Impact of Teacher’s Dynamic Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Stance in Academic Writing

International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research

دوره 12، شماره 45، مهر 2023، صفحه 131-147   

نوع مقاله: Research Papers

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jfl.2023.703377

نویسندگان

Katayoun Eghtesadi¹؛ Ehsan Rezvani^{* 1}؛ Bahram Hadian²

¹English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

²English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan), Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

چکیده

This quasi-experimental study aimed to investigate the effects of dynamic assessment employed by teachers on promoting Iranian EFL learners’ stances in academic writing. For this purpose, three intact writing classes were selected by convenience sampling from BA students of English translation at Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University. The Quick Oxford Placement Test (QOPT) was administered to them, and those whose scores matched the intermediate band score of QOPT were selected. In general, 35 homogeneous students were selected from each class and randomly assigned into two experimental groups and one control group. A writing test was administered to all groups as the pre-test at the onset of the semester. The experimental groups were taught by the researcher and passed five different quizzes during the semester. The three groups were post-tested at the end of the semester. The results illustrated that both teacher and peers’ dynamic assessment effectively improved Iranian EFL learners’ stance in academic writing. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

Academic Writing؛ Dynamic Assessment؛ Teacher’s Assessment؛ Peer Assessment

مراجع

Baily, E. P, & Powel, P. A. (2008). The practical writer by readings. Boston: Thomson Corporation.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing.Cambridge: University Press   Cambridge.

Conrad, S, &Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial making of Stance in Speech and Writing”. InS.Hunston &G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp.56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397-423.

Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 233-252.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of  Pragmatics, 34, 1091-1112.

Hyland, Ken. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2008b). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies,8 (2), 8-18

Jones, M. & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: an exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences. (pp. 269-291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Lidz, C. S. (1995). Dynamic assessment and the legacy of LS Vygotsky. School Psychology International, 16, 143-153.

Mellati, M. , Alavi, S. M. , & Dashtestani, R. (2022). Reduction of errors in writing assignments: A comparison of the impact of peer, teacher, and mixed feedback. Maritime English Journal, 10(4), 152-166.

Meunier, F. & Granger, S. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Oxford English Reference Dictionary(2nded.). (1996). Oxford:Oxford University Press.<oXygen/>XML editor(Version 10). Retrieved July 23, 2007, fromhttp://www.oxygenxml.com/

Rezvani, E. , Esmail, S. M. , Rahul, D. R. , & Patra, I. (2022). : formative vs. summative assessment: impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia Journal, 12(40), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468‑022‑00191‑4.

Scollon, R. (1994). As a matter offact: the changing ideology of authorship and responsibility in discourse. World Englishes,13, 34–46.

Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zemach,  D. E. and Rumisek, L. A. (2011), Academic Writing from Paragraph to Essay. Britain: Macmillan Press.