Volume 2, Issue 4 (December 2020)                   IEEPJ 2020, 2(4): 258-277 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


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

Mallahi O, Saadat M. (2020). Effects of Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners' writing Development: Group Dynamic Assessment vs. Formative Assessment. IEEPJ. 2(4), 258-277. doi:10.52547/ieepj.2.4.258
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-153-en.html
1- Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
2- Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran , msaadat@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1817 Views)
Approaches to assessment are distinguished mainly by the fact that whether the provision of feedback and modification of learners performance during assessment procedures is of concern or not. In fact, Dynamic Assessment (DA) attempts to integrate assessment and instruction and uses a range of mediational strategies to gain insight into the learners current abilities and to assist them in reaching their learning potentials. Non-Dynamic Assessment (NDA), on the other hand, aims at obtaining a pure and reliable measurement of the learners abilities.The present study was designed to experimentally investigate and compare the effects of feedback offered within the frameworks of Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) and Formative Assessment (FA) on the improvement of 34 intermediate Iranian EFL learners writing performance and their capability in transferring the acquired knowledge and skills to new and more challenging tasks. As for the intended treatments, the G-DA students benefited from a model of classroom-based DA including three stages of orientation, execution and control and the FA students received a careful and systematic sequence of instruction, assessment and feedback. The necessary data were collected from the students in-class written drafts and their performance on four non-dynamic writing tests. Results of the analyses, especially, two-way repeated measures ANOVAs, indicated the inherent superiority of the DA group in improving their writing; however, both groups of learners were equally able to transfer the acquired knowledge and skills to new and more challenging writing tasks, which can be attributed to the satisfactory level of internalization and self-regulation they have possibly achieved as a result of the interventions received. Accordingly, it was concluded that systematic feedback offered within the frameworks of these two approaches to assessment can successfully help the learners improve their writing ability.
Full-Text [PDF 578 kb]   (2158 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Educational Psychology
Received: 2020/03/15 | Accepted: 2020/11/22 | Published: 2020/11/30

References
1. Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in L2 French. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.
2. Afshari, H., Amirian, Z., & Tavakoli, M. (2020). Applying group dynamic assessment procedures to support EFL writing development: Learner achievement, learners' and teachers' perceptions. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 445-476. [DOI:10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.02]
3. Ahmadi, A., & Besharati, F. (2017). Web-based Versus Face-to-Face Interactionist Dynamic Assessment in Essay Writing Classrooms - A Comparative Study. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-29.
4. Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading ability. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 141-151. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v5n12p141]
5. Alavi, S.M., Kaivanpanah, Sh., & Shabani, K. (2012). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) (Previously Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities), 3(4), 27-58.
6. 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. [DOI:10.1080/10627197.2014.869446]
7. 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. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x]
8. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Research Report No TOEFLiBT-14. [DOI:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x]
9. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203832400]
10. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. [DOI:10.1177/1362168808089924]
11. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002]
12. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development (Kindle ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [DOI:10.21832/9781783095056]
13. Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671]
14. Chandler, J., (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 267-296. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9]
15. Davin, K. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17, 303-322. [DOI:10.1177/1362168813482934]
16. Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333-343. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023]
17. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Research implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [DOI:10.4324/9781410607201]
18. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007]
19. Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003]
20. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990490]
21. Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers' philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6-23. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004]
22. Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., Rand, Y., & Feuerstein. R. S. (2003). Dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability. Jerusalem, Israel: ICELP Press.
23. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001]
24. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: CUP. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511607516]
25. 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. [DOI:10.1080/19313152.2019.1606875]
26. Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 173-182. [DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119251]
27. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1-18. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12189]
28. Kao, Y. T. (2020). A comparison study of dynamic assessment and nondynamic assessment on EFL Chinese learners' speaking performance: Transfer of learning. English Teaching & Learning, 1-21. [DOI:10.1007/s42321-019-00042-1]
29. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students' writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539. [DOI:10.1177/1362168818802469]
30. Kozulin, A. & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112-27. [DOI:10.1177/0143034302023001733]
31. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49-74. [DOI:10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872]
32. 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]
33. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle/ Thomson.
35. Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning and assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12, 180-198. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.003]
36. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011]
37. 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]
38. Negretti, R., & Mežek, Š. (2019). Participatory appropriation as a pathway to self-regulation in academic writing: The case of three BA essay writers in literature. Journal of Writing Research,11(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.01 [DOI:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.01.]
39. Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51. [DOI:10.1080/09658410008667135]
40. Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199-218. [DOI:10.1080/03075070600572090]
41. Parr, M. J., & Timpersely, S. H. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and students' progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68-85. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004]
42. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9]
43. Pena, C. D., & Gillam, R. B. (2000). Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluations. In C. Lantolf and L. Thorne (eds). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
44. Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic Assessment and the transcendence of medi¬ated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323-340. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x]
45. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9]
46. 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]
47. Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2015). Mediated development: Inter-psychological activity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 161-183. [DOI:10.1558/lst.v2i2.26982]
48. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9 (3), 1-33. [DOI:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa]
49. 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. [DOI:10.1080/10749030903338509]
50. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing the development during computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17 (3), 323-342. [DOI:10.1177/1362168813482935]
51. 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]
52. Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners' writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.
53. Shi, Y., Matos, F, & Kuhn, D. (2019). Dialog as a bridge to argumentative writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 107-129. [DOI:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.04]
54. Shrestha, P. N. (2011). Dynamic assessment of academic writing for business studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Open University, UK.
55. Shrestha, P. N. (2017). Investigating the learning transfer of genre features and conceptual knowledge from an academic literacy course to business studies: Exploring the potential of dynamic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 1-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.002]
56. Shrestha, P. N., & Coffin, G. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003]
57. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge university press.
58. Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2), 29-46. [DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181]
59. Van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). Sociocultural theory and second language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 17 (3), 277-281. [DOI:10.1177/1362168813482933]
60. Van Compernolle, R. A., & Zhang, H. S. (2014). Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing, 31, 395-412. [DOI:10.1177/0265532213520303]
61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62. Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of Dynamic Assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3 (1), 24-40.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.