The Impact of Computerized Dynamic Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Pronunciation: The Moderating Role of Digitalized Feedback

Hossein Kargar Behbahani ¹ (PhD Student in TEFL, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran) Ehsan Namaziandost ² (Department of General Courses, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran)
Malihe YarAhmadi ³ (PhD Student in TEFL; Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.)

Submited date : 2024-03-03 accepted date : 2024-03-08

Keywords: Computerized Dynamic Assessment, Digitalized Corrective Feedback, Zone of Proximal Development, Pronunciation Skills,

Abstract :

We explored Computerized Dynamic Assessment's (CDA) effect on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners' pronunciation skills, with a focus on the moderating role of Digitalized Corrective Feedback (CF). Three intact classes from a language institute in Shiraz, Iran, totaling 60 lower-intermediate EFL learners, were assigned randomly to control and experimental groups. The treatment conditions received either CDA-only or CDA-plus Digitalized CF interventions, while the control group received traditional online instruction without mediation. Pretest and posttest assessments were conducted using a teacher-made pronunciation test. Results revealed significant improvements in pronunciation skills among learners in the experimental groups compared to the control group. Particularly, the CDA-only group demonstrated notable enhancements in pronunciation accuracy, while the CDA-plus CF group exhibited even greater improvements. The integration of Digitalized CF with CDA proved particularly effective in providing personalized and targeted feedback, leading to substantial advancements in learners' pronunciation proficiency. These findings underscore the potential of technology-enhanced interventions, such as CDA and Digitalized CF, in enhancing pronunciation instruction and offer valuable insights for language educators, materials developers, syllabus designers, and policymakers. Embracing dynamic assessment practices and integrating technology into language education policies can foster more effective and engaging language learning experiences for EFL learners.

References:

Abdel-Al Ibrahim, K., A., Karimi, A. R., Abdelrasheed, N. S. G., & Shatalebi, V. (2023). Group dynamic assessment vs. computerized dynamic assessment: Impacts on L2 listening development, L2 students’ perfectionism, foreign language anxiety, and intrinsic motivation. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 1–29. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00245-1
Altamimi, O. A., & Masood, M. (2021). Teacher electronic written corrective feedback, trends and future directions. Arab World English Journal, 12(3), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.21
Andujar, A. (2020). Mobile-mediated dynamic assessment: A new perspective for second language development. ReCALL, 32(2), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000247
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. (2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.) Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Implementing Peer-dynamic Assessment to Cultivate Iranian EFL Learners’ Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence: A Mixed-methods Approach. International Journal of Language Testing, 13(1), 18-43. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijlt.2022.345372.1171
Bakhoda, I., & Shabani, K. (2019a). Enhancing L2 learners’ ZPD modification through computerized-group dynamic assessment of reading comprehension. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 31–44. http://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.1 286350
Baker, A., & Burri, M. (2016). Feedback on Second Language Pronunciation: A Case Study of EAP Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(6), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n6.1
Dai, Y., & Wu, Z. (2023). Mobile-assisted pronunciation learning with feedback from peers and/or automatic speech recognition: A mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5-6), 861-884. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1952272
Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2019). Exploring L2 learning potential through computerized dynamic assessment. Teaching English Language, 13(2), 51-78. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.[phone]
Estaji, M., & Saeedian, A. (2020). Developing EFL learners’ reading comprehension through computerized dynamic assessment. Reading Psychology, 41(4), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1768981
Fathimah, N. M. (2020). Teacher’s corrective feedback to students’ oral production in EFL classrooms. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 430, 143–147. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125938657.pdf
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ghahderijani, B. H., Namaziandost, E., Tavakoli, M., Kumar, T., & Magizov, R. (2021). The comparative effect of group dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Language Testing in Asia, 11(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3
Kargar Behbahani, H., & Karimpour, S. (2024). The impact of computerized dynamic assessment on the explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2024.2315504
Klimova, B., & Pikhart, M. (2022). Application of corrective feedback using emerging technologies among L2 university students. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2132681. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2132681
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.
Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107, 102800. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102800 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102800
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355–368. http://doi:10.1017/S0261444808005569
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment. Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. The Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. (2000). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Elsevier.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Mehri Kamrood, A., Davoudi, M., Ghaniabadi, S., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). Diagnosing L2 learners’ development through online computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 868–897. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.164 5181
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 116–140). The Guilford Press.
Mohsen, M. A. (2022). Computer-mediated corrective feedback to improve L2 writing skills: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1253–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064066
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342. http://doi:10.1177/1362168813482935
Poehner, M. E., & Leontjev, D. (2020). To correct or to cooperate: Mediational processes and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 24(3), 295-316. https://10.1177/1362168818783212
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.
Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., & Amraei, A. (2023). Exploring the effects of dynamic assessment on improving Iranian Quran learners’ recitation performance. Critical Literary Studies, 5(1), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.34785/J014.2023.010
Shrestha, P. N. (2020). Dynamic assessment of students’ academic writing. Vygotskian and systemic functional linguistic perspectives. Springer.
Sippel, L., & Martin, I. A. (2023). Immediate and long-term improvement in lexical stress perception: the role of teacher and peer feedback. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61(3), 1173-1195. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0175
Van der Veen, C., Dobber, M., & van Oers, B. (2016). Implementing dynamic assessment of vocabulary development as a trialogical learning process: A practice of teacher support in primary education schools. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1235577
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge University Press.
Zangoei, A., Zareian, G., َAdel, S. M. R., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). The impact of computerized dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(4), 165-139. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.11536.1433
Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2019). Measuring and Supporting Second Language Development Using Computerized Dynamic Assessment. Language & Sociocultural Theory, 6(1), 92-115. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.38916