Volume 9, Issue 3 (7-2024)
IJREE 2024, 9(3): 16-33 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Motabar A, Babaie Shalmani H. On the Effect of Dynamic Assessment on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ L2 Grammar Learning and Retention: A Gender-Based Study. IJREE 2024; 9 (3)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-891-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-891-en.html
Department of English Language, College of Humanities, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
Abstract: (861 Views)
Dissatisfaction with product-oriented and static forms of assessment led to the emergence of process-oriented testing or dynamic assessment. Learners’ involvement in the assessment process can enhance their learning autonomy and help them process linguistic features more deeply. Accordingly, using a quantitative quasi-experimental research design, the researchers sought to explore whether utilizing DA principles would have any differential impact, believed to be statistically significant, on the Iranian male and female intermediate EFL learners’ learning and retention of English grammar. To this end, 30 EFL learners from two intact classes who were taking a general English course at Shayestegan English Language Institute, in Rasht, Iran were selected as a homoscedastic group of participants based on the scores they obtained on a sample copy of Oxford Solutions Placement Test (OSPT). The intact classes, each comprising 15 students, were then assigned to one experimental and one control group who then received treatment on their L2 grammar under different conditions: The experimental group received instruction on English grammar as per the principles of dynamic assessment in an eight-session intervention program. The control group likewise received treatment on L2 grammar over the course of the study, but they were trained using teacher-fronted instruction. Finally, the groups sat for an immediate and a delayed posttest of grammar to demonstrate their degree of learning and amount of retention of English grammar. Capitalizing on a 2 by 2 factorial design, which allowed for examination of both main and interaction effects of instructional modality and participants’ gender, the researchers employed a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to examine the participants’ performance scores. The results revealed that, regardless of participants’ gender, instruction as delivered through dynamic assessment privileged the participants in the experimental group much better than that of the conventional method in terms of their learning and retention of English grammar. A further finding was that gender did not interact with instruction modality in such a way as to produce a differential effect on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ learning and retention of English language grammar. The study carries both micro implications in the form of in-class teaching and macro implications in the form of curriculum planning and development, instructional design, and policymaking for different groups of stakeholders.
References
1. Abdolrezapour, P., & Ghanbari, S. (2021). Enhancing learning potential score in EFL listening comprehension and self-regulation through self-regulated dynamic assessment procedures. Language Testing in Asia, 2(10), 22-34. [DOI:10.1186/s40468-021-00126-5]
2. Aghajanzadeh Kiasi, G., & Rezaie, S. (2021). The effect of peer assessment and collaborative assessment on iranian intermediate EFL learners' writing ability. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, JELTAL, 3(13), 08-16. [DOI:10.32996/jeltal]
3. Abbasi, A., & Fatemi, M. A. (2015). On the effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners' acquisition of English tenses. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(4), 222-236.
4. Ahmadi, A., & Barabadi, E. (2014). Examining Iranian EFL learners' knowledge of grammar through a computerized dynamic test. Issues in Language Teaching, 3(2), 161-183. https://ilt.atu.ac.ir/article_1759_e685ee9ad14a6941bd9405ef06c275c5.pdf
5. Anton, M. (2012). Dynamic assessment. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 106-119). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203181287.ch7]
6. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
7. Baird, J., Andrich, D., Hopfenbeck, T., & Stobart, G. (2017). Assessment and learning: Fields apart? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 24, 317-350. [DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1319337]
8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socio cognitive theory. New York: Prentice Hall.
9. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2015). Peer-assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93-121. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt298oa [DOI:10.1191/0265532205lt298oa]
10. 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. [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0803.04]
11. Estaji, M., & Ameri, A. F. (2020). Dynamic assessment and its impact on pre-intermediate and high-intermediate EFL learners' grammar achievement. Cogent Education, 7(1), 135-154. [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2020.1740040]
12. Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. Hodder Education.
13. Grigorenko, E. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111-132. [DOI:10.1177/0022219408326207]
14. Huang, S. (2015). Setting writing revision goals after assessment for learning. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(4), 363-385. [DOI:10.1080/15434303.2015.1092544]
15. Jafary, M. R., Nordin, N., & Mohajeri, R. (2012). The effect of dynamic versus static assessment on syntactic development of Iranian college preparatory EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 5(7), 149-157. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v5n7p149]
16. Kamali, M., Abbasi, M., & Sadighi, F. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(1), 1291-1297. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172330.pdf [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.6n.1p.72]
17. Kazemi, A., Bagheri, M., & Rassaei, E. (2020). Dynamic assessment in English classrooms: Fostering learners' reading comprehension and motivation. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1-10. [DOI:10.1080/23311908.2020.1788912]
18. Kazemi, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2020). The comparative effect of dynamic vs. diagnostic assessment on EFL learners' speaking ability. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 3(4), 45-59.
19. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment (pp. 273-284).
20. Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257-278. [DOI:10.1080/15434300701481127]
21. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. [DOI:10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3]
22. Majdedin, M., Nabizadeh, A., & Taghinejad, A. (2015). Investigating learners' grammatical English relative pronouns through the interactionist model of dynamic assessment based on a sandwich format. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 9(1), 57-66.
23. 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 [DOI:10.4304/tpls.4.8.1707-1713]
24. Modarresi, G., & Alavi, M. (2014). Designing and validating a test battery of computerized dynamic assessment of grammar. TELL, 8(2), 1-28. doi:10.22132/tel.2014.53816
25. Mohammadi Moghadam, M. (2015). Effects of mediation on an EFL learner's grammar development: A case study of an EFL beginner student. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 101-106. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.015]
26. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York: Taylor & Francis. [DOI:10.4324/9780203850961]
27. Nazari, B., & Mansouri, S. (2014). Dynamic assessment versus static assessment: A study of reading comprehension ability in Iranian EFL. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 134-156.
28. Norris, J. M. (2016). Current uses for task-based language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 230-244. doi:10.1017/S0267190516000027 [DOI:10.1017/S0267190516000027]
29. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9]
30. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 312-330. [DOI:10.1080/10749030903338509]
31. Rezaee, A., Rahimi, S., & Mehrabi, M. (2019). Cultivating grammar knowledge of EFL learners through informed peer-dynamic assessment. International Journal of Research in English Education (IJREE), 4(3), 70-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/ijree.4.3.70 [DOI:10.29252/ijree.4.3.70]
32. Sharafi, M., & Sardareh, S. A. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL students' L2 grammar learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 102-120. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318946143_The_Effect_of_Dynamic_Assessment_on_Elementary_EFL_Students%27_L2_Grammar_Learning
33. Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, A., & Sarkeshikian, A. H. (2018). The effect of interventionist and cumulative group dynamic assessments on EFL learners' writing accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13. https://mjltm.org/article-1-117-en.pdf [DOI:10.14744/alrj.2018.36854]
34. Tzuriel, D. (2013). Dynamic assessment of young children. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
35. Van der Veen, C., Dobber, M., & Van Oers, B. (2016). Implementing dynamic assessment of vocabulary development as a trialogical learning process: A practice of teacher support in primary education schools. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 329-340. [DOI:10.1080/15434303.2016.1235577]
36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Infancy. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Child psychology (pp. 207-241). New York: Plenum Press. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-5401-1_7]
39. Wen, Q. F. (2016a). Teacher-student collaborative assessment: A new method of assessment for the production-oriented approach. Foreign Language World, 5, 37-43.
40. White, E. (2009). Are you assessment literate? Some fundamental questions regarding effective classroom-based assessment. OnCUE Journal, 3(1), 3-25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301347947_Are_you_assessment_literate_Some_fundamental_questions_regarding_effective_classroom-based_assessment
41. Wiliam, D. (2017). Assessment and learning: Some reflections. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(3), 394-403. [DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1318108]
42. Yakışıki, B., Y., & Çakır, A. (2016). Dynamic assessment of English prospective teachers' speaking skills. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 22-53.
43. Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students' peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33, 25-35. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004]
44. Zarei, A., & Khojasteh, A. (2020). Models of dynamic assessment affecting the learning of English lexical collocations. Journal of Language Horizons, 4(2), 239-259. [DOI:10.22051/lghor.2020.29463.1229]
45. Zarei, A., & Rahmaty, H. (2021). The effects of interactionist and interventionist dynamic assessment on EFL students' perfectionism, willingness to communicate, and foreign language anxiety. International Journal of Language Testing, 11(2), 13-33. https://www.ijlt.ir/article_138055_9cbdd2cc0b2b419efccc6012bdd52592.pdf
46. Zarei, A. A., & Shishegarha, E. (2024). The effect of dynamic assessment models on L2 listening and speaking anxiety. Scientific Quarterly Journal of Language Horizons, 7(4), 149-176.
47. Zhang, H., & Compernolle, R., V. (2016). Learning potential and the dynamic assessment of L Chinese grammar through elicited imitation language and sociocultural theory. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(1), 99-120. doi: [DOI:10.1558/lst.v3i1.27549]
48. Zohoor, S., & Eslami, Z. (2021). Impact of dynamic assessment principles on learning and retention of conditional sentences among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Language Related Research, 12(5), 551-557. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-50599-en.html
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
