Impact of Peer-Assisted Mediation vs. Teacher-Intervention on EFL Learners’ Attitude toward Reading Comprehension Classes: Interventionist Dynamic Assessment in Focus

Journal of Language and Translation

دوره 14، شماره 1، فروردین 2024، صفحه 35-44   

نوع مقاله: Research Articles

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/ttlt.2024.709365

نویسندگان

Hossein Shokri¹؛ Mohammad Reza Khodareza^{* 2}

¹Department of English Language Teaching, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran

²Department of English, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran

چکیده

In this study, attempts were made to explore the impact of peer-assisted mediation and teacher intervention on the attitudes of Iranian intermediate English learners towards reading comprehension, within an intrusive dynamic assessment approach. For this purpose, 60 male language learners were selected and homogenized by applying the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) as the main participants of the study. They were randomly divided into three groups: Experimental group (GA), Peer mediation, Experimental group (GB), and Instructor intervention group (GC)—control group. An attitude questionnaire was administered to the participants in all three groups to collect the necessary data. Then the treatment started and lasted 12 sessions. Each group of participants received a specific treatment. The post-test was administered at the end of the treatment. Analysis of the results showed that peer-assisted mediation and teacher intervention in intrusive dynamic assessment had significant impacts on the reading comprehension attitudes of Iranian intermediate English learners. The findings of the study offered some pedagogical implications for language teachers and textbook developers.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Attitude؛ Dynamic Assessment؛ Peer-assisted Mediation؛ Teacher-intervention

مراجع

Altamimi, K. (2006). Dynamic Assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, University Park.

Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the micro genesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 133-149.

Allal, L., &Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment "of"- or "in"- the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10, 137-152.

Bell, P. (2001). Representation and ways of knowing: Three issues in second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Explicit and implicit learning of languages (pp. 549–569). London: Academic Press. 

Cho, L. and Krashen, S. (1994). The Significance of Learners’ Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 161–169.

Constantino, B. (1994). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 51 (3), 81–112.

Day, J. and Bamford, T. (1998). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (3), 223–236.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137-158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elly, F. and Mangubhai, S. (1983). Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grigorenko, E. L. & Sternberg, R. G. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University.

Hayashi, D. (1999). Interactive assessment: A special issue. The Journal of Special Education, 26 (3), 233-234.

Hedge, P. (1985). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Isavi, L. (2012). The impacts of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language screening test. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22 (4), 217-226.

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

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Language competence: Implications for applied linguistics – A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27, 717-728.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 49-72.

Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. E. Kozulin, J. S. Brown, S. M. Miller, C. Heath, B. Gindis, & V. S. Ageyev (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-116). Cambridge, UK, New York: Cambridge University Press.Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2008). Sociocultural theories and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox.

Mardani, M and Tavakoli, T. (2011). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4 (2), 95-21.

Mason, F. and Krashen, S. (1997). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Hodder Arnold Press. 

Robb, T. and Susser, K. (1989) The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. Los Angeles: University of California.

Salas, K. Gonzales, T. and Assael, B (2010). Foreign languages for younger children: Trends and assessment. Language Teaching & Linguistics: Abstracts, 10, 5-25.

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

Teo, Y. (2012). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.

Zoghi, B. and Malmeer, J (2013). The impact of assessment on student learning: how can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centered assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3 (2), pp. 145-158.