تأثیر بازخورد اصلاحی کتبی از طریق ارزیابی پویا بر نوشتار زبان آموزان ایرانی: سطوح خرد و کلان

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Mohammad Reza Rafizade Tafti ¹ , Fariba Rahimi ² , Sajad Shafiee ³

1 - English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 - English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
3 - English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

Received: 2022-03-11 Accepted : 2022-08-18 Published : 2023-04-01

Keywords: ارزیابی پویا, ارزیابی ایستا, دقت نوشتن, بازخورد اصلاحی کتبی, سطوح میکرو کلان,

Abstract :

پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری (WCF) بر نوشتار زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی در سطوح کلان (یعنی سازماندهی بلاغی، پاسخ به تکلیف، انسجام) و خرد (یعنی منبع واژگانی، نقطه گذاری، دستوری) با رویکرد ارزیابی پویا در تمرکز انجام شد. بدین منظور، آزمون تعیین سطح سریع آکسفورد روی 150 زبان آموز انگلیسی مرد و زن ایرانی انجام شد که از بین آنها 80 زبان آموز متوسط ​​همگن انتخاب و در یک گروه آزمایش و یک گروه کنترل قرار گرفتند. دو گروه WCF را دریافت کردند به این معنا که معلم نمادهایی مانند WW برای کلمه اشتباه، SP برای املا، T برای زمان، WO برای ترتیب کلمات و غیره را به آنها ارایه می کرد در حالی که تولیدات نوشتاری آنها را علامت‌گذاری می‌نمود. تفاوت این بود که گروه آزمایش ارزیابی پویا نوشتن L2 را در طول ترم تجربه کرد (که در آن معلم به طور مداوم به فراگیران آموزش می داد و آنها را آزمایش می کرد و در هر جلسه تذکرات، نکات، پشتیبانی و تشویق برای آنها داشت)، در حالی که شرکت کنندگان در گروه کنترل یک کلاس معمولی، عاری از ارزیابی پویا را تجربه می کرد. در پایان آزمایش داده های جمع آوری شده مورد تجزیه و تحلیل آماری قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد اگرچه گروه آزمایش از نظر سطوح خرد نوشتاری به طور قابل توجهی از گروه کنترل پیشی گرفت، اما تفاوت قابل توجهی بین سطوح کلان نوشتاری در هر دو گروه مشاهده نشد. بنابراین، نتیجه گیری شد که بازخورد اصلاحی کتبی همراه با ارزیابی پویا می تواند به طور قابل توجهی باعث بهبود نوشتار دانش آموزان در سطوح خرد شود. این تحقیق کاربرد هایی برای معلمانی دارد که در کلاس‌های ELT روی نوشتن کار می‌کنند.

References:

Aghaebrahimian, A., Rahimirad, M., Ahmadic, A., & Khalilpour Alamdari, J. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writ-ing skills in advanced EFL Iranian learners. Social and Behavioral Scienc-es, 98, 60 – 67.
Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving col-laborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387-400. Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), pp. 576-598.
Azizi, M., Behjat, F., & Sorahi, M. (2014). Effect of metalinguistic teacher correc-tive feedback on writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2, 17-25.
Berry, R. A. (2010). Preservice and early ca-reer teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, instructional accommodations, and fair-ness: Three profiles. The Teacher Edu-cator, 45(2), 75-95.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White Plains.
Cohen, A. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow, UK: Longman. Cox, R. & Kersten, M. (2016). Mortality sali-ence increases language style matching and well-being. Self and Identity. 15(4), 452–467.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second lan-guage writing: Context and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ghazi, S., & Zamanian, M. (2016). The effect of asynchronous versus conventional corrective feedback on the correct use of prepositions in an EFL context. Interna-tional Journal of English and Educa-tion, 5(2), 152-160.
Graham, C. & Perin, K. (2007). The effects of parents' working conditions and family economic hardship on parenting behav-iors and children's self-efficacy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(4), 291-303.
Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speak-ing assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537–545.
Hosseini, S. B. (2012). Asynchronous comput-er-mediated corrective feedback and the correct use of prepositions: Is it effec-tive? Turkish Online Journal of Dis-tance Education, 13(4), 95-111.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second lan-guage writing. London: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Lan-guage Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Jung, E-h, & Kim, S.-H. (2003). A study on the motivating factors and the strategy use by different levels of middle school students. Foreign Languages Education, 10(2), 227–250.
Kagan, S., & High, J. (2002). Kagan struc-tures for English language learners. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing pro-cess: A model and methods for imple-mentation. ELT Journal, 44, 294 -304.
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the re-lationship of types of written feedback to the development of writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
Kim, J. S., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The ef-fects of summer reading on low-income children's literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home inter-ventions. Review of Educational Re-search, 83, 386-431.
Journal of language and translation, Volume 13, Number 2, 2023 91
Kırmızı, Ö., & Kömeç, F. (2016). An Investi-gation of Performance-Based Assess-ment at High Schools. Üniversitepark Bülten, 5(1-2), 53-65.
Kolade, T. A. (2012). The influence of pro-cess approach on English as second language students’ performances in es-say writing. English Language Teach-ing, 5(3), 16-29.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition er-rors: An experiment. The Modern Lan-guage Journal, 66 (2), 140-149.
Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong sec-ondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180-198.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 167-184.
Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic as-sessment and the impact on English lan-guage learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2), 22- 41.
Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher's cor-rective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy over time: Is learner's mother tongue rele-vant? Reading and Writing, 22 (2), 219-243.
Raoofi, S., Binandeh, M., & Rahmani, S. (2017). An investigation into writing strategies and writing proficiency of university students. Journal of Lan-guage Teaching and Research, 8(1), 191-198.
Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ pro-cess writing development. Sage Open, 8(2), 1-14.
Razzagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated communicative context and the development of second language grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17.
Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes, and learning conditions in second languageacquisition. Second Language Research, 17(4), 368-392. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and for-eign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learn-ing. Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 9, 1-63.
Shang, H.F. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Journal of Interactive Learning Envi-ronments.DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601
Taras, M. (2005). Assessment -summative and formative- Some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.
Troyka, L. Q. (2010). Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Vaseghi, R., Ramezani, A. E., & Gholami, R. (2012). Language learning style prefer-ences: A theoretical and empirical study. Advances in Asian Social Sci-ence, 2(2), 441-451.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yeh, S. & Lo, J. (2009). Using online annota-tions to support error correction and cor-rective feedback. Computers & Educa-tion, 52, 882-892.
Zarei, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: from perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Lan-guage and Literature, 1(3), 1-14.
Zhang, Y. H. (2010). Constructing dynamic assessment mode in college English writing class. Journal of PLA Univer-sity of Foreign Languages, 1, 46-50.