The Impact of Online Dynamic Assessment on the Development of EFL Students’ Speaking Skills: A Comparison of Online Synchronous and Asynchronous DA Sessions
Keywords:
Dynamic Assessment, Non-Dynamic Assessment, Zone of Proximal Development, Mediation, Interventionist DA, Interactionist DAAbstract
The current paper examined the impact of Dynamic Assessment (DA) on the speaking skills of EFL learners applying socio-cultural theory, which was developed by Vygotsky (1934). The study also tried to compare the results from online synchronous DA sessions, which were done in the form of one-to-one online training over Google Meet, with the results from asynchronous DA sessions, in which the trainer and the trainees were interacting over G-mail. To this end, 90 EFL institutional students from Iran, who were getting ready to take the IELTS test, were selected as the participants of the program. The cases were then divided into two experimental groups and one control group, each with 30 contributors. IELTS speaking tasks, marked by IELTS speaking band descriptors, were used to assess their speaking skills. Comparing the pre-test and post-test, the findings indicated development in all four areas of fluency, vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. Moreover, comparing the results from the two experimental groups showed that the participants who received asynchronous DA sessions outperformed the other experimental group. It is worth mentioning that a broader level of development was observed in experimental groups than the control group, in which the members received synchronous non-Dynamic Assessment (non-DA) methods.
References
Abe, M. (2019). L2 interactional competence in asynchronous multiparty text-based communication: study of online collaborative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-25.
Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167.
Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
Bahari, A. (2020). Computer-assisted language proficiency assessment tools and strategies. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 1-27.
Bashori, M., van Hout, R., Strik, H., & Cucchiarini, C. (2020). Web-based language learning and speaking anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-32.
Baytak, A., Tarman, B., & Ayas, C. (2011). Experiencing technology integration in education: children’s perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(2), 139-151.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer‐assisted language learning. The modern language journal, 93, 741-753.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351-395.
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on technology in education, 34(4), 411-433.
Cook, K. C., & Grant-Davis, K. (2020). Online education: Global questions, local answers. Routledge.
Darhower, M. (2014). Literary discussions and advanced-superior speaking functions in the undergraduate language program. Hispania, 396-412.
Ebadi, S., & Bashiri, S. (2020). The Effectiveness of Dynamic Assessment on Listening Comprehension Development: A Case Study. i-Manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 15(4), 1.
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.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering L2 development and mastery of writing conventions. Language Learning & Technology.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Mediated learning experience. In Don’t Accept Me as I am (pp. 59-93). Springer, Boston, MA.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Mediated learning experience. In Don’t Accept Me as I am (pp. 59-93). Springer, Boston, MA.
Fuchs, C. (2017). Learner Autonomy in Beginning Language MOOCs (LMOOCs): The Student Teachers’ Perspective.: Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0. In Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0 (pp. 168-197). Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (Eds.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of language testing. Routledge.
Ghanbarpour, M. (2017). A qualitative meta-synthesis of research on dynamic assessment of second/foreign language learning: Implications for language teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(4), 731-741.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer assisted language learning, 27(1), 70-105.
Gorjian, B., Moosavinia, S. R., Ebrahimi Kavari, K., Asgari, P., & Hydarei, A. (2011)
Hapsari, A., & Ratu, D. A. (2019). Process and Genre Integration as a Mediation of Learning to Write: Students’ Voices. Asian EFL Journal, 23(6.2), 56-82.
Huang, S., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Exploring the integration of automated feedback among lower-proficiency EFL learners. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 14(1), 15-26.
Hung, Y. W., & Higgins, S. (2016). Learners’ use of communication strategies in text-based and video-based synchronous computer-mediated communication environments: Opportunities for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 901-924.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom (CALPER Professional Development Document CPDD-0411). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2001). Sociocultural theory and SLA. Handbook of applied linguistics, 109-119.
Lee, S., Kuo, L. J., Xu, Z., & Hu, X. (2020). The effects of technology-integrated classroom instruction on K-12 English language learners’ literacy development: a meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-32.
Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English language learners’ reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2), 1-20.
Natividad, M. R. A., & Batang, B. L. (2018). Students’ Perceptual Learning Styles and Attitudes toward Communicative Language Teaching. TESOL International Journal, 13(4), 104-120.
Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8(5), 427-440.
Oskoz, A. (2005). Students’ dynamic assessment via online chat. CALICO journal, 513-536.
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. (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., & 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.
Poehner, M. E., van Compernolle, R. A., Esteve, O., & Lantolf, J. P. (2019). A Vygotskian Developmental Approach to Second Language Education. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(3), 238-259.
Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language testing, 32(3), 337-357.
Qin, T., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2021). Computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension in L2 Chinese. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 55-74.
Qin, T., & Zhang, J. (2019). Computerized Dynamic Assessment and Second Language Learning: Programmed Mediation to Promote Future Development. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(2), 198-213.
Rad, H. S. (2021). Exploring use of mobile-mediated hybrid dynamic assessment in improving efl learners’ descriptive writing skills. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 111-127.
Rezaee, A. A., Alavi, S. M., & Razzaghifard, P. (2019). The impact of mobile-based dynamic assessment on improving EFL oral accuracy. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3091-3105.
Şad, S. N., Öz er, N., Yakar, Ü., & Öztürk, F. (2020). Mobile or hostile? Using smartphones in learning English as a foreign language1. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-27.
Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A.,... & Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271-291.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.
Tafazoli, D., María, E. G., & Abril, C. A. H. (2019). Intelligent Language Tutoring System: Integrating Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning into Language Education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 15(3), 60-74.
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.
Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 21-32.
Vakili, S., & Ebadi, S. (2019). Authenticity in online dynamic assessment: Iranian EFL Learners Perspectives. CALL-EJ, 20(2), 38-54.
Vakili, S., Ebadi, S., & Popescu, M. (2019). Investigating contextual effects on Iranian EFL learners’ mediation and reciprocity in academic writing. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1571289.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in society.
Wang, Y. H., & Liao, H. C. (2017). Learning performance enhancement using computer-assisted language learning by collaborative learning groups. Symmetry, 9(8), 141.
Xue, S., & Churchill, D. (2020). Educational affordances of mobile social media for language teaching and learning: a Chinese teacher’s perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-30.
Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52(4), 820-833.
Zohdijalal, P., & Mohammadi, M. (2021). Enhancing Professional Development of Iranian EFL Teachers through Collaborative Reflection. Asian EFL Journal, 25(1), 104-135.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 International TESOL Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
