Effect of Group Dynamic Assessment on the Development of Learners’ Listening Comprehension: A Case of Female Iranian EFL Learners

International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research

دوره 12، شماره 45، مهر 2023، صفحه 11-19   

نوع مقاله: Research Papers

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jfl.2023.703204

نویسندگان

Mahshid Ghenaat؛ Fariba Rahimi Esfahani^* ؛ Sajad Shafiee؛ Mehrdad Sepehri

English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

چکیده

This study aimed to examine the impact of Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) on the listening comprehension of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. To this purpose, through the Preliminary English Test (PET) 140 Iranian EFL female learners in four English Language Institutes of Ahvaz, Iran, were tested, and 80 of them were selected as the sample of the study using convenience sampling. They were taught through group dynamic assessment. After the pretest and treatment sessions, the participants were given the listening comprehension post-test and the resultant scores were statistically analyzed to detect their development from pretest to post-test. The obtained results revealed that Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) had a positive impact on the participants’ listening comprehension. This finding implies that EFL teachers may need to consider the positive impact of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ listening comprehension improvement and provide them with more opportunities to interact. They may also need to create a change in the traditional models of listening comprehension assessment which emphasize psychometric quantification of students' performances. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

EFL learners؛ Group Dynamic Assessment؛ listening comprehension

مراجع

Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 57-86.

Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners' internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational assessment, 19(1), 1-16.

Alderson, J. C., Percsich, R., & Szabo, G. (2000). Sequencing as an item type. Language Testing, 17(4), 423-447.

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.

Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6), 527-555.

Gardner, S. (2010). SFL: A theory of language for dynamic assessment of EAL. NALDIC Quarterly, 8(1), 37-41.

Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers: A&C Black.

Hidri, S. (2019). Static vs. dynamic assessment of students’ writing exams: a comparison of two assessment modes. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 239-256.

Holzman, L. (2018). Zones of proximal development. The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development, 42-55.

Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112-127.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2007). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(1), 49-72.

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.

Mardani, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). Beyond Reading Comprehension: The Effect of Adding a Dynamic Assessment Component on EFL Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 2(3).

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds–How We Use Words to Think Together. In: London: Routledge.

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. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.

Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2020). Reconsidering time and process in L2 dynamic assessment. In Toward a Reconceptualization of Second Language Classroom Assessment (pp. 173-195): Springer

Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamictesting: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 21-32.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in society, 6, 52-58

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.) Cambridge, MA. Paper presented at the MIT Press. Kaye, K.(1982). The mental and social life of babies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mundy, P., Sigman, M., & Kasari, C.(1994): Joint attention, developmental level, and symp-tom presentation in autism, Development and Psychopathology.

Zeng, W., Huang, F., Yu, L., & Chen, S. (2018). Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning—a critical review of literature. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(3), 211-250.