personal learning objectives. Furthermore, the course was perceived to enhance their critical ability. Because the portfolio assessment can help students identify and address their learning objectives, after recognizing their learning objectives and processes, students can seek to employ learning strategies to reach their goals (Donato & McCormick, 1994). Under this kind assessment, the teacher, serving as a facilitator, would guide the students in their learning (Genesee & Upshur, 1996).

2. The students were satisfied with the instructional material/instructional method based on the portfolio assessment.
The students demonstrated positive responses to the instructional material and method because writing portfolios can serve as a means by which instruction and assessment can be woven together. (Danielson & Abrutyn, 1997; Paris & Ayres, 1994; Sullivan, 1995). Moreover, they can offer teachers a chance to reflect on their students’ problems thoroughly (Nolet, 1992). That is, teachers can use portfolio assessment to collect students’ data systematically in order to adjust their teaching strategies or class instructions. With the assistance of students’ portfolio, teachers can plan, organize, evaluate, and revise instruction all the time to facilitate students’ learning process (Gillespie, Ford, Gillespie, & Leavell, 1996; Poteet, Choate, & Stewart, 1993).

3. The students exhibited positive responses to the teacher’s qualities under the portfolio assessment.
The students had positive responses to the teacher’s qualities. In order to derive a reliable assessment, teachers have to get involved in the portfolio assessment. That is, teachers have to try their best to communicate with the students to identify each individual student’s differences and learning process in order to guide the student appropriately (Murphy, 1992). In addition, in the learning process, teachers should help students identify their strengths and weaknesses in writing and offer them assistance during the writing process (Cambourne, 1988; Murphy, 1992).

4. The students had positive responses to the class climate under the portfolio assessment.
The students exhibited positive responses to the class climate because the class was safe and comfortable, and students were respected there; they were allowed to work at their own pace and freely expressed their opinions. Unlike conventional assessments, which foster a competitive climate in class, the portfolio process helps students develop their confidence and better relationships with the teacher (Dutt-Doner, 1998). In conventional assessments, students are defined according to their test scores. Hence, being slow learners, students in the technological and vocational education system have been labeled as low achievers and hence experience test anxiety (Huang, 2004; Su, 1997; Su, 2005; Wu, 2001). When students are labeled low achievers or slow learners, they are likely to lose their confidence, self-esteem, and motivation to learn English (Perrone, 1991). However, the application of the portfolio assessment provides them with relief from test anxiety and enables them to have a chance to learn at their own pace (Danielson & Abrutyn, 1997; Paris & Ayres, 1994; Sullivan, 1995).

5. The students expressed positive responses to the assessment results based on the portfolio assessment.
The students stated that the assessment procedures were fair and reasonable. In addition, they discussed their performance with their instructor. As traditional assessment methods cannot function well in facilitating technological and vocational education students’ English learning process, portfolio assessment, through a comprehensive understanding of each individual student’s need and competency, aims at viewing students’ progress in a formative sense as well as a summative sense. Hence, it offers a complex but comprehensive view of students’ performance in a context in which students are participants rather than objects during the assessment process. In this formative assessment, instead of being passive learners, students become active learners (Valeri-Gold, Olson, & Deming, 1992). They are given a chance to reflect upon their development, growth, and progress over time.

Overall, in traditional test assessments, teachers focus on students’ deficits and later, based on the results of tests, revise and remediate their instruction (Gomez, Graue, & Bloch, 1991). Unlike the traditional test assessments, the portfolio assessment emphasizes what students can do, rather than what they lack. It invites students to think about their own learning development and further to discuss their views with their teachers (Farr, 1990). Therefore, it promotes students’ self-reflection and inspires students to foster their creativity. Students are empowered to engage in their learning process.
Instead of criticizing or finding errors, a well-developed student portfolio assessment focuses on what students can do to participate in an ongoing modified instruction in which assessment takes place all the time (Valencia, 1990). Moreover, it fosters students’ involvement in class and interaction with their peers and teachers. Under this form of assessment, instead of being passive learners, students become active participants in their learning process. Hence, with the assistance of portfolio assessment, they can develop their academic basic skills, learning-to-learn skills, critical thinking ability, and problem-solving abilities (Hayes, 1997).

Conclusion and Implications
The study intended to investigate whether students under portfolio assessment experienced greater satisfaction in the writing class than those under traditional test assessment. As students in the technological and vocational education system possessed low motivation and low confidence in learning English and the traditional test grading system could not really reflect students’ learning outcome, the researchers proposed the learning portfolio assessment for the writing class. The results reveal that the students under the learning portfolio assessment experienced greater satisfaction in the writing class than those under the traditional test assessment. In addition, the teacher can make good use of portfolios to empower students to take responsibility for their learning process. Hence, the portfolio assessment helps the teacher guide the whole writing class toward learner-centered instruction rather than teacher-centered instruction. Furthermore, the portfolio assessment helps students become much more reflective about their studies.  

Because students in the technological and vocational education system experience test anxiety and do not perform well in their learning achievement, the learning portfolio offers teachers a chance to realize each individual student’s need and difference. After reviewing each student’s personal and academic background, teachers can identify each student’s strengths and weaknesses in order to develop optimal learning procedures for each student. Hence, the portfolio assessment gives students a chance to complete English learning with comfort, ease, and confidence, as it offers teachers many different ways to evaluate students’ learning, including learning process and learning outcomes (Gottlieb, 1995). In addition, the learning portfolio assessment also offers students a chance to reflect upon their development, growth, and progress over time (Nolet, 1992).
Some pedagogical implications for implementing the portfolio assessment are as follows.

1. Teachers should make good use of portfolios in order to enable students to take responsibility for and get involved in their English-learning process. They should nurture and embrace students’ differences, creating an atmosphere of trust where students of different backgrounds and opinions feel comfortable in discussing controversial issues and choices. That is, teachers should foster the value of discussion and encourage all students to reflect on issues from multiple perspectives.

2. While implementing portfolio assessment, teachers should bear in mind that they should give up some aspects of the professional authority associated with their positions, such as dominating the discussion and the class, and give their students more power over their learning process, in order to reduce the power differential between themselves and their students. They should guide the entire English class toward learner-centered instruction rather than teacher-centered instruction. By monitoring and helping students set goals for themselves, teachers attempt to help students become active participants in their whole learning process. 

3.Teachers should use portfolio assessment to meet each individual student’s differences and needs. Teachers should spend more time analyzing students’ individual needs and learning outcomes during the students’ learning process. In addition, teachers should constantly bear in mind monitoring and modifying their instruction so that it makes sense to their students. Hence, before applying the portfolio assessment, teachers should review each student’s personal and academic background, such as their personality style, learning style, cognitive style, previous performance, and so forth, to further assess their strengths and weaknesses in order to develop optimal learning procedure for them.

    References
Ballard, L. (1992). Portfolios and self-assessment. English Journal, 81, 46-48.

Barrett, H. C. (2001). Electronic portfolios. In educational technology: An encyclopedia. Retrieved 3 January 2006 from:
http://electronicportfolios.com/portfolios/encyclopediaentry.htm.

Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. New York: Ashton Scholastic.

Chadwick, K. & Ward, J. (1987). Determinants of consumer satisfaction with education: Implication for college and university administrators. College and University, 62, 236-246.

Chen, M. H. (1986). An evaluation of two sets of English textbooks for industrial vocational high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing construct. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Cifuentes, L. & Shih, Y. D. (2001). Tracking and learning online: A collection between U.S. and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 456-474.

Cole, K. B., Struyk, L. R., Kinder, D., Sheehan, J. K. & Kish, C. K. (1997). Portfolio assessment: Challenges in secondary education. The High School Journal, April/May, 261-272.

Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using portfolios in the classroom. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 453-464.

Dutt-Doner, K. & Gilman, D. A. (1998). Students react to portfolio assessment. Contemporary Education, 69(3), 159-188.

Farr, M. T. (1990). The process and promise of portfolio assessment in teacher education programs: Impact on students’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. In T. Rasinski & N. Padak (Eds.). Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 145-152). Kent, OH: College Reading Association.                   

Flippo, R. F. (1997). Reading assessment and instruction: A guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Crown Press.

Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gillespie, C. S. Ford, K. L., Gillespie, R. D. & Leavell, A. G.. (1996). Portfolio assessment: Some questions, some answers, some recommendations. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(6), 480-491.

Gomez, M. L., Graue, M. E., & Bloch, M. N. (1991) Reassessing portfolio assessment: Rhetoric and reality. Language Arts, 68(8), 620-628.

Gottlieb, M. (1995). Nurturing student learning through portfolios. TESOL Journal,5(1), 12-14.

Hamm, M. & Adams, D. (1991). Portfolio assessment: It’s not just for artists anymore. The Science Teacher, 58(5) 18-21.

Hayes, E. (1997). Portfolio assessment in adult basic education: A pilot study. Adult Basic Education, 7(3), 165-188.

Huang, C. C. (2004). A comparison of vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge and reading comprehension between senior high and vocation high school students. Journal of Taipei Municipal Teachers College, 35(1), 55-84.

Huang, R. C. (2002). Mandarin Daily News, 26 April, 2002, Section 2.

Hung, C. H. (1994). A study of technological and vocational education students’ perspective on English-teaching. Proceedings of the ninth Technological and Vocational Educational Conference of Republic of China (pp. 269-277). Yunlin, Taiwan: Yunlin Institute of Technology.

Lin, S. L. (1996). A study on comprehension strategies of proficiency TVES readers. Unpublished master thesis, National Changhua University, Changhua, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Mathews, J. K. (1990). From computer management to portfolio assessment. The Reading Teacher, 43, 420-421.

Morton, J. L. (1991). What teachers want to know about portfolio assessment. Tahlequah, OK Northeastern State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 336728)

Murphy, S. (1992).What goes into portfolios? Writing Portfolios. Ontario: Pippin Publishing Limited.

Murphy, S. M. (1997). Who should taste the soup and when? Designing portfolio Assessment programs to enhance learning. The Clearing House, 71(2), 81-84.

Nolet, V. (1992). Classroom-based measurement and portfolio assessment. Diagnostique, 18, 1, 5-23. 

Options, Inc. (1993). Portfolio assessment: A means for authentic classroom assessment. Bedfor, NH: Options, Inc.

Ou, H. C. (1997). A comparative study of English reading proficiency between comprehensive university and technological institute seniors. Studies in English Language and Literature, 2, 1-12.

Paris, S. G. & Ayres, L. R. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and authentic assessment. London: American Psychological Association. 

Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P., & Meyer, C. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48, 60-63.

Perrone, V. (1991). On standardized testing. Eric Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Urbana, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338445). 

Poteet, J. A., Choate, J. S., & Stewart, S. C. (1993). Performance assessment and special education: Practices and prospects. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(1), 1-20.

Simon, M. & Forgette-Giroux, R. (1994). Vers une utilization rationnelle du dossier d’apprentissage, Mesure et evaluation en education, 16(3-4), 27-41.

Steward, R. A. (1993). Have you read? Portfolios: Agents of change. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 522.

Su, M. M. (2005). A study of EFL technological and vocational college students’ and their self-perceived English proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 44-56.

Su, Y. H. (1997). Needs survey and evaluation scheme for industrial vocational high school English textbooks. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Sullivan, M. (1995). Making portfolio assessment easy: Reproducible forms and checklists and strategies for using them. Canada: Scholastic Canada Ltd.

Taiwan Ministry of Education. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from:
http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/SECRETARY/
EDU8559001/guide/93guide.htm.

Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., & Desai, L. E. (1991). Portfolio assessment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Valencia, S. (1990). A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys, whats and hows. The Reading Teacher, 43, 338-340 (1990).

Valeri-Gold, M., Olson, J., & Deming, M. P. (1992). Portfolios: Collaborative authentic assessment opportunities for college developmental learners. Journal of Reading, 35, 298-304.

Wang, Y. H. (2006). Poststructural feminist pedagogy in English instruction of vocational and technical education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.

Winterword, W. R. & Murray, P. Y. (1985). English Writing and Skills. CA: Coronado Publishers

Wolf, K. (1993). From informal to informed assessment: Recognizing the role of the classroom teacher. Journal of Reading, 36, 518-523. 

Wu, C. Y. (2001). A promising avenue for improvement in English instruction and general education curricula: An integrated curriculum and theme-based instruction. Paper presented at Elliott Masie’s LMS Conference Multi-Vendor in Las Vegas.

Yang, Y. F. (1994). An analysis of EST texts indexical markers. Proceedings of the ninth Technological and Vocational Educational Conference of Republic of China (pp. 279-288). Yunlin, Taiwan: Yunlin Institute of Technology.