




































 Mudzingwa 14 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

Theoretical Analysis, Classroom Practice, Opinion Essays 

 

The Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA): Suitable for Adult Learners? 
 

Calisto Mudzingwa 

S.U.C.C.E.S.S. English Language Programs 

 

Abstract 

 

The Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA) literature explicitly states the suitability of 

using PBLA in English as an additional language (EAL) learning contexts. An underlying 

assumption is that it is also suitable for adult learners. This paper tests this assumption by 

comparing PBLA against the assumptions and principles of andragogy—a theory of adult 

learning. Andragogy was chosen as the yardstick because it created a portrait of adult learners 

and adult learning that is still considered a cornerstone of the best practices in adult education 

(Merriam, 2001). Akin to andragogy, which states how adults need to be involved in the 

planning and evaluation of their instruction, PBLA involves participants in the planning and 

evaluation of their learning via needs assessments, peer- and self-assessments, goal-setting, and 

student-teacher progress conferences. Furthermore, like andragogy, which highlights how adult 

learners want to learn things that have immediate application, PBLA assesses participants on 

content that is of immediate relevance to their personal lives. Finally, similar to andragogy, 

PBLA allows participants to draw from their life experiences during the learning process. After 

comparing PBLA and andragogy, the conclusion is that in its totality, PBLA is consistent with 

andragogy—and therefore suitable for adult learners. 

 

Introduction 

 

There is a dearth of literature on the Portfolio-Based Language Assessment (PBLA)—an 

assessment model used in the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program. 

The few available research articles include Singh and Blakely (2012), Ripley (2013), Pettis 

(2014), Drew (2015), and Holmes (2016). However, Singh and Blakely (2012) did not write 

about the PBLA per se. They provided an invaluable overview of the history and development of 

language training in Canada since the inception of the federally funded LINC program and the 

Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC) in 1992. Focussing on the PBLA, 

Ripley (2013) examined the benefits and challenges of implementing PBLA in the LINC 

program. He interviewed six LINC instructors who were part of the group of instructors piloting 

the PBLA. His conclusion was that PBLA had more benefits than challenges. In contrast, Drew 

(2015), investigated students’ perceptions of PBLA and the different aspects of the assessment 

model students found most helpful in their language learning. Her overall conclusion was that 

learners felt that the PBLA model was a good assessment approach that is helpful to their 

language learning. Moving away from research, Pettis (2014) provided a guide on the effective 

implementation of PBLA. The guide is an overview of the theoretical foundations, principles, 

essential features, and assessment strategies fundamental to PBLA. In a similar vein, Holmes 

(2016) proposed a model of sustainability for PBLA, and critically discussed implications for its 

application and suggested a way forward. 

 



 Mudzingwa 15 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

 The predominant message in the current discourses on PBLA is that it is an appropriate 

model of assessment in English as an additional language (EAL) learning. The underlying 

assumption is that PBLA is also suitable for adult learners. In this context, this paper undertakes 

to examine the plausibility of this assumption, with a view to contributing to a body of 

knowledge that informs adult education, best practices in adult EAL learning, portfolios in 

general, and the PBLA in particular. This paper specifically addresses the following question: Is 

the PBLA suitable for adult EAL learners? 

 

 In this study, andragogy is used as the yardstick for assessing the plausibility of the 

assumption that PBLA is suitable for adult learners. To this end, individual components of PBLA 

are compared against the portrayal of adult learners as depicted in andragogy. Andragogy was 

chosen for three reasons: First, it created a portrait of adult learners and adult learning that is still 

considered the cornerstone of the best practices in adult education (Merriam, 2001). Second, all 

things considered, andragogy offered a well-received model for designing, implementing, and 

evaluating educational experiences with adults (Merriam, 2001; Sandlin, 2005). Finally, it is 

indisputable that andragogy has had “an enormous and far-reaching influence on the field of 

adult education practice” (Brookfield, 1989, p.201).  

 

Background 

 

The background section describes the LINC Program, and in turn, the portfolios in general, and 

PBLA.  

 

The Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada 

 

In Canada, the federal government’s department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 

Canada (IRCC) funds English and French language classes for adult immigrants and refugees to 

help them settle in Canada (Saint Germain, 2012; Singh & Blakely, 2012). The English language 

classes are known as LINC and are free to eligible newcomers. LINC was established in 1992, 

and is free to eligible newcomers. Like in other provinces, in British Columbia, there are several 

immigrant serving agencies that provide LINC classes and other complementary settlement 

services to eligible immigrants.  

 

What is a Portfolio? 
 

There are numerous definitions of portfolios and pulling together different aspects from these 

captures the essence of what a portfolio is. A portfolio can be defined as a classroom-based, 

purposeful, and collaborative collection of materials assembled over a period by the teacher and 

the learner to provide evidence of skills, abilities, and competencies of the learner (O’Malley and 

Pierce, 1992; Hamp-Lyons and Condon, 1993; Moya and O’Malley, 1994; Pettis, 2014). There is 

consensus that portfolios nurture students to assume ownership of their learning among other 

benefits (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000; Paulson, Paulson & Meyer, 1991; Pettis, 2014).  

 

  



 Mudzingwa 16 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

Portfolios in EAL: Merits and Weaknesses 

 

Portfolios were introduced largely as a response to standardized tests that were deemed unfair 

and unsuitable for assessing language learning. Moya and O'Malley (1994) reported that 

standardized tests were routinely criticized for their summative nature and a clear link between 

the standardized tests and consistently low scores for minority students. By the same token, 

Flood and Lapp (1989) argued that summative assessments, including standardized tests, are not 

the best tools to evaluate language proficiency because they assess at a single point in time. Such 

assessments are neither comprehensive nor accurate because of the longitudinal nature of 

language learning and the multidimensional nature of language (Cummins, 1983). Brown and 

Hudson (1988) mentioned that portfolios enhance students’ learning by increasing their 

involvement in the learning processes through collaboration between the students and the teacher 

and amongst students. Furthermore, learners are observed using language in authentic settings.  

 

 Despite their strengths, portfolios have inherent weaknesses. First, lack of objectivity is a 

recalcitrant problem that has dogged portfolios since their inception (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 

2000; Weigle, 2002). For example, Weigle (2002) noted that portfolios may be less reliable than 

traditional tests, particularly “when portfolios are being read by people other than the classroom 

teacher, who may not be familiar with the students or the curriculum especially when the stakes 

for the individual student are high” (p. 208). Second, by their very nature, portfolios inherently 

lack standardization: Individual teachers create, administer and score their own assessments in 

collaboration with their students. Clearly, in such contexts, standardization is a potential problem 

(Gillespie, Ford, Gillespie, & Leavell, 1996; Sweygers et.al, 2009). Commenting specifically on 

scoring, Damiani (2006) asserted that, “…it can be quite difficult to establish scoring systems 

that are reliable over raters or time. Reliability across raters is especially important if major 

decisions are to be based on the assessment outcome” (p.123). Finally, for both the teacher and 

the learner, portfolios are time consuming when putting them together and maintaining them 

(Johns, & Leirsburg, 1992; Wolf, 1993). As observed by McMullan (2006), “… students, [and] 

mentors find portfolios very time-consuming and stressful, mainly due to the large amount of 

paperwork” (p. 341). Similarly, Short (1993) commented that “…developing and evaluating 

portfolios is time-consuming; they do not provide a quick picture of student knowledge” (p. 

640). Despite their limitations, however, portfolios can still be considered more reliable and fair 

assessment tools in language learning contexts than standardized tests.  

 

The Portfolio-Based Language Assessment 

 

To bring standardization in language learning, then Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), 

now IRCC, authorized the PBLA as the sole official assessment method in the LINC and CLIC 

programs across Canada. The PBLA is a longitudinal classroom-based assessment approach 

implemented by the teacher, which involves instructors and learners working together to set 

language-learning goals and gather samples of assessment tasks to demonstrate a learners’ 

language proficiency in a range of contexts. Together they analyze the data and reflect on 

progress (Pettis, 2014, p. 7). Drew (2015) and Pettis (2014) stated that PBLA comprises the 

following major features: (1) Baseline Personal Information, (2) Needs Assessment, (3) 

Language Learning-Goals, (4) Assessments (teacher-assessments, self-assessments and peer-



 Mudzingwa 17 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

assessments), (5) Self-reflection, and (6) Student-teacher progress conferences. Together, the 

different components of PBLA make a learning cycle (Drew, 2015).  

 

 The Baseline Personal Information section comprises the learner’s autobiography, their 

Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) scores, needs assessment, and learning goals. A needs 

assessment is conducted during the first few days of class to identify and rank the topics learners 

are interested in. Likewise, at the inception of each new topic, a needs assessment is conducted. 

Related to their needs, learners complete language-learning goals, stating what they hope to 

accomplish using English. Goal setting in PBLA is an ongoing practice throughout the 

instructional cycle. Learners revisit their goals assessing how they are doing towards achieving 

them (Drew, 2015).  

 

 Continuous and consistent assessment is the mainstay of the PBLA model, and three 

types of assessment are conducted: (a) teacher-assessments, (b) peer-assessments, and (c) self-

assessments. The teacher-assessments are administered and graded by the teacher. In contrast, 

peer-assessments involve students providing feedback on each other’s work based on set criteria. 

With self-assessments, learners assess themselves, also based on set criteria.  

 

 Self-reflections involve learners reviewing what they learned, how they learned, and how 

this learning relates to the real world. Reflection also affords learners the opportunity to review 

their own portfolios, see their own progress, and adopt strategies on how they could improve 

(Hamp-Lyons and Condon, 2000; Pettis, 2014). Furthermore, self-reflection gives a learners a 

chance to reflect on how akin to self-assessments, regular self-reflections increase the learners’ 

self-awareness, including their learning styles. Finally, the student-teacher progress conferences 

are an opportunity for the teacher and the learner to “review the student’s progress in learning 

English in relationship to the student’s specified needs and goals” (Pettis, 2014, p.52). It is also 

an opportunity for learners to set a new direction, including new language learning goals.  

 

Andragogy and the Portrait of the Adult Learner 

 

Although there is consensus that there is no single theory that explains how adults learn, there is 

broad consensus that andragogy is one of the pillars of adult learning (Merriam 2001; Pratt, 

1993). For instance, Merriam (2001), noted that adult education is informed by “…a mosaic of 

theories, models, sets of principles, and explanations that, combined, compose the knowledge 

base of adult learning. Two important pieces of that mosaic are andragogy and self-directed 

learning” (p.3).  

 

 In 1968, Malcolm Knowles proposed andragogy to differentiate adult from child 

learning. As defined by Knowles, andragogy is “the art and science of helping adults learn,” and 

this was contrasted with pedagogy which is “the art and science of helping children learn” 

(Knowles, 1980, p. 43). Andragogy comprises five assumptions and four Principles, which 

provide a depiction of the adult learner and is the bedrock of traditional pedagogy for adults. 

Table 1 below presents the five Assumptions and four Principles proposed by Knowles.  

 

  



 Mudzingwa 18 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

Table 1. 

Assumptions and Principles of Andragogy 

 

Assumptions 

Assumption 1 Self-concept: As people mature their self-concept moves from one of being a 

dependent personality towards one of being a self-directed human being. 

 

Assumption 2 Adult learner experience: As people mature they accumulate a growing 

reservoir of experience that becomes an increasing resource for learning.  

 

Assumption 3 Readiness to learn: As people mature their readiness to learn becomes oriented 

increasingly to the developmental tasks of their social roles. 

 

Assumption 4 Orientation to learning: As people mature their time perspective changes from 

one of postponed application of knowledge to immediacy of application, and accordingly their 

orientation towards learning shifts from one of subject centeredness to one of problem 

centeredness. 

 

Assumption 5 Motivation to learn: As people mature the motivation to learn is internal. 

 

Principles 

Principle 1: Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction. 

 

Principle 2: Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for the learning activities. 

 

Principle 3: Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance and 

impact on their jobs or personal lives.  

 

Principle 4: Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented 

Adapted from Knowles (1980) 

 

 Besides the Principles and Assumptions, Knowles also proposed a classroom learning 

atmosphere which allows adults to “feel accepted, respected, and supported” and there must exist 

“a spirit of mutuality between teachers and students as joint inquirers” (Knowles, 1980, p. 47).  

 

Critiques of Andragogy  

 

Despite its foundational status and far-reaching influence, andragogy has its critics. The earliest 

criticism against andragogy was whether it is a theory or not (Davenport & Davenport, 1985; 

Elias 1979; Hartree, 1984; Houle, 1972; Griffin, 1991). Sandlin (2005), for example, observed 

that a growing number of scholars agree that andragogy is not a theory but a set of assumptions 

or a framework. Furthermore, andragogy has been criticized for its portrayal of adult learners as 

homogeneous. It has been argued that such a depiction overlooks the fact that adult learners are 

unique individuals with diverse circumstances (Cercone, 2008). In fact, studies have shown 

differences among adult learners, such as motivation, capability, and readiness to learn 

(Davenport & Davenport, 1985; Long, 1988; Pratt, 1988). The criticisms of andragogy 

https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-2000/holmes.html#elias1979


 Mudzingwa 19 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

notwithstanding, scholars still seem to agree that, to this day, andragogy remains the single most 

influential “theory” in the field of adult education, and that the assumptions proposed by 

Knowles are still considered best practices in adult education (Merriam, 2001; Sandlin, 2005).  

 

A Comparison of Andragogy and PBLA 

 

This section compares components of the PBLA model and those of andragogy, with the goal of 

demonstrating the suitability of PBLA in assessing adult learners.  

 

Needs Assessment  

 

In PBLA, a needs assessment establishes themes and topics learners are interested in and also the 

contexts in which they want to use language. This is consistent with Principle 3 of andragogy, 

which articulates how adults are most interested in learning content that is of immediate 

relevance and impact on their personal lives. Some of the literature on adult education 

underscores the importance of doing a needs assessment. Cervero and Wilson (1999), for 

example, stated that “… the highest professional and moral principle for adult educators … is to 

involve learners in identifying their needs” (p.29). Similarly, in independent studies, Roberts 

(2007) and McGrath (2009) made a similar observation and stated that adults generally tend to 

resist situations in which they feel that others are imposing their will on them.  

 

 Conducting a needs assessment in PBLA is also consistent with andragogy’s Principle 1, 

which highlights the need to involve adult learners in the planning of their own instruction. This 

allows LINC participants to decide what they would like to learn. Furthermore, it is an 

acknowledgement that the participants are mature, responsible, and self-directed adults. 

Additionally, this closely matches andragogy’s Assumption 1, which highlights the autonomy, 

independence, and self-directedness of adult learners. In general, in PBLA, choosing relevant 

topics that adults would like to learn about should intrinsically motivate them to learn since the 

topics and themes they select would be of direct relevance to their immediate needs. Intrinsic 

motivation among LINC participants is consistent with andragogy’s Assumption 5, which states 

how adults thrive on intrinsic motivation in the context of learning what is relevant to their lives. 

 

Goal-Setting 

 

In PBLA, LINC participants, together with the teacher, set language-learning goals as part of 

directing, or at least participating in, the planning of their own learning. Goal-setting is in 

keeping with andragogy’s Principle 1, which requires adult learners to be involved in the 

planning and evaluation of their learning. Goal-setting in PBLA allows participants to tap into 

their metacognitive skills and knowledge of goal-creation. Kuhn and Dean (2004), for example, 

observed that metacognition enables a student taught a strategy in one context to retrieve and 

deploy that strategy in a similar but new context. Likewise, LINC participants retrieve, adapt, 

and deploy prior goal-making strategies when developing language-learning goals. These 

opportunities which allow participants to draw from their acquired metacognitive skills in their 

language-learning classes are comparable to andragogy’s Assumption 2, which states how an 

adults’ ever-growing reservoir of experiences is an invaluable resource for learning.  

 



 Mudzingwa 20 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

 Typically, LINC participants are energized, motivated, and committed to learning 

English as they strive to achieve the language-learning goals they set for themselves. Goal-

setting matches andragogy’s Assumption 5, which articulates how adult learners thrive on 

intrinsic motivation. In the literature on second language acquisition , Oxford and Shearin 

(1994), for instance, commenting specifically on goal-setting, stated that, “goal setting can have 

exceptional importance in stimulating L2 [second language] learning motivation…,” (p. 129). 

Lastly, goal setting in PBLA is akin to andragogy’s Principle 3 which states that relevant content 

that adults learn has immediate impact on adult learners’ personal lives. In PBLA, needs 

assessment and goal-setting contribute to the relevance of content. 

 

Assessments  
 

In PBLA, regular peer-assessments, self-assessments, and teacher-assessments are embedded in 

the teaching and learning. All PBLA assessments have a language task—a communicative “real 

world” instance of language use to accomplish a specific purpose in a particular context 

(Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2012). PBLA’s task-based approach is akin to andragogy’s 

Assumption 4, which highlight the problem-centeredness of adult learners and their interest in 

the immediate application of acquired knowledge to solve problems. For LINC participants, their 

immediate problem is to overcome their immediate communication barriers.  

 

 PBLA assessments mirror the LINC participants’ ever changing social, community, and 

work situations. These contexts are comparable to andragogy’s Assumption 3, Principle 3, and 

Assumption 4, as explained below. LINC participants are assessed on their ability to use English 

in contexts where they would: Maintain or change interpersonal relationships; understand or give 

instructions; obtain services (e.g. banking); inform decisions; persuade; and learn what others 

have done, inter alia (Canadian Language Benchmarks, 2012). These diverse contexts mirror the 

ever-changing roles of LINC participants, akin to what is stated in andragogy’s Assumption 3 on 

Readiness to learn. Assumption 3 articulates that as people mature, their readiness to learn 

becomes oriented increasingly to the developmental tasks of their social roles. 

 

 In the same context, PBLA tasks have immediate impact on the participants’ lives since 

the learned language could be immediately applied to overcome direct communication 

challenges. The ability of LINC participants to apply the learned language to overcome 

immediate communication challenges is comparable to andragogy’s Assumption 4. Assumption 

4 partly states that as people mature, their time perspective changes from one of postponed 

application of knowledge to immediacy of application. Immediate application of knowledge also 

closely matches andragogy’s Principle 3 which articulates how adults are most interested in 

learning subjects that have immediate relevance and impact on their jobs or personal lives. 

 

Peer-Assessment 

 

Peer-assessments involve learners assessing each other’s work and giving feedback based on set 

criteria. Peer-assessments create a sense of mutual respect amongst LINC participants, and build 

a community of learners as well as a safe learning environment. This is consistent with Knowles 

observation that adults should “feel accepted, respected, and supported” (Knowles, 1980, p. 47). 

When giving feedback, LINC participants inevitably draw from their metacognitive knowledge 



 Mudzingwa 21 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

and skills accumulated over the years when providing feedback in other spheres of their lives. 

This closely matches andragogy’s Assumption 3, which depicts an adult as someone who has 

amassed a rich reservoir of life long resources of learning experiences. 

 

Self-Assessments 

 

Akin to andragogy’s Principle 1, which states that adults need to be involved in the planning and 

evaluation of their instruction, self-assessments in PBLA actively involve participants in the 

evaluation of their own learning. LINC participants assess their own tasks and assignments as 

well as determine what and how they could have done better. Besides involving learners in the 

evaluation of their own learning, self-assessments demonstrate respect for LINC participants as 

capable individuals who can judge their own performance, albeit on set criteria. There is explicit 

acknowledgement that LINC participants have experience evaluating their own activities in other 

aspects of their lives, and that they can utilize their metacognitive knowledge and skills to do 

self-assessments. This is comparable to andragogy’s Assumption 2 which states how adults’ 

lifelong experiences are a resource for learning. Also, self-assessments inspire LINC participants 

to meet the set standards, and this activity becomes a source of intrinsic motivation to learn.  

 

Self-Reflections  

 

The PBLA model requires participants to do regular self-reflection, which helps learners 

understand more about how they learn, and how what they learned applies to their everyday 

lives. As Fernsten and Fernsten (2005) emphasized, involving students in figuring out how they 

know and what they know about learning that has taken place can be an invaluable learning tool 

that helps learners take responsibility for their own learning. The PBLA self-reflections are akin 

to andragogy’s Assumption 4 and Principle 3, which both share the notion that adult learners are 

interested in learning content that has immediate application, and that this content should also 

have immediate relevance and impact on their jobs or personal lives.  

 

Teacher-Student Progress Conferences 

 

In the application of PBLA, student-teacher progress conferences tie-in together the different 

aspects of the PBLA and “resets” the learning cycle (Drew, 2015). Consequently, the application 

of PBLA is comparable to several principles and assumptions of andragogy. During the teacher-

student progress conferences, LINC participants are involved in the planning and directing of 

their own learning when they review their portfolios, assessing if previously set goals were met, 

and identifying their achievements, including areas for improvement. These activities are 

consistent with andragogy’s Assumption 1. Assumption 1 articulates how adult learners are self-

directed. Furthermore, the involvement of students in the planning and overall evaluation of their 

progress during the teacher-student progress conferences is in harmony with andragogy’s 

Principle 1, which states that adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their 

instruction.  

 

  



 Mudzingwa 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

Conclusion 

 

This paper examined the underlying assumption that PBLA is a suitable model of assessment for 

adult learners. To test the veracity of this assumption, andragogy was used as the barometer: 

Features of the PBLA were compared with one or more of the assumptions and/or principles of 

andragogy. As established in this paper, in its totality, the PBLA is consistent with andragogy’s 

stated principles and assumptions. It is therefore justifiable to conclude that PBLA is not only an 

appropriate method for assessing language proficiency in an EAL setting, such as LINC 

programs in British Columbia and across Canada, but is also a suitable method for assessing 

adult learners in general.  

 

References 

 

Brookfield, S.D. (1989). Facilitating adult learning. In S.B. Merriam & P. M. Cunningham 

(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp.201-210). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.  

Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 

32(4), 653-675. 

Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2012). Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a Second 

Language for Adults. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. 

Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/language-benchmarks.pdf  

Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning 

design. AACE journal, 16(2), 137-159. 

Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (1999). Beyond learner-centered practice: Adult education, 

power, and society. The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 13(2), 27. 

Cummins, J. (1983). Conceptual and linguistic foundations of language assessment. Issues of 

language assessment: Language assessment and curriculum planning. Wheaton, MD: 

National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. 

Damiani, V.B. (2006). Portfolio Assessment in the Classroom. National Association of School 

Psychologists. Retrieved online at 

https://www.scribd.com/document/221528123/Portfolio-Assessment. Retrieved on 

January, 10th, 2017.  

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. A. (1985). A chronology and analysis of the andragogy 

debate. Adult Education Quarterly, 35(3), 152-159. 

Drew, R. (2015). Adult immigrant English language learners’ perspectives on the Portfolio-

Based Language Assessment Model used in the LINC program. MA Dissertation, 

University of Leicester. 

Elias , J. L. (1979). Critique: Andragogy revisited. Adult Education, 29 (4), 252-256. 

Fernsten, L., & Fernsten, J. (2005). Portfolio assessment and reflection: Enhancing learning 

through effective practice. Reflective Practice, 6(2), 303-309. 

Flood , J., & Lapp, D. (1989). Reporting reading progress: A comparison portfolio for parents. 

The Reading Teacher, 42(7), 508-514. 

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. 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/language-benchmarks.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/221528123/Portfolio-Assessment


 Mudzingwa 23 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

Griffin, C. (1991). A critical perspective on sociology and adult education. Adult education: 

Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study, 259-281. 

Hartree, A. “Malcolm Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy: A Critique.” International Journal of 

Lifelong Education, 1984, 3(3), 203–210. 

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice. Theory, 

Research. Cresskill: Hampton Press. 

Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (1993). Questioning assumptions about portfolio-based 

assessment. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 176-190. 

Holmes, T. (2016). PBLA: Moving Toward Sustainability. TESL Canada Journal, 32, 113-123. 

Houle, C. O. (1972). The design of education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Johns, J. L., & Leirsburg, P. V. (1992). How professionals view portfolio assessment. Literacy 

Research and Instruction, 32(1), 1-10. 

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (revised and updated. New 

York: Cambridge  

Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. 

Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273. 

Long, H. B. (2004). Understanding adult learners. Adult learning methods: A guide for effective 

instruction, 3, 23-37. 

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self‐directed learning: Pillars of adult learning 

theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3-14. 

McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the Evidence on How Adult Students Learn: An Examination of 

Knowles' Model of Andragogy. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and 

Community Education, 99, 110. 

McMullan, M. (2006). Students’ perceptions on the use of portfolios in pre-registration nursing 

education: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(3), 333-

343. 

Moya, S. S., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). A Portfolio Assessment Model for ESL. The Journal of 

Educational Issues of Language Minority Students,13(1), 13-36. 

Roberts, M. S. (2007). Applying the andragogical model of adult learning: A case study of the 

Texas Comptroller’s Fiscal Management Division (Doctoral dissertation, Texas State 

University).  

O'Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1992). Portfolio Assessment: Experiences from the Field. 

In annual meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical 

Framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 12–28. 

Paulson, F.L., Paulson, P.R. & Meyer, C.A. (1991). What Makes a Portfolio a Portfolio? 

Educational Leadership, 48, 60-63. 

Pettis, J. (2014). Portfolio-based language assessment (PBLA): Guide for teachers and 

programs. Ottawa ON: Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. 

Pratt, D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct. Adult Education Quarterly, 38(3), 160-

72. 

Pratt, D. D. (1993). Andragogy after twenty‐five years. New directions for Adult and Continuing 

Education, 1993(57), 15-23. 



 Mudzingwa 24 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 2 Number 1 (2017): 14-24 

Ripley, D. (2013). Implementing Portfolio-Based Language Assessment in LINC Programs: 

Benefits and challenges. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 69. 

Saint Germain, Y. (2012) Introduction: State of the art and future directions in settlement 

language training, INSCAN: International Settlement Canada, Spring, pp. 1-3. 

Sandlin, J. A. (2005). Andragogy and Its Discontents: An Analysis of Andragogy from Three 

Critical Perspectives. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 14(1), 25-42. 

Singh, D. and Blakely, G. (2012) LINC and CLIC: looking back, looking forward, INSCAN: 

International Settlement Canada, Spring, pp. 7-11. 

Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing Integrated Language and Content Instruction. TESOL 

Quarterly, 27(4), 627-656. 

Sweygers, A., Soetewey, K., Meeus, W., Struyf, E., & Pieters, B. (2009). Portfolios for Prior 

Learning Assessment: Caught Between Diversity and Standardization. The Journal of 

Continuing Higher Education, 57(2), 92-103. 

Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Wolf, K. P. (1993). From Informal to Informed Assessment: Recognizing the role of the 

Classroom Teacher. Journal of Reading, 36(7), 518-523. 

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 
Copyright rests with the authors. 

 

 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

