The Effect of Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment on Homogeneous and Heterogeneous EFL Learners’ Auditory Memory in Listening Tasks
الموضوعات :
نادر صفایی اصل
1
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ، تبریز، ایران)
سعیده اهنگری
2
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ، تبریز، ایران)
مهناز سعیدی
3
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ، تبریز، ایران)
الکلمات المفتاحية: mediation, approach, interaction, Dynamic Assessment,
ملخص المقالة :
Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA), introduced by Poehner (2009), applies mediation through concurrent and cumulative approaches. This study investigated the effect of the two approaches on Iranian homogeneous and heterogeneous EFL learners' auditory memory in listening tasks. Eighty female intermediate EFL learners were chosen as the participants of the study. They were assigned to two groups of forty homogeneous and forty heterogeneous learners. Then, each group was divided into two experimental groups with twenty participants in each. Homogeneous and heterogeneous participants were assessed through both concurrent and cumulative approaches. To find out the main and interaction effect of concurrent and cumulative G-DA and homogeneity and heterogeneity of EFL learners, the post-test scores of the participants were analysed through a two-way ANOVA. The results indicated that G-DA approaches on the one hand and homogeneity and heterogeneity of EFL learners on the other, had both significant main and interaction effect on EFL learners' auditory memory. For the independent effect of both approaches, a one-way ANOVA was also used. The results indicated that cumulative G-DA had more significant effect than concurrent one on heterogeneous EFL learners' auditory memory. ANOVA analysis also proved that the two approaches did not differ in their effect on homogenous learners.
Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner(eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. (pp. 57-86). London, Equinox.
Alber, R. (2011). Six scaffolding strategies to use with your students. Teacher Leadership, 30(45), 5.
Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching, 51(4), 169-175.
Chastain, K. (1976). Developing second-language skills: Theory to practice: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Cusimano, A. (2010). Learning Disabilities: There is a Cure. A Guide for Parents, Educators and Physicians Revised and Expanded. Achieve Publications.
Farahani, F., & Moghadam, F. S. A. (2020). The impact of cumulative group dynamic assessment on the learning of congruent and non-congruent collocations among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 7(4), 21-36.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential: Cambridge university press.
Hashemi Shahraki, S., Ketabi, S., & Barati, H. (2015). Group dynamic assessment of EFL listening comprehension: Conversational implicatures in focus. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(3), 73-89.
Karimi, M. N., & Alizadeh Oghyanous, P. (2018). Learning L2 non-congruent collocations across cumulative vs. concurrent group dynamic assessment instructional conditions. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(3), 118-199.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 78): Oxford university press.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 7, 273-284.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18(4), 333-349.
Mirzaei, A., Shakibaei, L., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2017). ZPD-based dynamic assessment and collaborative L2 vocabulary learning. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(1), 114.
Moradian, M., Rashidi Mofrad, V., & Norolahi, F. (2016). The effect of group dynamic assessment on learning passive structure by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 12(2), 36-47.
Mowla, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Bavarsad, P. S. (2017). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1-24.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.
Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French: The Pennsylvania State University.
Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323-340.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media.
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.
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.
Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 225-241.
Rogoff, B. (1984). Children's learning in the" zone of proximal development" (Vol. 23). Jossey-Bass Incorporated Pub.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94(3), 429.
Stanley, N. V. (1993). Gifted and the “zone of proximal development”. Gifted Education International, 9(2), 78-80.
