[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018) ::
2018, 21(2): 1-42 Back to browse issues page
Group Dynamic Assessment in an EFL Classroom: Do Secondary Interactants Benefit?
Soroor Ashtarian, Saman Ebadi , Nourodin Yousofi
Abstract:   (9553 Views)
This study aimed to investigate the application of Group Dynamic Assessment (GDA) to writing accuracy of EFL learners and explore whether secondary interactants could benefit from interactions between mediator and primary interactants. The idea of implementing DA (Dynamic Assessment) in dyads seems unworkable since teachers are required to teach the whole class (Guk & Kellog, 2007). Moreover, Lantolf and Poehner (2004) suggest a new approach to DA that is GDA, which involves applying DA with a large number of learners rather than individuals. Following a multiple case study design and interactionist DA, the development of ten students in a class of twenty five was tracked during the eight sessions of DA program. Data were collected though written artifacts, video-recording of interactions, interview, and observation. The results indicated that GDA was an effective way of helping learners overcome their linguistic problems and there were signs of microgenetic as well as macrogenetic development within the same DA session and across sessions. The present findings provide further insight into understanding how secondary interactants benefit from the interactions between mediator and primary interactants.
Keywords: Foreign language learning, GDA, Mediation typology, Primary/ secondary interactants
Full-Text [PDF 652 kb]   (2033 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2018/05/24 | Accepted: 2018/07/29 | Published: 2018/08/22
1. Abbasi, A., & Fatemi, M.A. (2015). On the effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learner acquisition of English tenses. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8(4), 222-236.
2. Ableeva, R.(2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
3. 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. [DOI:10.1186/2229-0443-2-4-101]
4. Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2011). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 27-58.
5. 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, 465-483. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x]
6. Antón, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.
7. Azarian, F., Nourdad, N., & Nouri, N. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners' overall language attainment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(1), 203. [DOI:10.17507/tpls.0601.27]
8. Barber, B. K. (2005). Positive interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning: An assessment of measures among adolescents. In What Do Children Need to Flourish? (pp. 147-161). Springer, Boston, MA. [DOI:10.1007/0-387-23823-9_10]
9. Budoff, M. (1968). A learning potential assessment procedure: Rationale and supporting data. Proceedings from the First Congress of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Surrey, England: Michael Jackson (pp. 569- 570).
10. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209, 240.
12. Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: a critical examination of constructs and practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 813-829. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12352]
13. Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (1), 5-22.doi: 10.1111/flan.12012 [DOI:10.1111/flan.12012]
14. Davin, K. J., Herazo, J. D., & Sagre, A. (2017). Learning to mediate: Teacher appropriation of dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 632-651. [DOI:10.1177/1362168816654309]
15. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
16. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Erben, T., Ban, R., & Summers, R. (2008). Changing examination structures within a college of education: The application of dynamic assessment in pre-service ESOL endorsement courses in Florida. Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 87-114.
18. Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Dynamic assessment of reading comprehension ability: Group or individualized. Education Journal, 4(6), 325-331. [DOI:10.11648/j.edu.20150406.11]
19. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Scott Foresman & Co.
20. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. [DOI:10.2307/3588504]
21. Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11 (3), 281-299. [DOI:10.1177/1362168807077561]
22. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). The practice of qualitative research. Sage.
23. Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37-56). Springer, Dordrecht.‏ [DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_2]
24. Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Language Testing in Asia, 4(4), 1-19. [DOI:10.1186/2229-0443-4-4]
25. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers' professional development. Routledge.‏ [DOI:10.4324/9781315641447]
26. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 1, 1-26. [DOI:10.4324/9781315624747-1]
27. 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. [DOI:10.1177/1362168810383328]
28. 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.‏ [DOI:10.1558/japl.]
29. Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. Tesol Quarterly, 48(1), 201-213. [DOI:10.1002/tesq.153]
30. Lidz, C. S. (2002). Mediated learning experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment. School Psychology International, 23(1), 68-84. [DOI:10.1177/0143034302023001731]
31. Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, S. M. Miller (Eds.). In Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mardani,M., & Tavakoli,M. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension: The effect of adding a dynamic assessment component on EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(3) , 688-696. [DOI:10.4304/jltr.2.3.688-696]
33. McNeil, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A teacher education study. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 289-309. [DOI:10.1177/1362168816668675]
34. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.
35. Miri, 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. [DOI:10.32601/ejal.461025]
36. Panahi, P., Birjandi, P., & Azabdaftari, B. (2013). Toward a sociocultural approach to feedback provision in L2 writing classrooms: the alignment of dynamic assessment and teacher error feedback. Language Testing in Asia, 3(13). 1-10. [DOI:10.1186/2229-0443-3-13]
37. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. [DOI:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x]
38. Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University: The Graduate School Department of French and Francophone Studies.
39. Poehner, M. E., Davin, K. J., & Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Dynamic assessment. Language Testing and Assessment,4, 243-256. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-02261-1_18]
40. Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332-357.‏ [DOI:10.1002/tesq.308]
41. 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. [DOI:10.1177/1362168813482935]
42. Poehner, M.E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9 (3), 233-265. [DOI:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa]
43. Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner reciprocity to mediation. Language testing, 32(3), 337-357. [DOI:10.1177/0265532214560390]
44. Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and sociocultural theory, 2(2), 185- 208. [DOI:10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956]
45. Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotkian Perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Saniei, A. (2012). Dynamic assessment: A call for change in assessment. The Asian EFL Journal, 59 (4), 4-19.
47. Saniei, A., Birjandi, P., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2015). On the practicality of group dynamic assessment: A seminal enterprise deserving closer scrutiny. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 39-46. [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.39]
48. Shabani, K. (2018). Group Dynamic Assessment of L2 Learners' Writing Abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.
49. Shabani K. (2014). Dynamic assessment of L2 listening comprehension in transcendence tasks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1729-1737. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.600]
50. Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2014 (pp. 1-37). Open University.
51. Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003]
52. Siwathaworn, P., & Wudthayagorn, J. (2018). The impact of dynamic assessment on tertiary EFL students' speaking skills. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 142-155.
53. Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. [DOI:10.1177/136216889700100302]
54. Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Prologue to dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. In Dynamic assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. C. Lidz and J. G. Elliott (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
55. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge university press.
56. Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, M., & Sarkeshikian, A. H. (2018). The Effect of Interventionist and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessments on EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13. [DOI:10.14744/alrj.2018.36854]
57. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Newly revised and edited by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155-168. [DOI:10.1093/elt/cct068]
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML   Persian Abstract   Print

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

Ashtarian S, Ebadi S, Yousofi N. Group Dynamic Assessment in an EFL Classroom: Do Secondary Interactants Benefit?. . 2018; 21 (2) :1-42
URL: http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2934-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 21, Issue 2 (9-2018) Back to browse issues page
Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4331