Incorporation of Dynamic Assessment Models into Developing Language Awareness and Metacognitive Strategy Use in Writing Classes

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Foreign Languages, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran

3 TEFL Department, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Dynamic Assessment (DA) has become a growing trend in education in general and language education in particular. The present mixed-methods study aimed at implementing two different models of DA known as the interventionist and the interactionist models regarding developing EFL learners’ level of language awareness (LA) and metacognitive strategy use (MSU) in the process of writing instruction. The participants of the study included 60 Iranian undergraduate students majoring in English Translation Studies. Quantitative analysis of the data revealed that the participants in the experimental groups were able to gain higher levels of LA than their control group counterparts; however, both interventionist and interactionist models of DA entailed relatively similar effects. In the case of MSU, the results showed that neither the interventionist nor the interactionist models of DA of writing resulted in higher levels of MSU. Nevertheless, during the qualitative phase (i.e., interviews analysis) most of the participants in the experimental groups reported some changes in their LA and MSU as a result of DA. The results of the study can shed light on some aspects of integrating DA in English as a foreign language (EFL) education in terms of not only skill development but also cognitive and personality changes.The findings can bear lucrative insights for various practitioners ranged from classroom teachers and EFL researchers to those who are involved in strategic education.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

تلفیق الگوهای ارزیابی پویا در کلاس های مهارت های نوشتاری به منظور بهبود سطح آگاهی زبانی و بکارگیری راهبردهای فراشناختی

Authors [Persian]

  • سمانه خدابخش 1
  • غلامرضا عباسیان 2
  • مژگان رشتچی 3
1 دانشکده ادبیات فارسئ و زبان های خارجی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران
2 دانشگاه امام علی، تهران، ایران
3 ایران- تهران-واحد تهران شمال- دانشگاه آزاد- دپارتمان زبان
Abstract [Persian]

در سال های اخیر ارزیابی پویا به یکی از روندهای رو به رشد در زمینه آموزش و پرورش و بالاخص آموزش زبان های خارجی تبدیل شده است. تحقیق حاضر با بهره گیری از روش ترکیبی (کمی و کیفی) به بررسی تأثیرات دو الگوی متفاوت از ارزیابی پویا (تداخلی و تعاملی) بر آگاهی زبانی و بکارگیری راهبردهای فراشناختی در زبان آموزان ایرانی طی فرآیند آموزش مهارت های نوشتاری پرداخته است. بدین منظور 60 دانشجوی مقطع کارشناسی رشته مترجمی زبان انگلیسی برای شرکت در این پژوهش انتخاب شدند. در زمینه آگاهی زبانی، تحلیل کمی داده ها تفاوت معنی داری بین نتایج به دست آمده از گروه های کنترل و آزمایشی نشان داد، اگرچه هر دو الگوی تداخلی و تعاملی تأثیرات مشابهی داشتند. در زمینه بکارگیری راهبردهای فراشناختی، نتایج تحقیق حاکی از آن بود که هیچیک از الگوهای تداخلی و تعاملی از نظر کمی به ایجاد تفاوت معنی دار در زبان آموزان منجر نشد. با این وجود در جریان مصاحبه های پایان دوره ،دانشجویان شرکت کننده در هر دو گروه آزمایشی (تعاملی و تداخلی) اذعان داشتند که ارزیابی پویا تأثیرات مثبتی بر جنبه های مختلف آگاهی زبانی و بکارگیری راهبردهای فراشناختی آنان داشته است. نتایج این پژوهش می تواند گامی مؤثر در جهت ادغام فرآیند ارزیابی و آموزش برداشته و تأثیرات ارزیابی پویا بر جنبه های مختلف آموزش زبان های خارجی را بیش از پیش روشن سازد. نتایح این تحقیق می تواند موجب ارتقا بینش و تغییر نوع نگرش دست اندرکاران حوزه آموزش زبان از جمله مدرسین، محققین و تصمیم گیرندگان سیستم آموزشی شود.

Keywords [Persian]

  • ارزیابی پویای تداخلی
  • ارزیابی پویای تعاملی
  • مهارت نوشتاری
  • آگاهی زبانی
  • راهبردهای فراشناختی
 Aghaebrahimian, A., Rahimirad, M., Ahmadi, A., & Khalilpour Alamdari, J. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing skill in advanced EFL Iranian learners. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 60–67. 

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), 37–56.

Ahmadi Safa, M., Donyaei, S., & Malek Mohamadi, R. (2016). 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

Ahmadi, A., & Barabadi, A. (2014). Examining Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of grammar through a computerized dynamic test. Issues in Language Teaching, 3(2), 161–183.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.

Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576–598

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160.

Barzegar, R., & Azarizad, R. (2013). Using dynamic assessment to improve L2 learners’ knowledge of grammar: evidence from the tenses. Classroom-oriented Research,10, 219-227.

Birjandi, P., Estaji, M., & Deyhim, T. (2013). The Impact of dynamic assessment on reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Iranian high school learners. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 3(2), 60-77.

Brook-Hart, G., & Jakeman, V. (2012). Complete IELTS bands 5-6.5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, A., & Ferrara, R. A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture,Communication and cognition. Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273-306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Budoff, M. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactive approach to evaluating learning potential (pp52-81). New York: Guilford.

Carter, R. (2003). Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(1), 64–65. 

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Daneshfar, S., Aliasin, S. H., & Hashemi, A. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on grammar achievement of Iranian third grade secondary school EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(3), 295–305. 

Ebadi, S., & Yari, V. (2017). Investigating the effects of using dynamic assessment procedures on the EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge development. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies4(3), 49-72.

Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness, 8(2), 71–83. 

Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Examining the impact of concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment on reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Review in Life Sciences, 5(6), 798–804.

Farahian, M., & Rezaee, M. (2015). Language awareness in EFL context: An overview. International Journal of LanguageLiterature and Culture, 2(2), 19–21.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE.

Firkins, A., Forey, G., & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students. ELT Journal61(4), 341-352.

Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Press.

Hatch, E. M., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers.

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.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of grammar with different age groups. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1707–1714

McNamara, T. (2004). Language testing. In A. Davies, & E. Catherine(Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 763–783). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

O’Malley, M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 124–132). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56.

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment a Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 developement. University Park, PA: Springer.

Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania, USA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47(2), 289–325. 

Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). The role of metacognitive listening strategies awareness and podcast-use readiness in using podcasting for learning English as a foreign language. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1153–1161.

Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 18–39. 

Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 315–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Shenton, A. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.

Thouësny, S. (2010). Assessing second language learners' written texts: An interventionist and interactionist approach to dynamic assessment. proceeding of the world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunication. Toronto, Canada: (EDMEDIA).

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1998). The problem of age. In R. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 187-205). New York: Plenum.

Weisgerber, J. (2015). Bridging the gap between instruction and assessment: Examining the role of dynamic assessment in the oral proficiency skills of English-as-an-additional-language learners. The Arbutus Review, 6(1), 25–40.

Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press) , 33 (1), 24-40.

Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Languages Teaching, 10, 54-69.