A Mixed Method Study of Interventionist DA: A Case of Introvert vs. Extrovert EFL Learners’ Academic Essay Writing
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
مهدیه شفیع پور
1
(
گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحدشهر قدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
)
فرناز لطیف
2
(
گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد یادگار امام- شهر ری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
)
کلید واژه: perceptions, DA, Interventionist DA, academic essay writing, introvert, extrovert,
چکیده مقاله :
Today, great a number of assessment methods have been practiced in educational systems. However, Dynamic Assessment (DA), as the modern assessment method with its emphasis on improvement and development of learning through joining teaching and assessment, is of paramount significance. Thus, one can call DA as a major and revolutionizing factor in teaching and assessment. So far, some conducted studies have dealt with the efficacy of DA on different language areas. In line with the relevant studies conducted, the present study worked on the effect of interventionist DA on introvert versus extrovert learners’ academic essay writing in English language translation students at Islamic Azad University Shahr-e-Qods Branch. As a result, it was confirmed that DA had a statistically significant effect on the academic essay writing of both Iranian introvert and extrovert EFL learners. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference between the performances of the extroverts vs. introverts on academic essay writing while applying interventionist DA. In other words, the extroverts had higher scores in their posttests compared to the introverts. Moreover, the results of the attitude questionnaire revealed that the extroverts had more positive attitude towards the application of DA than the introverts.
امروزه تعداد زیادی از روشهای ارزیابی در سیستمهای آموزشی مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است. با این حال ، ارزیابی پویا به عنوان روش ارزیابی مدرن با تأکید بر بهبود و پیشرفت یادگیری از طریق تلفیق تدریس و ارزیابی مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. بنابرین میتوان ارزیابی پویا را به عنوان روشی مهم و بسیار متفاوت در نظر گرفت. تا به امروز، ارزیابی پویا در زمینه ها و مهارت های مختلف زبانی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. در راستای مطالعات انجام شده، تحقیق حاضر با هدف بررسی تاثیر ارزیابی پویای مداخله گر بر روی مهارت نگارش انگلیسی آکادمیک 160 دانشجویان ایرانی درون گرا و برون گرای سال دوم رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهر قدس انجام شده است. نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که از نظر آماری تفاوت معنی داری بین عملکرد برونگراها در مقابل درونگراها درمهارت نگارش انگلیسی آکادمیک، هنگام استفاده از روش ارزیابی پویای مداخله گر وجود دارد. به عبارت دیگر ،برونگراها در پس آزمون خود نمرات بالاتری نسبت به افراد درونگرا داشتند. همچنین نتایج پرسشنامه نگرش نشان داد که برون گرا ها نسبت به افراد درونگرا نگرش مثبت تری در ارتباط با ارزیابی پویا دارند.
Abbasi, A., & Fatemi, M. (2015). On the effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian pre-Intermediate TEFL learners’ acquisition of English tenses. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(4), 222-236.
Abbasian, G. R., & Khadempir, F. (2019). Implementation and assessment challenges in Iranian secondary high school EFL program. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 11(23), 1-20.
Ahmadi Safa, M., Donyaei, S., & Malek Mohamadi, R. (2015). An investigation into the effect of interactionist versus interventionist models of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners‟ speaking skill proficiency. Teaching English Language, 9(2), 153–172.
Akbari, R., & Yazdanmehr, E. (2011). EFL teachers’ recruitment and dynamic assessment in private language institutes of Iran. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 8, 29-51.
Alavi, 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, 1-16.doi:10.1080/10627197.2014.869446
Bavali, M., Yamini, M., & Sadighi, F. (2011). Dynamic assessment in perspective: Demarcating dynamic and non- dynamic boundaries. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 895-902. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.4.895-902.
Besharati, F. (2018). An Interactionist Dynamic assessment of essay writing via Google Docs: A case of three Iranian EFL university students. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 96-114.
Brown, A. L., & French, L. A. (1979). The zone of proximal development: Implication for intelligence testing in the year 2000. Intelligence, 23, 255-273.
Cain, S. (2013). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking. Broadway Books.
Cioffi, G., & Carney, J. J. (1983). The dynamic assessment of reading disabilities. Reading Teacher, 36, 764-768.
Dorfler, T., Golke, S., & Artlet, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment Elliott, J.G. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: realizing potential. Educational Review, 55, 15-32.
Es-hagi Sardrood, S. J. (2011). Dynamic Assessment in Iranian EFL Classrooms: A post-method Enquiry. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 48-63.
Fahmy, M. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on adult learners of Arabic: A mixed-method study at the defense language institute foreign language center (Doctoral dissertation). University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Ghahremani, D., & Azarizad, R. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL process writing: Content and organization. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (4), 874-878.
Ghonsooly, B., & Hassanzadeh, T. (2019). Effect of interactionist dynamic assessment on English vocabulary learning: Cultural perspectives infocus. Issues in Educational Research, 29(1), 70-88.
Hjelle, A., & Ziegler, J. K. (1992). Personality theories. (3rd, Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kamali, M., Abbasi, M., & Sadighi, F. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(1), 72-78. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.1p.72
Kazemi, A., Bagheri, M. S., & Rassaei, H. (2020). Dynamic assessment in English classrooms: Fostering learners’ reading comprehension and motivation. Cogent Psychology, 7, 1-10. doi:org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1788912
Khodabakhsh, 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.
Khorami Fard, S., & Derakhshi, Z. (2019). On the role of dynamic assessment on promotion of writing linguistic accuracy among EFL learners: An interventionist model. International Journal of Research in English Education 4(2), 14-28. doi: 10.29252/ijree.4.2.14
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 49-72. doi:10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257-278.
Lidz CS.1991. Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
Lussier, C. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Dynamic assessment: A selective synthesis of the experimental literature. In G. M. van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M. Resting, & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (eds.). Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (pp.65-87) New York: Elsevier. 65-87.
Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of grammar with different age groups. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1707-1713.doi:10.4304/tpls.4.8.1707-1713.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassPublishers.doi:10.4304/tpls.4.8.1707-1713
Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 95-21. doi: 10.1177/136216880000400202
Nematizadeh, S. (2011). The relationship between gender and learner types and oral performance of Iranian EFL students. (Unpublished M.A. Thesis), Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An Investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ process writing development. doi:10.1177/2158244018784643
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Saeidi, M., & Hosseinpour, H. (2013). The Effect of dynamic assessment as an instructional tool on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(10), 421-429.
Shabani, K. (2012). Group dynamic assessment: Instructional implications for L2 listening Comprehension (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
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.doi:10.14744/alrj.2018.36854
Thouësny, S. (2010). Assessing second language learners’ written texts: An interventionist and interactionist approach to dynamic assessment. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA), Toronto, Canada.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Child Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 187-205). New York: Plenum.
Wistner, B., Sakai, H., & Abe, M. (2009). An analysis of the Oxford placement test and the Michigan English Placement test as L2 proficiency tests. Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters, Hosei University, 58, 33-44. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/
Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
