Volume 4, Issue 3 (9-2019)
IJREE 2019, 4(3): 70-83 |
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:
Rezaee A, Rahimi S, Mehrabi M. Cultivating Grammar Knowledge of EFL Learners through Informed Peer-Dynamic Assessment. IJREE 2019; 4 (3)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-226-en.html
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-226-en.html
Language Department, Ayatollah Borujerdi University, Iran
Abstract: (5911 Views)
The present study set out to investigate if informed Peer Dynamic Assessment (P-DA), as an alternative to Dynamic Assessment (DA), can cultivate grammar learning of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. To accomplish the objectives, two intact classes including 15 female students, aged from 16 to 20, were selected and randomly assigned into two groups, namely, experimental and control at Iran Language Institute in Khorram Abad City, Lorestan Province. The experimental group was trained on principles and procedures of P-DA during two sessions to make sure that the participants know how to provide their peers with graduated feedback appropriately. Next, they were teamed up in groups of three in order to work on a number of grammatical structures embedded in their course book for ten sessions. In contrast, the control group worked on the same grammatical structures according to traditional approaches wherein feedback was given unsystematically by the teacher. Furthermore, three parallel grammar tests, designed and developed by a panel of well-experienced EFL teachers, were administered as pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test to measure the participants’ grammar knowledge prior and after the instructions. The collected data were analyzed using ANCOVA test. Results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups in terms of gain scores on the post-test. In addition, the findings indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group on the delayed post-test. In light with the findings, some pedagogical implications were presented for EFL teachers and learners.
References
1. Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in education: Principles, policy and practice, 1(8), 133-149.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.555330 [DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2011.555330.]
2. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 7(8), 465-483.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x.]
3. 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. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org.
4. Carney, J. J., & Cioffi, G. (1992). The dynamic assessment of reading abilities. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 39(2), 107-114.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655920390203 [DOI:10.1080/0156655920390203.]
5. Davin, K. J. (2011). Group dynamic assessment in an early foreign language learning program: Tracking movement through the zone of proximal development. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversational to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 303-323.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482934 [DOI:10.1177%2F1362168813482934.]
7. Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher‐directed classroom dynamic assessment: a complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 4(6), 5-22.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12012 [DOI:10.1111/flan.12012.]
8. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Embretson, E. S. (2004). The second century of ability testing: Some predictions and speculations. Measurement and Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(1), 1-32. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15366359mea0201_1. [DOI:10.1207/s15366359mea0201_1]
10. Freeman, L. D. (2014). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce Murcia (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 256-270). Boston, M.A.: Heinle and Heinle.
11. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511607516]
12. Khoshsima, H., & Rezaee, A. (2016). Applicability of peer-dynamic assessment in crowded second language classes. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(5), 929-935. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0705.13 [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0705.13]
13. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112-127. [DOI:10.1177/0143034302023001733]
14. Krashen, S. (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamum.
15. Lantolf, J. P., & Peohner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. London and New York: Rutledge [DOI:10.4324/9780203813850]
16. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions inchildren. In A. E. Kozulin, J. S. Brown, S. M. Miller, C. Heath, B. Gindis, & V. S. Ageyev (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511840975.007]
18. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned? (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. McNamara, T. F. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [DOI:10.1177/026553220101800402]
20. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskyan approach to understanding promoting second language development. Berline: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9]
21. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. [DOI:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x]
22. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 1-33. [DOI:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa]
23. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935 [DOI:10.1177%2F1362168813482935.]
24. Rezaee, A., Miri, M., & Razavipour, K. (2015). Effects of informed peer-dynamic assessment on reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics (special issue), 319-328.
25. 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]
26. van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39-60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811423340 [DOI:10.1177%2F1362168811423340.]
27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
