تأثیر ارزشیابی پوشه‌ایی بر صحت دستوری و پیچیدگی نوشتاری دانشجویان کارشناسی‌ارشد آموزش زبان‌انگلیسی
محورهای موضوعی : روانشناسی تربیتی
زهره سیفوری
1
(گروه زبان‌انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران)
کلید واژه: نوشتار, پیچیدگی, صحت دستوری, ارزشیابی پوشه‌ایی, بازخورد تعاملی,
چکیده مقاله :
تحقیق شبه تجربی حاضر به بررسی تأثیر ارزشیابی پوشه ایی بر صحت دستوری و پیچیدگی نوشتاری دانشجویان کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان پرداخته است و بر این فرضیه تحقیق استوار می‌باشد که شرکت در فرآیند ارزشیابی عملکرد خود توجه زبان آموزان را نسبت به ویژگی‌های صوری و متنی کلام نوشتاری جلب نموده و موجب پیشرفت آنها می‌شود. آزمودنی‌های حاضر در این پژوهش شامل 40 دانشجوی مقطع کارشناسی‌ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی از جمعیت پنجاه نفری دانشجویانی انتخاب شدند که درس نگارش پیشرفته را اخذ نموده و پس از تأیید همگنی در مهارت‌های درک مطلب و نوشتار به صورت تصادفی به دو گروه تحقیق و شاهد تعیین شدند. هر دو گروه به مدت 12 جلسه بر اساس مطالب آموزشی یکسان و روش تدریس فرآیند-محور توام با بازخورد تعاملی، خود ویراستاری و بازخورد معلم آموزش دریافت نمودند. گروه تحقیق به صورت هفتگی در ارزشیابی پوشه‌ایی تکالیف نوشتاری خود نیز شرکت نمودند. تحلیل آماری داده‌های پس‌آزمون نشانگر پیشرفت معنی‌دار گروه تحقیق در صحت دستوری و پیچیدگی نوشتاری بود. نتایج پژوهش ضرورت شرکت دادن دانشجویان کارشناسی‌ارشد آموزش انگلیسی در فرآیند آموزش و ارزشیابی پیشرفت آموزشی خود را مورد تأکید قرار می‌دهد و کاربردهای آموزشی بسیاری دارد
This quasi-experimental study examined the impact of portfolio assessment (PA) on the accuracy and complexity of postgraduate TEFL students’ writing. It was hypothesized that engaging learners in the process of assessing their performance can focus their attention on formal and textual features and thereby promote their writing. 40 intermediate TEFL postgraduate students, selected from a population of 50 taking the “Advanced Writing Course” at Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch, participated in the study and were randomly assigned as the control and experimental groups after their homogeneity was assessed based on a Preliminary English Test (PET) and a writing test. Both groups received process-oriented instruction based on the same teaching materials for 12 sessions and underwent a process-oriented teaching approach complemented by interactive feedback, peer-editing, and teacher’s feedback on their writing samples. The experimental group was additionally engaged in weekly PA of their wiring. The paired samples t-test analysis of their writing post-test revealed that the experimental group surpassed the control group and produced more accurate and complex texts. The results accentuate the significance of engaging postgraduate TEFL students not only in the learning process but also in the process of evaluating their own progress over time, and offer pedagogical implications
References:
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University press.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Masoun, A. (2014). The effect of self-assessment on EFL learners’ goal orientation. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 25-48.
Barootchi, N., & Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolio assessment and teacher-made tests. Educational Research, 44(3), 279-288.
Belanoff, P., & Dickson, M. (1991). Portfolios: Process and product. Portsmouth, NH: Goynton/Cook Publishers Inc.
Clarke, J. L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in foreign language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coombe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). Assessing English Language Learners. Michigan: Michigan Publishing.
Ediger, M. (2000). Assessment with portfolio and rubric use. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440127). Retrieved from ERIC database: http://www.eric.ed.gov/:q=Assessment with portfolio and rubric use.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59-84.
Faravani, A. & Atai, M. R. (2015). Merging multiple intelligence with dialogic-based portfolio assessment to expedite Iranian EFL learners’ higher order thinking skills. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 6(4), 19-44.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215-247.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Genesee, F., and Upshur, J. (1996). Classroom–based evaluation in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gomez, E. (2000). Assessment portfolios: Including English language learners in large-scale assessments. Retrieved from ERIC database: http://www. eric.ed.gov/?q=Assessment portfolios%3A+IncludingEnglish language learners in large scale assessment
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfield, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Jafarigohar, M., & Mortazavi, M. (2013). The effects of different types of reflective journal writing on learners’ self-regulated learning. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 59-78.
Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M. C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 54 (1), 10-23.
Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79-96.
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.
Mousavi, A. (1999). A dictionary of language testing. Teharn: Rahnam publication.
Nezakatgoo, B. (2011). Portfolio as a viable alternative in writing assessment. Journal of Langue Teaching and Research. 2(4), 747-756.
O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches for teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Paulson, F. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48 (5), 60-63.
Polio, C. G. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Second language writing (pp. 91-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners’ changes inlinguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.
Phillips, D. (1996). Longman preparation course for the TOEFL test (2nd Ed.). New York: Longman.
Qinghua, L. (2010). The impact of portfolio-based writing assessment on EFL writing development of Chinese learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 103-116.
Reid, J. (2000). Advanced EAP writing and curriculum design: What do we need to know? InR. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp.28–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shohamy, E., & Walton, R. (1992). Language assessment for feedback: Testing and other strategies.Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Song, B., & August, B. (2002). Using portfolios to assess the writing of ESL students: Apowerful alternative? Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 49-72.
Spencer, D. M. (1999). An exploration of portfolio assessment and its influence on children’snwriting(Unpublished master's thesis). Regina University, Canada.
Spolsky, B. (1992). Diagnostic testing revisited. In Shohamy, E. & Walton, R.A., (Eds.), Language assessment and feedback: Testing and other strategies (pp. 29-39).Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Starck, T. L. (1999). Student portfolios: Impact on writing skills and attitudes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Memphis University, Tennessee.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Tabatabaei, O., & Assefi, F. (2012). The effect of portfolio assessment technique on writing performance of EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 5(5), 138-147.
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp.239-277). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Topuz, E. (2004). The effects of two different goal setting processes on students’ attitudes towards writing and towards a writing course (Unpublished master’s thesis). BilkentUniversity, Ankara, Turkey.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, Y. H., & Liao, H. C. (2008). The application of learning portfolio assessment for students in the technological and vocational education system. Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 132-154.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. & Kim, H. Y., (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign LanguageResource Center.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on luency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Lingusitics, 24(1), 1-27.
