Portfolio-Based Instruction and EFL Paragraph Writing: A Pretest–Posttest Comparison of Two University Classes

This study examined the relationship between portfolio-based instruction and paragraph writing development among undergraduate learners of English as a foreign language at Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. Two intact civil engineering classes of 30 students each took part in an eight-week pretest–posttest comparison. One class (M29) kept its written assignments and instructor feedback in a cumulative portfolio that students could review when they wrote again; the other class (M32) followed the same routine of corrected assignments and redrafting but kept no portfolio. Every pretest and posttest paragraph was scored independently by two human raters on a 20-point analytic rubric covering content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, and each student's score was the mean of the two raters' totals. Agreement between the raters was high (ICC(2,1) = .96, 95% CI [.94, .97]; 98.3% of paired scores within one point). The portfolio class improved from 11.93 to 16.47 (mean gain 4.53 points), and the traditional class from 11.12 to 13.02 (mean gain 1.90 points). The difference in gains was 2.63 points (95% CI 1.97 to 3.30; Hedges' g = 2.03); it was 2.27 to 3.00 points when each rater's scores were analysed separately, and 2.68 points after adjustment for pretest scores. Because the portfolio condition was implemented in one class per condition and taught by one instructor, the results describe an association specific to these two classes and cannot be attributed to the portfolio arrangement alone. The study offers a transparent account of a small classroom comparison and a basis for replication across several classes

portfolio-based instruction; EFL paragraph writing; corrective feedback; formative assessment; university writing

1. Abdel Latif, M. M. M., Alsuhaibani, Z., & Alsahil, A. (2024). Matches and mismatches between Saudi university students' English writing feedback preferences and teachers' practices. Assessing Writing, 61, Article 100863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100863 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abduljawad, S. (2024). Teachers to learners: Portfolio, please! New techniques of portfolio assessment in ESL classrooms. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(4), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.4.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alam, M. J., & Aktar, T. (2019). Assessment challenges & impact of formative portfolio assessment (FPA) on EFL learners' writing performance: A case study on the preparatory English language course. English Language Teaching, 12(7), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n7p161 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alshahrani, A., & Storch, N. (2014). Investigating teachers' written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students' preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Alshahrani, A., & Storch, N. (2025). Investigating the effectiveness of scaffolded feedback on EFL Saudi students' writing accuracy: A longitudinal classroom-based study. Assessing Writing, 63, Article 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Boumediene, H., Berrahal, F. K., & Harji, M. B. (2016). The effectiveness of portfolio assessment on EFL students' writing performance: The case of third year secondary students in Algeria. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3 S1), 119. https://doi.org/10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3s1p119 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Farahian, M., & Avarzamani, F. (2018). The impact of portfolio on EFL learners' metacognition and writing performance. Cogent Education, 5(1), Article 1450918. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1450918 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fathi, J., Derakhshan, A., & Safdari, M. (2020). The impact of portfolio-based writing instruction on writing performance and anxiety of EFL students. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2020.134729 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(3), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447303300309 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gebrekidan, H., & Zeru, A. (2023). Effects of portfolio-based assessment on EFL students' conceptions and approaches to writing. Cogent Education, 10(1), Article 2195749. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2195749 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory, and research. Hampton Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12187.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lam, R. (2017). Taking stock of portfolio assessment scholarship: From research to practice. Assessing Writing, 31, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Liu, K., & Storch, N. (2023). Second language learners' engagement with written feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 46(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.20029.liu [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Obeiah, S. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2016). The effect of portfolio-based assessment on Jordanian EFL learners' writing performance. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.629 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th ed.). Pearson/Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pourdana, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2022). Differential impacts of e-portfolio assessment on language learners' engagement modes and genre-based writing improvement. Language Testing in Asia, 12, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00156-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Wang, L., & He, C. (2020). Review of research on portfolios in ESL/EFL context. English Language Teaching, 13(12), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n12p76 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Enhancing Metacognitive Strategies in English Language Learners in High School: Explicit Instruction and Its Impact on Learner Autonomy. A Case Study of Grade 12 Students in New Yundum Academy
• Bridging Digital Literacy and Communicative Competence: Evidence from AI-Mediated English Language Learning
• Examining the Difficulties of English Language Teaching in Japan: Implications for Future Assistant Language Teachers
• Teachers’ Perception on English Instruction and Academic Performance as Mediated by Teacher Practices: Basis for an Action Plan
• Learning Competencies among English Language Teachers: An Exploratory Approach on the Challenges in Resources, Teacher Capacity, and Assessment