Interactionist and Interventionist Dynamic Assessment Approaches to Teaching Argumentative Writing: Do Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency Develop?
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
آیدا رحمانی فرهیخته
1
(
گروه انگلیسی، واحد علوم وتحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
)
مژگان رشتچی
2
(
گروه انگلیسی، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
)
مسعود یزدانی مقدم
3
(
گروه انگلیسی، واحد گرمسار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
)
کلید واژه: writing proficiency, mediation, EFL teachers, Feedback, teaching writing,
چکیده مقاله :
Complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) are measures of language proficiency in productive skills. This study with a non-equivalent control group pretest-post-test design explored whether Dynamic Assessment (DA) procedures enhances EFL teachers' writing CAF. Three 22-member groups of homogeneous teachers were randomly assigned to one control group (Non-DA), an interactionist DA group (IA-DAG), and an interventionist DA group (IV-DAG). After the nine-session treatment, the study groups took a writing post-test. A one-way ANOVA test showed that the experimental groups outperformed the control group, although no significant differences were found between DA groups. Besides, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups' writing complexity. Considering accuracy, IA-DAG outperformed Non-DAG whereas no significant differences were observed between the experimental groups and between IV-DAG and Non-DAG. Fluency measures showed the superiority of DA groups to the control group. The first conclusion was that DA processes have a decisive role in improving writing skills and the CAF triad. Second, CAF components do not develop in a linear process, and employing DA procedures can be useful for its improvement. The paper has implications for language teachers and SLA researchers.
تحقیق حاضر با طرح پژوهشی پیش آزمون- پس آزمون با گروه کنترل غیرهمسان به بررسی تاثیر ارزشیابی پویا به دو صورت تعاملی و تداخلی بر توانایی نگارش استدلالی معلمان زبان انگلیسی پرداخت. همچنین پژوهشگران در صدد اندازه گیری سه عامل پیچیدگی، درستی و سلاست در مهارت نوشتار معلمان زبان پس از آموزش های تعاملی و تداخلی ارزشیابی پویا بودند. به همین منظور سه گروه بیست و دو نفری از معلمان با سطح زبان یکسان بطور تصادفی به سه گروه کنترل، ارزشیابی پویای تعاملی و ارزشیابی پویای تداخلی تقسیم شدند. پس از نه جلسه آموزش، گروه ها در پس آزمون مهارت نوشتاری شرکت کردند. آزمون تجزیه و تحلیل واریانس یک طرفه نشانگر عملکرد بهتر دو گروه آزمایش نسبت به گروه کنترل در نگارش متون استدلالی بود اگر چه از لحاظ آماری تفاوت معناداری بین دو گروه آزمایش مشاهده نشد. همچنین بین دو گروه در زمینه پیچیدگی مهارت نوشتار استدلالی تفاوت آماری معناداری دیده نشد. از نظر درستی، عملکرد گروه تعاملی بهتر از گروه کنترل بود. در حالیکه تفاوت معنادار بین دو گروه آزمایش مشاهده نشد.در سنجش سلاست گروه های ارزیابی پویا بر گروه کنترل برتری نشان دادند. این مقاله در بر گیرنده ی نتایج و پیشنهادهایی برای سایر محققین می باشد.
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Beheshti, S. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(3,Special Issue), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.30466/IJLTR.2018.120600
Alavi, S. M., & 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. https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2017.3956.
Cambridge IELTS11. (2016). Cambridge English IELTS: General training with answers: Authentic examination papers from Cambridge English Language Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language quisition. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/978-0194371896
Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Dynamic assessment of reading comprehension ability: Group or individualized. Education Journal, 4(6), 325-331. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20150406.11
Foster, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Capturing accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 98-116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000082
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). John Benjamins.
Khodabakhsh, S., Abbasian, G.-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. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.10826.1353
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2014). Raters' decisions, rating procedures and rating scales. Sage.
Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Sociocultural and second language learning research: An exegesis. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 359-378). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting expectations: The study of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 579-589. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp043
Mauludin, L. A., & Ardianti, T. M. (2017). The role of dynamic assessment in EFL writing class. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 1(2). 82-93. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v1i2.468
Michel, M. C. (2017). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in L2 production. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50-68). Routledge. https://doi.org/9781138936232.
Newton, J. (2013). Incidental vocabulary learning in classroom communication tasks. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 164-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812460814
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA: The Case of Complexity. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
Poehner, M. (2009). Group dynamic assessment for foreign language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x
Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208.
https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956
Rahmani, A., Rashtchi, M., & Yazdanimoghaddam, M. (2020). Employing tasks to improve Argumentative Essay Writing of EFL Teachers: A Case of Interactionist versus interventionist dynamic assessment. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 57-75.
Rashtchi, M. (2007). A pathway toward critical thinking through cooperative writing in an English college course in Iran. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, 2 (1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5339/nmejre.2007.2.1
Rashtchi, M. (2019). Scaffolding argumentative essay writing via reader-response approach: a case study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0078-2
Rashtchi, M., & Yousefi, L. M. (2017). Reading input flooding versus listening input flooding: Can they boost speaking skill? Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 5(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1515/jolace-2017-0003
Saniei, A. (2014). Raising Iranian EFL learners' pragmatic awareness of intercultural rhetoric in writing through group dynamic assessment .(Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Islamic Azad University, Research and Science Branch, Tehran, Iran. .
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Tabatabee, M., Alidoust, M., & Sarkeshikian, A. (2018). The effect of interventionist and cumulative group dynamic assessments on EFL learners' writing accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2018.36854
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). 9. Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239-273). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.11.15tav
Vercellotti, M. L. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied linguistics, 38(1), 90-111. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv002
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (E. Rice, Ed. & Trans.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/978-0674576292
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101263050
