Impact of Dynamic Assessment on the Writing Performance of English as Foreign Language Learners in Asynchronous Web 2.0 and Face-to-face Environments
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمهZohreh Zafarani 1 , Parviz Maftoon 2
1 - English Department
College of Foreign Languages and Literature
Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University
Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of English
College of Foreign Languages and Literature
Science and Research Branch
Islamic Azad University
Tehran
Iran
کلید واژه: Dynamic Assessment, Asynchronous collaborative computer mediation, Process Writing, Syntactic Complexity, Vocabulary complexity,
چکیده مقاله :
This study sought to investigate dynamic assessment (DA) - an assessment approach that embeds inter- vention within the assessment process and that yields information about the learner’s responsiveness to this intervention - and the writing performance of the second language (L2) learners in Web 2.0 contexts. To this end, pre and post-treatment writings of 45 participants were analyzed to examine the impact of asynchronous collaborative computer mediation and face-to-face collaborative mediation on L2 learners’ writing performance. Three textual features of syntactic complexity, vocabulary complexity, and quantity of the overall information conveyed in the learners’ pre and post-tests served as the basic units of analy- sis. The findings of the present study indicated that using blogging as a Web 2.0 tool to provide mediation contributed more to the enhancement of the overall writing performance. Moreover, the asynchronous collaborative computer mediated group, as compared to the face to face mediated group, showed signifi- cant improvement in the vocabulary complexity, syntactic complexity, and quantity of overall infor- mation presented in a single paragraph. The findings of the present study also revealed that DA proce- dures were applicable via Web 2.0 tools and were advantageous to L2 learners’ writing performance sug- gesting that L2 practitioners and instructors should dynamically consider the integration of Web 2.0 tech- nology into L2 writing courses.
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/5374
Akcay, A., & Arslan, A. (2010). The using of blogs in Turkish education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1195-1199.
Alavi, M.S., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: the impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners' internalization of writing skills and starategies. Educational Assessment, 19 (16), 335-378.
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(4), 465-483.
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). High-tech, high-touch: From discussion to composition in the networked classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(1), 57-69.
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.
Chafe, W. L. (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of narrative. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 9-50). NJ: Norwood.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. United States of America: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Hildyard, A., & Hidi, S. (1985). The production and recall of narratives. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 285-306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. IL: Champaign.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2014). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757-786.
Lan, Y., & Cheng, L. (2005). A research on domestic research on EFL writing. Retrieved from
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-WYJY200505000.htm
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49-74.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2), 141-157.
Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Montero-Fleta, B., & Pérez-Sabater, C. (2010). A research on blogging as a platform to enhance language skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 773-777.
Mueller, D. N. (2009). Digital underlife in the networked writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 26, 240-250.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noytima, U. (2010). Weblogs enhancing EFL students’ English language learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1127-1132.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: Springer.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 312-330.
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), 1-21.
Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337-357.
Radia, P., & Stapleton, P. (2009). Unconventional sources as a new convention: The shifting paradigm of undergraduate writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 156-164.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Santos, T. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnative speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69-90.
Sarieva, L. (2007). The communicative two-way pre-writing task performed via asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication and its influence on the writing expertise development of adult English language learners: A mixed design study Doctoral Dissertations. University of South Florida. Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/2352
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70.
Thomas, M. (2009). Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning. New York: Information science reference.
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Mediating technologies and second language learning. In D. Leu, J. Coiro, C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New Literacies (pp. 417-449). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos, & C. Brown (Eds.), The use of weblogs in language education: New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15-25). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Xiaoxia, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
Zaini, A., Kemboja, I., & Supyan, H. (2011). Blogs in language learning: Maximizing students’ collaborative writing. Procedia SBS(18), 537-543.
