The Role of Dynamic and Non-Dynamic Assessment in Iranian Intermediate EFL Students’ Descriptive Writing Ability
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English
Zaman Kargozari
1
,
Mohammad Rostampour
2
,
Leila Akbarpour
3
1 - Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.
2 - Departmnet of English, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran.
3 - Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
کلید واژه: Descriptive Writing, Dynamic Assessment, Interactionist DA, Interventionist DA,
چکیده مقاله :
Dynamic Assessment (DA) method which combines instruction and assessment can reveal the extent to which the language learners have acquired what they have been taught. This quasi-experimental study examined the role of interactionist and interventionist DA on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ descriptive writing ability. This study also explored whether there is any relationship between students’ attention to specific components of descriptive writing and their writing performance. To this end, 90 EFL learners who were at the intermediate level of language proficiency, based on the results of the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), constituted the sample of the study. The participants were requested to write a descriptive essay as a pretest. Then, they were randomly assigned to control, interventionist, and interactionist groups. During the mediation step, the control group was provided with the traditional teaching methodology, but the experimental groups were trained based on the DA method through distinct mediators. The students were finally asked to write a descriptive writing on a new topic for the post-test. To analyze the data, the descriptive statistics, paired samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation, and regression analyses were run. The findings of this study indicated that the dynamic assessment proved to be effective in enhancing the writing competence of the participants; however, the impact of the interactionist approach was significantly higher than the interventionist one. The findings also revealed the significant relationships between students' attention to specific components and their overall writing performance, except Mechanics. These findings highlight the effectiveness of dynamic assessment approaches, particularly the interactionist method, in enhancing EFL students' descriptive writing skills.
Dynamic Assessment (DA) method which combines instruction and assessment can reveal the extent to which the language learners have acquired what they have been taught. This quasi-experimental study examined the role of interactionist and interventionist DA on Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ descriptive writing ability. This study also explored whether there is any relationship between students’ attention to specific components of descriptive writing and their writing performance. To this end, 90 EFL learners who were at the intermediate level of language proficiency, based on the results of the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), constituted the sample of the study. The participants were requested to write a descriptive essay as a pretest. Then, they were randomly assigned to control, interventionist, and interactionist groups. During the mediation step, the control group was provided with the traditional teaching methodology, but the experimental groups were trained based on the DA method through distinct mediators. The students were finally asked to write a descriptive writing on a new topic for the post-test. To analyze the data, the descriptive statistics, paired samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation, and regression analyses were run. The findings of this study indicated that the dynamic assessment proved to be effective in enhancing the writing competence of the participants; however, the impact of the interactionist approach was significantly higher than the interventionist one. The findings also revealed the significant relationships between students' attention to specific components and their overall writing performance, except Mechanics. These findings highlight the effectiveness of dynamic assessment approaches, particularly the interactionist method, in enhancing EFL students' descriptive writing skills.
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 language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x
Bahramlou, K., & Esmaeili, A. (2019). The effects of vocabulary enhancement exercises and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(4), 889-901.
Balcikanli, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 90-103.
Bizhani, H. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a face–to–face training program on L2 writing assessment [Master thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University]. Tehran, Iran.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The nature and value of formative assessment for learning. London: King's College.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman.
Brown, M. N., & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing the features of critical thinking classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5 (3), 301-309.
Camp, H. (2012). The psychology of writing development and its implications for assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 92-105
Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 505-519.
Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous language learning: The teachers’ perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 33-54.
Connor, U. & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263–278.
Cumming, A. (2001). ESL/EFL instructors’ practices for writing assessment: specific purposes or general purposes? Language Testing, 18(2), 207–224.
Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 149–166.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners‟ listening comprehension through mediational strategies. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 4(2), 29-45.
Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160-166.
Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin Press
Ebadi, S., & Asakereh, A., & Hui Sammy King, F. (Reviewing Editor) (2017) Developing EFL learners’ speaking skills through dynamic assessment: A case of a beginner and an advanced learner. Cogent Education, 4. DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1419796
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019) Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32, 527-555. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362
Farrokh, P., & Rahmani, A. (2017) Dynamic assessment of writing ability in transcendence tasks based on Vygotskian perspective. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 2, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0033-z
Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Retrieved from http://www.byu.edu/fc/pages/tchlrnpages/Fink/FinkArticle.doc
Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment and learning. Sage Publications.
Gettinger, M. (1984). Applying learning principles to remedial spelling instruction. Academic Therapy, 20(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345128402000105
Graham, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Writing education around the globe: Introduction and call for a new global analysis. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 781-792.
Hargreaves, H. (2007). The validity of collaborative assessment for learning. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 1–14.
Harsch, C. & Poehner Matthew E. (2016) Enhancing student experiences abroad: the potential of dynamic assessment to develop student interculturality, Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(3), 470-490, DOI: 10.1080/14708477.2016.1168043
Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537-545
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon.
Jones, J., & Wiliam, D. (2008). Modern foreign languages inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the modern foreign languages classroom. Granada Learning.
Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107, 1-13.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskyan praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.11.003
Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-119). Cambridge University Press
Little, D. (1994). Learner autonomy: A theoretical construct and its practical application. Die Neuere Sprache, 93(5), 430-442
Littlejohn, A. (1985). Learner choice in language study. ELT Journal, 39(4), 253-261.
Marashi, H., & Jafari, R. (2012). The comparative effect of using critical thinking, constructivist learning, and a combination of the two techniques on EFL learners’ writing. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(4), 206- 225.
Marlin, B. M. (2003). Modeling user rating profiles for collaborative filtering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 16, 1-14.
McConnell, D. (2002). The experience of collaborative assessment in E-learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24(1), 2002, 73–93.
Moll, L. C. (2013). LS Vygotsky and education. Routledge.
Murphey, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the production of courses for distance learners of French, German, and Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 1-2.
Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English language learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-2-2-22
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Sadeghi, K., & Khanahmadi, F. (2011). Dynamic assessment of L2 grammar of Iranian EFL learners: The role of mediated learning experience. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 931-936.
Sadeghi, K., & Rahmati, T. (2017). Integrating assessment as, for, and of learning in a large-scale exam preparation course. Assessing Writing, 34, 51–61. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.09.003
Siyyari, M. (2011). On the cross relationship between self/peer assessment: Rating accuracy and personality traits, and the contribution to writing performance. [Doctoral dissertation, Allameh Tabataba’i University]. Tehran, Iran.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press
