آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 6 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 118 |
| تعداد مقالات | 1,479 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 1,590,751 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 1,488,615 |
The Impact of Group Dynamic Assessment (GDA) vs. Computerised Dynamic Assessment (C-DA) on Iranian EFL Learners’ Pragmatic Comprehension | ||
| Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 9، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 17، تیر 2021، صفحه 65-92 اصل مقاله (1.68 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22049/jalda.2021.26985.1222 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Ali Malmir* 1؛ Parisa Mazloom2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran | ||
| 2MA Student of English Language Teaching, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Most foreign language (L2) learners suffer from dire deficiencies in their pragmatic comprehension partly due to the less explicit instruction they receive and the complexities and multi-layeredness inherent in L2 pragmatic comprehension. Accordingly, this study sought to scrutinize the effect of two dynamic assessment (DA) models on L2 pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed. A convenience sample of 52 upper-intermediate female EFL learners that were randomly assigned into a dynamic assessment experimental group (GDA), a computerised dynamic assessment (C-DA), and a Non-DA control group took part in the study. A 26-item researcher-made pragmatic listening comprehension test including requests, apologies, greetings, and refusals was used as pre- and posttests, and the treatments using the aforementioned DA and non-DA conventional models were completed in 14 sessions. Data analysis using ANCOVA showed that C-DA and G-DA could significantly increase pragmatic comprehension accuracy than the conventional non-DA instruction with C-DA being significantly better than G-DA. However, only C-DA could significantly decrease learners’ pragmatic comprehension speed than G-DA and Non-DA instruction. The findings of this study suggest that implementing C-DA by teachers can promote pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed among L2 learners. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Dynamic Assessment؛ Pragmatic Accuracy؛ Pragmatic Comprehension؛ Pragmatic Speed؛ Speech Act | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language tests and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 76-103.
Belz, J. A. (2007). The role of computer mediation in the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 45-75.
Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2013). Pragmatic comprehension of apology, request and refusal: An investigation on the effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-76.
Bransford, D., Delclos, V. R., Vye, J., Burns, S., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1987). State of the art and future directions. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 479-496). New York: Guilford Press.
Budoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among the educable mentally retarded (Final Report Project No.312312).Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems,Cambridge Mental Health Association.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254-270.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1978). Use of testing-the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82, 559-564.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón Soler, & M. P. Safont Jordà, (Eds.) Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41-57). Berlin: Springer.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A Pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed.). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 303-322.
De La Colina, A. A., & Mayo, M. P. G. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3/4), 325-345.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. New York: Sage.
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. Tesl-Ej, 8(2), 1-12.
González-Lloret, M. (2008). Computer-mediated learning of L2 pragmatics. In E. A. Soler, & A. Martinez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 114-132). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
González-Lloret, M. (2018). Pragmatics in technology-mediated contexts. In A. Herraiz-Martínez, & A. Sánchez-Hernández (Eds.), Learning second language pragmatics beyond traditional contexts (pp. 15-46). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J. F. (2000). The learning test concept and its application in practice. In C. S. Lidz, & J. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 17-69). New York: Elsevier.
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Boston: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2013). Pragmatic development in a second language. Journal of Research in Language Studies, 52(1), 1-19.
Kecskes, I. (2015). How does pragmatic competence develop in bilinguals? International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(4), 419-434.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. 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), 1-26.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 141-157.
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012). Introducing Lex TALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325-343.
Malmir, A. (2020). The effect of interactionist vs. interventionist models of dynamic assessment on L2 learners’ pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed. Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 279-320.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020a). The socio-pragmatic, lexico-grammatical, and cognitive strategies in L2 pragmatic comprehension: The case of Iranian male vs. female EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 1-23.
Malmir, A., & Derakhshan, A. (2020b). Identity processing styles as predictors of L2 pragmatic knowledge and performance: A case of common English speech acts. Journal of Language Horizons, 4(2), 187-209.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2014). Touch stone series (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Moradian, M., Asadi, M., & Azadbakht, Z. (2019). Effects of concurrent group dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: A case of requests and refusals. Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 106-135.
Murphy, R. (2011). Dynamic assessment, intelligence and measurement. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Panzeri, F., Giustolisi, B., & Zampini, L. (2020). The comprehension of ironic criticisms and ironic compliments in individuals with Down syndrome: Adding another piece to the puzzle. Journal of Pragmatics, 156(2), 223-234.
Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 323-340.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: 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., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332-357.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerised dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.
Ross, S., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2013). Assessing second language pragmatics. New York: Springer.
Schauer, G. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad context. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sykes, J. M. (2018). Interlanguage pragmatics, curricular innovation, and digital technologies. CALICO Journal, 35, 120-141.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313-338.
Taguchi, N. (2008a). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study‐abroad context. Language learning, 58(1), 33-71.
Taguchi, N. (2008b). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 558-576.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 289-310.
Taguchi, N. (2013). Comprehension of conversational implicature in L2 Chinese. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(1), 139-157.
Taguchi, N. (2014). Development of interactional competence in Japanese as a second language: Use of incomplete sentences as interactional resources. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 518-535.
Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153-167). New York: Routledge.
Taguchi, N. (2018). Description and explanation of pragmatic development: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research. System, 75(1), 23-32.
Taguchi, N. (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners' acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(2), 88-118.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.
Van Compernolle, R. A., & Zhang, H. (2014). Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing, 31(4), 395-412.
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.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,118 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,949 |
||