Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Razi University, Iran
2 MA of Applied Linguistics, Razi University, Iran
Abstract
This study seeks to provide insights into the process of vocabulary learning and promoting vocabulary knowledge by tracking its development in dynamic assessment (DA) procedures through thematic and microgenetic analysis. In order to meet the aim of this study, three male and three female EFL learners were chosen non-randomly based on their availability. All the participants were beginners with regard to their vocabulary knowledge. The participants voluntarily attended 15 DA sessions throughout each session a few new vocabulary items were presented using different techniques of teaching vocabulary. The participants received corrective feedback within their zone of proximal development (ZPD). They were provided with appropriate levels of help by moving gradually and using prompts through the regulatory scale from the most implicit to the most explicit assistance which emerged from the individualized mediation between the mediator and the learners. The results of the study indicated that using DA procedure can enhance the development of vocabulary knowledge among EFL learners.
Keywords
Abdolrezapour, P., Tavakoli, M., & Ketabi, S. (2013). Emotionalized dynamic assessment as a key to enhancing learner's emotion in an L2 context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 323-330.
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Review, 78, 465-483.
Antón, M. (2003, March). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics. Washington DC.
Astika, G. G. (1993). Analytical assessments of foreign students' writing. RELC Journal, 24(1), 61-70.
Birjandi, P., & Ebadi, S. (2012). Microgenesis in dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ socio-cognitive development via web 2.0. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 34-39.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boyle, J. P. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT Journal, 38(1), 34-38.
Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Learning.
Chang, A. C. S. (2007). The impact of vocabulary preparation on L2 listening comprehension, confidence and strategy use. System, 35(4), 534-550.
Ciftci, H., & Uster, S. (2009). A comparative analysis of teaching vocabulary in context and by definition. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1568-1572.
Cioffi, G., & Carney, J. J. (1983). Dynamic assessment of reading disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 36(8), 764-768.
Daly, J., Kellehear, A., Gliksman, M., & Daly, K. G. (1997). The public health researcher: a methodological guide (pp. 107-122). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Erten, I. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36(3), 407-422.
Fatemipour, H., & Jafari, F. (2015). The effect of dynamic-assessment on the development of passive vocabulary of intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 5(1), 41-51.
Groot, P. J. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 60-81.
Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computation and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59, 267-333.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 49-72.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Technique and principle in language teaching (2nded.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lavelli, M., Pantoja, A. P., Hsu, H., Messinger, D. & Fogel, A. (2005). Using microgenetic designs to study change processes. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 40–65). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System, 31(4), 537-561.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students' perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. Tesol Quarterly, 28(1), 81-101.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford Press.
Marzban, A., & Amoli, F. A. (2012). The effect of mnemonic strategies instruction on the immediate and delayed information retrieval of vocabulary learning in EFL elementary learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4957-4961.
McGraw, I., Yoshimoto, B., & Seneff, S. (2009). Speech-enabled card games for incidental vocabulary acquisition in a foreign language. Speech Communication, 51(10), 1006-1023.
Mehrpour, S., & Rahimi, M. (2010). The impact of general and specific vocabulary knowledge on reading and listening comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. System, 38(2), 292-300.
Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English language learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2), 22.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language learning and teaching. New York: Newbery House.
Oskoz, A. (2005). Students' dynamic assessment via online chat. CALICO journal, 22(3), 513-536.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 2(1), 9-29.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 73-95.
Pishghadam, R., Barabadi, E., & Kamrood, A. M. (2011). The differing effect of computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension on high and low achievers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), 1353-1358.
Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (Vol. 9). New York: Springer.
Rahimi, M., Momeni, G., & Nejati, R. (2012). The impact of lexically-based language teaching on students’ achievement in learning English as a foreign language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 31-36.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. Tesol Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.) (2002), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, J. C., & Rodgers, S.T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saeidi, M., & Hosseinpour, A. (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.
Santos, T. (1988). Professors' reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. Tesol Quarterly, 22, 69-90.
Scheneider, E., & Ganschow, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment and instructional strategies for learners who struggle to learn a foreign language. Dyslexia, 6, 72-82.
Schinke‐Llano, L. (1993). On the value of a Vygotskian framework for SLA theory and research. Language Learning, 43(1), 121-129.
Shabani, K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ reading comprehension processes: A Vygotskian perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321-328.
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers' professional development. English language teaching, 3(4), 237-248.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cmbridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302.
Thouesny, S. (Jun, 2010). Assessing second language learners’ written texts: An interventionist and interactionist approach to dynamic assessment. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. Torento, Canada.
Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46(1), 178-94.
van Compernolle, R.A., & Kinginger, C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the ZPD. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 282-302.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Second language study (pp. 79-91).Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Edward Arnold, London.
Zoghi, M., & Malmeer, E. (2013b). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ intrinsic motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 584-591.
)