The theories they see working best with portfolio assessment are process, collaborative learning and social constructivist
Hamp-Lyons and Condon really attempt to make the case that all theories/pedagogies can employ portfolio methods. It's just that they don't all bring out the same characteristics of portfolios. Process seems to bring out the most characteristics according to Hamp-Lyons and Condon.
However, there are differences that Hamp-Lyons and Condon acknowledge. For instance, expressivism has the prominent characteristics of range, student-centered control, reflection and self-assessment, and development over time. In contrast, social constructionists who use portfolios most often employ: collection, range, selection, reflection and self-assessment, and growth along parameters. We see common portfolio characteristics (range and reflection and self-assessment), but we also see ways in which the different pedagogies encourage teachers to adapt different portfolio systems--or more correctly portfolio systems that empahsize different elements.
But what does it mean to say that expressivist writing theories view student-centered control as a prominent characteristic and social constructionists see it as a possible characteristic in portfolio assessment? Does any one have any thoughts about that?
How is theorizing the above differences useful?
Perhaps the bigger question is if portfolio assessment is most useful when it is localized, then what good does a discussion of generalized writing theory do for us? Most teachers have hybrid pedagogies (a little expressivist, a little bit critical pedagogy, etc.). If this is the case, then what sort of edge, what sort of knowledge can we produce by looking at Hamp-Lyons and Condon’s analysis of writing theories and the characteristics of portfolios?