This study explores Vietnamese university students’ perceptions of an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) writing course, with a particular focus on instructional objectives, course materials, and teaching methods. Centered on the assessment framework proposed by Uçar and Yazıcı (2016), the research investigates the role of portfolio assessment in shaping students’ learning experiences and writing development. A mixed-methods approach is employed, integrating quantitative data collected through a structured questionnaire with qualitative insights gathered from semi-structured interviews, allowing for a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of learner perspectives. The findings indicate that students perceive the course as largely effective in building upon their prior knowledge and foundational writing skills. They report moderate success in terms of the course’s ability to promote critical thinking, an essential component of advanced academic writing in specialized contexts. Notably, students expressed strong satisfaction with the relevance and applicability of the course materials to their academic and professional needs, as well as with the accessibility of the instructor and the consistency of timely, constructive feedback—factors identified as key contributors to their writing improvement. These elements are seen as particularly supportive within a portfolio-based learning environment, which emphasizes progress, reflection, and iterative revision. By focusing on portfolio assessment within the Vietnamese ESP context, this study contributes to a relatively limited body of research, shedding light on culturally embedded challenges and identifying concrete areas for pedagogical refinement. It underscores the value of learner-centered assessment practices that encourage autonomy, self-evaluation, and sustained engagement with writing tasks. The findings offer practical implications for course designers, educators, and policymakers seeking to enhance the effectiveness and responsiveness of ESP instruction through reflective and process-oriented assessment models.
Fauzan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.