Developing EFL Learners’ Creativity in Writing Skill Through Dynamic Assessment-based Teaching
محورهای موضوعی : Research in English Language Pedagogy
Narges Zarinkamar
1
,
Reza Abdi
2
,
Mehran Davaribina
3
1 - Department of English, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad university, Ardabil, Iran
2 - ELT Department, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili. Ardabil, Iran
3 - Department of English, Ardabil branch, Islamic Azad university, Ardabil, Iran
کلید واژه: writing skill, Creativity, Cake model, Dynamic Assessment (DA), Sandwich model,
چکیده مقاله :
The development of students’ creative potential is one of the objectives of educational programs in TEFL. The ability of TEFL teachers to achieve this objective to shape creative learning environments for their own students’ creative potential depends on their training in such a learning environment. This study attempted to investigate the effect of dynamic assessment-inspired teaching on the creativity of the EFL students, going through creative writing. This study tried to notice which model of dynamic assessment best affects creativity. The creative thinking scale in writing (Torrance, 1990) was used by the researchers to score the descriptors of creative thinking subscales. One-hundred EFL adult learners of both gender who aged between 20 to 22 were recruited to take part in the present study at Soure art and Architecture University, and a sequential explanatory mixed-method design was utilized. The control group received no mediation, and the other two classes received sandwich and cake models of dynamic assessment-related mediations, respectively. A semi-structured interview was conducted with 12 students and three main questions were asked. A thematic analysis was done using qualitative MAXQDA Software which showed a positive attitude of the learners toward this. The results have shown that both the sandwich and cake model of dynamic assessment influenced the creativity of the learners in their writing. Besides, the sandwich model was more beneficial than the cake model.
Ajideh, P., Arrokhi, F., & Nourdad, N. (2012). Dynamic assessment of EFL reading: Revealing Hidden Aspects at Different Proficiency Levels. World Journal of Education, 2(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n4p102/
Akbarnetaj-e shoob, N., & Abbasi, Gh., & Mirzaian, B. (2019). Comparing the efficiency of task-based interactive language teaching and task-based language teaching on language learners’ fear of negative evaluation in university heterogeneous classes. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 12(24), 1-16.
Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2011). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 61(1), 73-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00643.x/
Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13 (3), 257-279.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.) Assessment and learning. London: Sage.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rance, N. (2014). How to use thematic analysis with interview data. In A. Vossler & N. Moller (Eds.), The counseling & psychotherapy research handbook(pp. 183-197). S London: Sage. age.
Brown, A. L., & French, L. A. (1979). The zone of potential development: Implications for intelligence testing in the year 2000. Intelligence 3, 255-273.
Brown, S. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Pearson Education.
Casson, R., & Kingdon, G. (2007.). Tackling low educational achievement’, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2063-education-schools-achievement.pdf
Cimermanova, I. (2015). Creativity in EFL teacher training and its transfer to language teaching. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1969-1975.
Clapham, C. (2000). Assessment and testing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500200093
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Gaies, S. (1980). T-Unit analysis in second language research: Applications, problems, and limitations. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 53-60. doi:10.2307/3586808
Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. RoutledgeFalmer.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479.
Hamayan, E. V. (1995). Approaches to alternative assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 212-226.
Hamers, J. H. M., Hessels, M. G. P., & Pennings, A. H. (1996). Learning potential in ethnic minority children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 183-192.
Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Heinle & Heinle Publication.
Hunt, K. (1966). Recent measures in syntactic development. Elementary English, 43, 732-739
Joffe, H. (2012). Thematic analysis. In D. Harper & A. R. Thompson (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy (pp. 209-223). Wiley-Blackwell.
Jones, R. (2006). Vocabulary learning strategy use among tertiary students in the United Arab Emirates. Perspective, 14(1), 4-8.
Kuhn, T. S. (Ed.). (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. (2nd ed). University of Chicago Press Ltd.
Lantolf, J.P. & Poehner, M.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49-74.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(2), 355-368.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition. Longman.
Lidz, C. S., & Macrine, S. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners. School Psychology International, 22, 74-96.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. Guilford.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition (2nd ed.). Thinking and problem solving (pp. 289-332). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-057299-4.50016-5
Macky, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research, methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Mastergeorge, A. M. (2001). Guided participation in sociocultural learning: Intervention and apprenticeship. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(4), 74-87.
Murphy, R. (2002). A review of South African research in the field of dynamic assessment Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Naeini, J. (2013). Graduated prompts and mediated learning experience: A comparative study of the effects of two approaches of dynamic assessment on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran.
Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ process writing development. SAGE Open, 1-14.
Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 85–112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Omidire, M. F. (2009). Investigating dynamic assessment as a means of addressing the assessment dilemma of additional language learner, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Pallant, J. (Ed.). (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th ed.). Australia: NSW.
Pimsleur, P., Sunland, D. M. & McIntyre, R. (1964). Underachievement in foreign language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 2, 113-150.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment a Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. The Pennsylvania State University
Poehner, M.E., & Compernolle, R. A. V. (2011). Frames of interaction in Dynamic Assessment: developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 183-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.97/
Sawaki, U. Stricker, L. J., & Oranje, A. H. (2009). Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-based test. Language Testing, 26, 5-30.
Seddigh, F., & Shokrpour, N. (2016). Creativity and Its Relationship with Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use of EFL Students. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(2). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
Segalowitz, N. (1997). Individual differences in second language acquisition. Tutorials in Bilingualism, (pp. 85-112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. Edward Arnold.
Soleimani, h., & Najafgholian, S. (2014). The relationship between creativity in thinking and writing performance of Iranian EFL learners on comparison/contrast. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, Asian Economic and Social Society, 3(3), 223-233.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49, 607-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607/
Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Eds.), Planning and task-performance in a second language (pp. 239-73). John Benjamins.
Tavakoli, P. (2009). Researching task difficulty: towards understanding L2 proficiency. In A. Benati (Eds.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 216-232). Continuum.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1967). Understanding the fourth-grade slump in creative thinking. Final Report. The University of Georgia.
Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance tests of creative thinking biased against or in favor of “disadvantaged” groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 75-80.
Torrance, E. P. (1976). Students of the future: Their abilities, achievements, and images of the future. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 1, 76-90.
Torrance, E. P. (1978). Giftedness in solving future problems. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12, 75-89.
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Bearly Limited.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance test of creative thinking norms-technical manual figural (streamlined) forms A &B. Bensenville: Scholastica Testing Service, Inc.
Tzuriel, D. (1992). The dynamic assessment approach: A reply to Frisby and Braden. Journal of Special Education, 26, 302-324.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The development of imagination in childhood. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Minick, Trans.
Wyatt-Smith, C., & Cumming, J. (2009). Educational assessment in the 21st century. Springer.
