Computer-Based Dynamic Assessment of EFL Learners’ Writing Performance: Evidence from Both Cognitive and Emotive Domains
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Solmaz MovahedFar
1
,
Gholam-Reza Abbasian
2
,
Alireza Ameri
3
1 - English Department, Kish International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kish Island, Iran
2 - English Department, Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran
3 - English Department, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: Writing Ability, Attitude, EFL learner, Computer-Based Dynamic Assessment,
چکیده مقاله :
This present study was carried out to investigate the effect of computer-based dynamic assessment (CBDA) on Iranian EFL learners’ performance in writing and their attitude towards CBDA. To do so, 60 intermediate EFL learners were chosen out of 120 EFL learners based on their performance on the Nelson Language Proficiency Test. Next, they were randomly divided into two equal groups; CBDA as the experimental group and a control group. Based on a pretest and posttest design, group-specific writing instruction followed by an attitude questionnaire was conducted. The experimental group underwent CBDA while the control group was exposed to the conventional writing skill instruction. The pertinent parametric and nonparametric statistical analyses indicated both significant differences between the CBDA and control groups on developing writing performance, on the one hand, and positive attitude towards CBDA, on the other. The study’s findings suggest that teaching and assessing writing skills through a computer can improve students’ performance in writing. Alongside its theoretical contributions to the field, it may assure the practitioners of the cognitive and emotive applicability and efficacy of CBDA in EFL settings in general and in teaching writing skills in particular.
هد ف از انجام این مطالعه بررسی اثر ارزیابی پویای رایانه-محور بر عملکرد مهارت نگارشی زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی و نگرش آنها نسبت به این نوع آموزش بوده است. برای انجام این کار، 60 نفر زبان آموز سطح متوسط از میان 120 نفر بر اساس عملکرد زبانی اشان در آزمون مهارت زبانی نلسون انتخاب شدند. سپس، به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه مساوی تقسیم شدند که گروه هدف به عنوان گروه آزمایشی و گروه دیگر به عنوان شاهد مورد مطالعه قرار گرفتند. براساس طرح پژوهشی پیش-پس آزمون، آموزش مهارت نگارشی به شیوه خاص و پرسشنامه بررسی نگرش به اجرا در آمدند. گروه آزمایشی تحت آموزش یارانه-محور و گروه شاهد آموزش مهارت نگارشیی به شیوه متعارف را تجربه کردند. تجزیه و تحلیل آماری پارامتریک وغیر پارامتریک مرتبط موید تفاوت آماری معنادار بین گروه آزمایشی و گروه شاهد در تقویت مهارت نگارشی از یک طرف و نگرش مثبت نسبت به این نوع آموزش ارزیابی رایانه-محور از طرف دیگرمی باشد. این یافته ها حاکی از این است که آموزش و ارزیابی مهارت نگارشی از طریق ارزیابی پویای رایانه-محورمی تواند در تقویت مهارت نگارشی نقش ابزاری ایفا کند. مزید برنقش نظری، یافته های این مطالعه می تواند به دست اندرکاران از نظر کاریرد و کفایت شناختی و عاطفی آموزش بر اساس ارزیابی پویای رایانه-محور در بستر آموزش زبان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجحی بطور عام و در آموزش مهارت نگارشی به طور خاص اطمینان دهد.
Ableeva, R. (2008).The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf, & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57-86). Equinox.
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Akcay, A., & Arslan, A. (2010). The using of blogs in Turkish education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1195-1199.
Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (2000). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17, 269-306.
Alavi, A., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment, 19(1), 1-16,
Al Mamun, S.A., Rahman, A.R.M.M., Rahman, A.R.M.R., & Hossain, M.A. (2012). Students’ Attitudes towards English: The Case of Life Science School of Khulna University. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1) 200-209.
Anton, M. (2009).Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
Babamoradi, P., Nasiri, M., & Mohammadi, E. (2018) .Learners’ attitudes toward using dynamic assessment in teaching and assessing IELTS writing task one. International Journal of Language Testing, 8)1(, 1-11.
Belcher, D. (1990). Peer vs. teacher response in the advanced composition class. Issues in Writing, 2, 128-150.
Birjandi, P., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Exploring learners’ microgenetic development in L2 dynamic assessment via online web 2.0 technology. IELTI5, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Birjandi, P., &. Ebadi, S. (2012). Microgenesis in dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ sociocognitive development via web 2.0. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 32, 34 -39.
Bobkina, J. & Fernandez de, M.C.D. (2012). Motivation and Attitudes towards Learning English: A Study of Engineering Undergraduates at the Technical University of Madrid. ICERI2012 Proceedings, pp. 4492- 4501. Retrieved from http:/ /library .iated.org/view/BOBKINA2012MOT
Burstein, J. (2003). The e-rater® scoring engine: Automated essay scoring with natural language processing. In M. D. Shermis & J. Burstein (Eds.), Automated essay scoring: A crossdisciplinary perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2004). Automated essay evaluation: The Criterion online writing service. Al Magazine, 25(3), 27-36.
Campbell, A. P. (2005). Weblog applications for EFL/ESL: Classroom blogging, two fundamental approaches. TSEL-EJ, 9(3). Retrieved from http://www riting. Berkeley .edu/ TESL -EJ/ ej35/ m1.html
Chalak, A. & Kassaian, Z. (2010). Motivation and Attitudes of Iranian Undergraduate EFL Learners towards Learning English. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10(2) 37-56. Retrieved from HTTP.
Chapelle, C., & Brindley, G. (2002). Assessment. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 268–288). Arnold.
Chodorow, M. & Burnstein, J. (2004). Beyond essay length: Evaluating e-rater’s performance on TOEFL essays. Retrieved from FTP.
Crook, C. (1991). Computers in the zone of proximal development: Implications for evaluation. Computers and Education, 17(1), 81–91.
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., Buysse, A., & De Clercq, A. (2002). Assessment of metacognitive skills in young children with mathematics learning disabilities. In D. Van der Aalsvoort, W.C.M. Sesing, & A.J.J.M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment and cognitive training (pp. 307-333). Elsevier Science Ltd.
Ebadi, S., & Yari, V. (2015). Learners’ perspective on using dynamic assessment procedures in vocabulary knowledge development. English for Specific Purposes World, 48(16), 1-22.
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21-32.
Galloway, N. (2011). An investigation of Japanese university students’ attitudes towards English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/345128/1.hasCoversheetVersion/Final_copy_of_PHD.pdf
Gardner, R. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitude and Motivation. Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1-19). University of Hawaii Press.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitude and motivation in second language learning. Newbury House.
Goktepe, F.T. (2014). Attitudes and Motivation of Turkish Undergraduate EFL Students towards Learning the English Language. Studies in English Language Teaching, 2(3). Retrieved from HTTP
Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 46-70.
Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., & Zubrow, D. (1991). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of networked technologies. Written Communication, 8(1), 79-113.
Hassaskhah, J. & Javan Haghparast, M. (2012). A comparative study of the impact of models on the writing ability and attitude of Iranian EFL learners. The Buckingham Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5, 38-51
Hirvela, A, Qian, D. (2013): Why am I paraphrasing?’: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 87–98.
Hyland, K. (2003a). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
Hyland, K. (2003b). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Context and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-19). CUP.
Jacobs, E. L. (1998). Kidtalk: A computerized language screening test. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 9(2), 113–131.
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.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 49-72.
Khdabakhsh, S, Abbasian, Gh. R, & Rashtchi, M. (2018). Incorporation of dynamic assessment models into developing language awareness and metacognitive strategy use in writing classes. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(4), 55-79.
Khdabakhsh, S, Abbasian, Gh. R, & Rashtchi, M (2020). Developments of English language speaking skills, awareness, and metacognitive strategy use in the light of dynamic assessment models. Teaching English Language, 14(2), 145-172.
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer-mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.
Latifah, A.L., Mansor, F., Ramli, B., Wardah, M., & Ng Man, S. (2011). The Role of Motivation, Attitude, Anxiety, and Instrumental Orientation in Influencing Learners’ Performance in English as Second Language in OUM. Retrieved from http:// eprints. oum. edu.my/565/1/role_motivation.pdf
Lee, C., Wong, K., Cheung, W., & Lee, F. (2009). Web-based essay critiquing system and EFL students’ writing: A quantitative and qualitative investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 57-72.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 66–78.
Mahreez, A. (1994). The Factors Influencing the Malaysian Chinese Attitudes towards Leaning English as a Second Language (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Essex. Retrieved from http:// etd. uum. edu. My /608 /2 /Ahmad_Mahreez_Abdul_Ghani_1994.pdf.
Milton, J. (1999). Lexical thickets and electronic gateways: Making text accessible by novice writers. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland. (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes, and practices (pp. 221-243). Longman.
Mohd Sallehhudin, A.A. (1994). Attitude towards English: A Survey of UKM Undergraduates, Akademika, 44, 85-99. Retrieved from http:// www. ukm. my/penerbit/akademika/jakad_44-05-lock.pdf
Montero-Fleta, B., & Pérez-Sabater, C. (2010). Research on blogging as a platform to enhance language skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 773-777.
Pennington, M. C. (2003). The impact of the computer in second language writing. Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.019
Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension. IJAL, 15(1), 73-95.
Poehner, M.E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323–340.
Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Springer Publishing.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005).Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233-265.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Retrieved from http:// ltr. sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/22/1362168813482 935.
Rao, P. (2019). Effective teaching of writing skills to the English language learners. International Journal of English Language, Literature, and Translation Studies (IJELR), 6(4), 196-205.
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation, and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. Edward Arnold.
Shams Hosseini, H. & Modarresi, G. (2015). Construction, validation and application of CALL knowledge scale for EFL learners and its relationship with their L2 writing skills. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 5(2), 309-333.
Snow, C.C., & Miles, R.E. (1990). The role of strategy in the development of a general theory of organizations. In R. Lamb (Ed.), Advances in strategic management, 2, 231-259. JAI Press
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.
Tahaineh, Y. & Daana, H. (2013) Jordanian undergraduates’ motivations and attitudes towards learning English in EFL context. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(2), 159-180.
Taheri, R. and Dastjerdi, H. V. (2016). Impact of Dynamic Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Picture-cued Writing. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and research, 4(13), 129-144.
Teo, A. (2012). Promoting students’ inferential reading skills through computerized dynamic assessment. Language Learning and Technology, 16(3), 10-20.
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer-assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 21-32.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. The MIT Press.
Wang, Y.-J., Shang, H.-F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257.
Ware, P. D., & Warchauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 105-122). CUP.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58.
Wichadee, S. (2011). Using wikis to develop summary writing abilities of students in an EFL class. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(12), 5–10.
Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
Yang, X. (2012). Attitude and Motivation in L2 Learning among UM Master Students. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 1(1), 13-22.
Yeh, H. C. (2014). Facilitating metacognitive processes of academic genre-based writing using an online writing system.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 479-498.
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining Language Learning &Technology, 21(1), 146-16.
Zafarani, Z., & Maftoon, P. (2016). Investigating dynamic writing assessment in a web 2.0 asynchronous collaborative computer-mediated context. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 19(2) 195-240
Zemach D. E., & Rumisek L. A. (2003).College writing from paragraph to essay. Macmillan Publishing.
Zoghi, M., & Malmeer, E. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ intrinsic motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 584-591
