:: دانشگاه خوارزمی برای مشاهده سایت قبلی اینجا را کلیک کنید Kharazmi University ::
   [Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 19, Number 2 (9-2016) ::
IJAL 2016, 19(2): 195-240 Back to browse issues page
Investigating Dynamic Writing Assessment in a Web 2.0 Asynchronous Collaborative Computer-Mediated Context
Zohreh Zafarani, Parviz Maftoon
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran
Abstract:   (107 Views)
This study aims at investigating the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) on L2 writing achievement if applied via blogging as a Web 2.0 tool, as well as examining which pattern of interaction is more conducive to learning in such an environment. The results of the study indicate that using weblogs to provide mediation contributes to the enhancement of the overall writing performance, vocabulary and syntactic complexity, and quantity of overall information presented in a single paragraph. That is to say, DA procedures are applicable via Web 2.0 tools and are advantageous to L2 learners’ writing suggesting that L2 practitioners and instructors should actively consider the integration of Web 2.0 technology into L2 education system using DA. Moreover, the collaborative pattern of interaction as compared to expert/novice, dominant/passive, and dominant/dominant patterns is found to be more conducive to fostering writing achievement in the asynchronous computer-mediated communication environment.
Keywords: Dynamic assessment, Web 2.0, Vocabulary complexity, Syntactic complexity, Quantity of overall information, Patterns of interaction
Full-Text [PDF 1268 kb]   (68 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2016/05/15 | Accepted: 2016/08/3 | Published: 2016/09/21
References
1. Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic Assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
2. Akcay, A., & Arslan, A. (2010). The using of blogs in Turkish education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1195-1199.
3. 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.
4. Birjandi, P., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Dynamic assessment in synchronous computer mediated communication. Paper presented at the Conference on Technology for Second Language Learning, Michigan, USA.
5. Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/ Techniques /Campbell-Weblogs.html
6. Campbell, A. P. (2005). Weblog applications for EFL/ESL: Classroom blogging, two fundamental approaches. TSEL-EJ, 9 (3). Retrieved from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej35/m1.html
7. Choo. L. P., Sidhu G. K., Fook C. Y., & Yong T. C. (2014). Patterns of interaction among ESL students during online collaboration, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 307-314.
8. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33, 229-256.
9. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71.
10. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Hildyard, A., & Hidi, S. (1985). The production and recall of narratives. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 285-306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Johnson, A. (2004). Creating a writing course utilizing class and student blogs. The Internet TESL Journal, 10(8). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/ Techniques/Johnson-Blogs
13. Kemper, E. A., Stringfield S., & Teddlie C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.),Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 273-296). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
14. Kim, Y. J., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language teaching research, 12(2), 211-234.
15. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.
16. Kyle, K. & Crossley, S.A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (4), 757-786.
17. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49-74.
18. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2006). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher’s guide. Pennsylvania: CALPER.
19. 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.
20. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2-3), 141-157.
21. Leech, N. L, & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). A call for greater use of nonparametric statistics. Paper presented at Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471346.pdf
22. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in EFL collaborative writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61-82.
23. Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioners’ guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
24. Maftoon, P., & Ghafoori (2009). A Comparative study of the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous collaborative interaction on the development of EFL learners’ writing skill. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 127-158.
25. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge, M.A.: Cambridge University Press.
26. McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2013). Coh-Metrix version 3.0. Retrieved from http://cohmetrix.com
27. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Montero-Fleta, B., & Pérez-Sabater, C. (2010). A research on blogging as a platform to enhance language skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 773-777.
29. Mueller, D. N., (2009). Digital underlife in the networked writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 26, 240-250.
30. Noytima, U. (2010). Weblogs enhancing EFL students’ English language learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1127-1132.
31. Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (2001). Collaborative learning environments: Exploring student attitudes and satisfaction in face-to-face and asynchronous computer conferencing settings. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 427-449.
32. Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students’ attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 409-425.
33. Philp, J., & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research: What can socially informed approaches offer to cognitivists (and vice versa)? In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210–227). Oxford: OUP
34. Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, USA.
35. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: Springer.
36. 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.
37. 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), 1-21.
38. Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337-357.
39. Radia, P., & Stapleton, P. (2009). Unconventional sources as a new convention: The shifting paradigm of undergraduate writing. The Internet and Higher Education, 12, 156-164.
40. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
41. Roberson, A. P. (2014). Patterns of interaction in peer response: The relationship between pair dynamics and revision outcomes, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.
42. Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, J., & Storch, N. (2015). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 1-21.
43. Sarieva, L. (2007). The communicative two-way pre-writing task performed via asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication and its influence on the writing expertise development of adult English languagelearners: A mixed design study, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.
44. Shrestha, P. & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70.
45. Sternberg, R. S., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in Education, 7(2), 137-170.
46. Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52,119-58.
47. Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305-22.
48. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-73.
49. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters
50. Strobl, C. (2014). Affordances of web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign language. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 1-18.
51. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.97-114). Oxford: OUP.
52. Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: OUP.
53. Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair Interactions and Mode of Communication Comparing Face-To-Face and Computer Mediated Communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1-27.
54. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Internalization of higher psychosocial functions. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. and Trans.), Mind in society: The development of psychosocial processes (pp. 52-57). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412–430.
56. Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
57. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
59. Wichadee, S. (2011). Using wikis to develop summary writing abilities of students in an EFL class. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(12), 5–10.
60. Xiaoxia, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
61. Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146-165.
62. Zeiss, E., & Isabelli, G. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 151-169.
63. Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: an ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 109-126.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or email:

Write the security code in the box >



XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Zafarani Z, Maftoon P. Investigating Dynamic Writing Assessment in a Web 2.0 Asynchronous Collaborative Computer-Mediated Context. IJAL. 2016; 19 (2) :195-240
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2732-en.html
Volume 19, Number 2 (9-2016) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.144 seconds with 887 queries by yektaweb 3460