آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 5 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 111 |
| تعداد مقالات | 1,247 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 1,199,594 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,060,310 |
Dynamic Mediation for Removing Language Comprehension Problems: A Psychological Support for Listening Comprehension Mental Processing | ||
| Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances | ||
| مقاله 12، دوره 7، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 13، خرداد 2019، صفحه 153-173 اصل مقاله (538.38 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22049/jalda.2019.26488.1128 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Sajjad Khorami Fard* | ||
| MA in TEFL, English Department, Yasouj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yasouj, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Dynamic Assessment is an approach to assessment within Applied Linguistics which is stemmed from Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory of mind, his concept of Zone of Proximal Development and Feuerstein's theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability. This study is an attempt to pinpoint the sources of mental processing problems in listening comprehension and applies dynamic interventions to remove the problems and promote listening. Two male classes (each containing 5 upper-intermediate members) ranging in age from 19 to 24, were selected based on an intact group design. One class was selected as the control and another class as the experimental group haphazardly. The research was on the pre-test, mediation, and post-test paradigm. In the beginning, the two groups were pre-tested purposefully and their real time listening problems were detected through verbal and nonverbal recall protocols. Then, in the mediation phase dynamic group experienced different treatment sessions in two weeks to overcome the problems detected on the pre-test. The experimental group was instructed with mediations based on the Sandwich format of interventionist dynamic assessment while the control group received no intervention and was taught traditionally. Finally, all two groups were post-tested. The qualitative analysis showed that both groups suffered from various listening problems related to mental processing in comprehension. Result of quantitative analysis also revealed that the experimental group which was instructed dynamically outperformed the control group which was taught non-dynamically. The findings of this study suggest that dynamic interventions would not only affect the promotion of the EFL listening comprehension in educational settings but also have a significant effect on the performance of the dynamic group in comparison with the non-dynamic group. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Dynamic Assessment (DA)؛ interventionist DA؛ Sandwich format؛ Static Assessment (SA)؛ Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)؛ Listening Comprehension | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic Assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Ahmadpur, L., &Yousefi, H., M. (2016). Group Collaboration, Scaffolding Instruction, and Peer Assessment of Iranian EFL Learners Oral Tasks, The Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamicsand Advances, 4(1), 31-44.
Ajideh, P.,&Nourdad, N. (2012).The Effect of Dynamic Assessment on EFL Reading Comprehension in Different Proficiency Levels.Language Testing in Asia, 2(4), 101-122.
Amini, M. (2015). A Study On the Effect of Dynamic Assessment on EFL Reading Comprehension and Reading Strategy Awareness: Implication for Teaching.Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(3), 1313-1319.
Antón, M. (2009).Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., March, 2003.
Baek, S. G., & Kim, K. J. (2003). The effect of dynamic assessment based instruction on children’s learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 4(2), 189-198.
Bavali, M., Yamini, M., &Sadighi, F. (2011).Dynamic Assessment in Perspective: Demarcating Dynamic and Non-dynamic Boundaries, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 895-902.
Belle, D. (1999) “Traditional Assessment versus Alternative Assessment” Master Thesis, Kean University of New Jersey.
Chaiklin, S. (2003).The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis oflearning and instruction.In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev, and S.M. Miller(Eds.).Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39 - 64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, W., &Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development andKrashen’si + 1 and the ZPD: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning, 48, 411-442.
Feuerstein, R. (1990). The Theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability. In B. Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and Thinking Styles. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.
Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press.
Ghaderi, G.,&Hessamy, E. (2014).The Role of Dynamic Assessment in the Vocabulary Learning of Iranian EFL Learners.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 645 – 652.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems.System, 28(1), 55-75.
Grigorenko, E. L, & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic Testing.Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75-111.
Haywood, H. C. (1992). Interactive assessment: A special issue. Journal of Special Education, 26, 233-234.
Haywood, H. C., &Lidz, C. (2007).Dynamic assessment in practice.Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hidri, S. (2014). Comparison of the students' performance in dynamic vs. static listening comprehension tests among EFL learners. In article published in the Proceedings of the 19th TESOL Arabia Conference, From KG to College to Career (pp. 51–59).
Isavi, E. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian L2 writing performance. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530902
Khoshsima, H.,&Izadi, M. (2014).Dynamic vs. standard assessment to evaluate EFL learners’ listening comprehension, Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 1-26.
Kozulin, A. (2004). Vygotsky's theory in the classroom: Introduction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(1), 3-7.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002).Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students.School Psychology International, 23(1), 112-127.
Lantolf, J.P., &Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49-72.
Lantolf, J. P., &Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development, Journal of Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33.
Lantolf, J.P., &Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33. Lidz, C.S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford. MacKey, A., &Gass, S. (2006). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge. Nowrouzi, S., Tom, S. Sh., Zareian, G., &Nimehchisalem, V. (2015). Iranian EFL Students’ Listening Comprehension Problems, Theory and Practice in language studies,5(2), 263-269. Poehner, M. E., &Lantolf, J. P. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49-72. Poehner, M. E., &Lantolf, J. P. (2005).Dynamic assessment in language classroom.Journal ofLanguage Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.
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.
Rea-Dickins, P.,& Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: Disentangling the construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17, 215–43.
Shabani.K. (2014). Dynamic Assessment of L2 Listening Comprehension in Transcendence Tasks, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1729–1737.
Shaki, F., Derakhshan, A., &SedighZiabari, R. (2016).The Interplay between Language Skills and Dynamic Assessment. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 141-157.
Sternberg, R. J., &Grigorenko, E. L. (1998).Dynamic Testing.Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75-111.
Sternberg, R. J., &Grigorenko, E. L. (2002).Dynamic testing.The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taheri, P. (2016). Quantifying the ZPD of EFL learners in DA and NDA listening comprehension, International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 3(1), 1239-1256.
Torrance, H., &Pryor, J. (1998) Investigating Formative Assessment: Teaching, learning andassessment in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 385–435.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, &E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, P. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on the listening skills of lower-intermediate EFL learners in Chinese Technical College: A pilot study, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1269-1279.
Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
Zhang, Zh.,& Zhang, L. (2011). Developing and validating a listening comprehension problems scale for enhancing Chinese university students' metacognitive awareness of L2 listening, Journal of Asia TEFL, 8(3), 161-189.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 603 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 483 |
||