Analyzing the Impact and Opportunity of Computer-Based Dynamic Assessment on the Development of Understanding Prepositions among Iranian EFL Learners

Subject Areas : Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English

Alireza Mohammad beigi ¹ , Reza Rezvani ² , Saeed Yazdani ³

1 -
2 -
3 -

Received: 2024-02-27 Accepted : 2024-03-30 Published : 2025-01-18

Keywords: Computerized dynamic assessment, Interventionist approach, Learning English Preposition, Learning potential score,

Abstract :

The current study examines the effect of computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian EFL learners’ prepositions. More specifically the aim of the study was to investigate the difference between dynamic and non-dynamic tests and to investigate how mediation works in terms of the learning potential scores of high and low achievers with the help of C-DA. To this end, 30 learners of Iran Language Institute (ILI) at Shiraz branch were selected from two intact elementary classes. They were randomly given two test formats. On the whole, the two groups were given the tests in the computerized format, one in the dynamic format and the other one in the non-dynamic format. To achieve the objectives, computer software was developed. The computerized test included 30 items and five hints presented for each item in case the learners could not answer the item correctly. Analysis of findings showed that the computerized dynamic test had a positively important impact on the development of students’ knowledge of prepositions and getting some information about their learning potential. It was further determined that the utilization of computerized dynamic assessment may simultaneously lead to the enhancement of learners' ability, thereby providing educators with a clear picture of learners' potential for learning. Given the significance of C-DA in revealing learners’ learning potential score (LPS), The findings of the study have significant implications for educators, as they can use these findings to design distinct individualized learning programs that address the learning requirements and capabilities of their students.

References:

Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, 57-86.‏
Ahmadi, A., & Barabadi, E. (2014). Examining Iranian EFL learners' knowledge of grammar through a computerized dynamic test. Issues in Language Teaching, 3(2), 183-161.‏
Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading ability. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 141.
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal 78, 465–483.
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
Barabadi, E (2010). Designing computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension of Iranian university students and its comparison with static test of L2 reading comprehension. Unpublished thesis. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
Birjandi, P &. Ebadi, S. (2010). Exploring learners’ microgenetic development in L2 dynamic assessment via online web 2.0 technology. Paper presented in IELTI5, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, E. L. (2001). The effects of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language-screening test. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22 (4), 217–226.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching Journal, 42(3), 355-368.
Lantolf, J. P. & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619-632
Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment. In E. Shohamy (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and education (vol. 7): Language testing and assessment (pp. 273-285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of grammar with different age groups. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1707-1713.
Mehri Kamrood, A., Davoudi, M., Ghaniabadi, S., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2021). Diagnosing L2 learners’ development through online computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 868-897.‏
Mc Neil, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A teacher education study. Language Teaching Research. 17(3), 323-342.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.). Educational measurement (pp. 13- 103). New York: Macmillan.
Modarresi, G., & Alavi, S. M. (2014). Designing and validating a test battery of computerized dynamic assessment of grammar. TELL, 8 (2), 1-29.
Nasiri, M., & Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Tavakkoli, M. (2013). Dynamic assessment as a helping hand for English teachers: Computerized assessment of transition words or phrases, Humanising Language Teaching, 3.
Nazari, E. T. (2009). TOEFL sample tests (grammar.) Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Orikasa, M. (2010). Interactionist dynamic assessment in L2 learning: A case study of tutoring L2 English oral communication. Retrieved from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/20258
Panahi, P., Birjandi, P., & Azabdaftari, B. (2013). Toward a sociocultural approach to feedback provision in L2 writing classrooms: the alignment of dynamic assessment and teacher error feedback. Language Testing in Asia, 3(1), 1-10.
Peña E., & Iglesias A., & Lidz C. S. (2001) Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children’s world learning ability. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 10,138–154.
Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of l2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 15(1), 73-95.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471-491.
Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.
Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rajaeizadeh, Z. & Biria, R., & Kheirzadeh, S. (2015). Instructional efficacy of dynamic assessment on English vocabulary learning of young Iranian EFL learners: The case of near vs. far transcendence tasks. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(8), 155-168.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L., (2001). All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in Education,7(2), 134.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.