دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها941
تعداد مقالات7,773
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,854,187
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله9,152,551
Zarei, Abbas, Shishegarha, Elham. (1402). The effect of dynamic assessment models on L2 listening and speaking anxiety. جلوه هنر, 7(4), 149-176. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.42482.1763
Abbas Ali Zarei; Elham Shishegarha. "The effect of dynamic assessment models on L2 listening and speaking anxiety". جلوه هنر, 7, 4, 1402, 149-176. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.42482.1763
Zarei, Abbas, Shishegarha, Elham. (1402). 'The effect of dynamic assessment models on L2 listening and speaking anxiety', جلوه هنر, 7(4), pp. 149-176. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.42482.1763
Zarei, Abbas, Shishegarha, Elham. The effect of dynamic assessment models on L2 listening and speaking anxiety. جلوه هنر, 1402; 7(4): 149-176. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.42482.1763

The effect of dynamic assessment models on L2 listening and speaking anxiety

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 7، دوره 7، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 18، خرداد 2024، صفحه 149-176    اصل مقاله (468.87 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2023.42482.1763
نویسندگان
Abbas Ali Zarei* 1؛ Elham Shishegarha2
1Department of English, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
2Department of English, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
چکیده
Reducing anxiety in foreign language learning has long been a concern for many teachers. This study focused on exploring the effects of three dynamic assessment models on L2 speaking and listening anxiety. The participants were 120 pre-intermediate Iranian learners of English at a language institute in Qazvin, Iran. The learners were randomly assigned to four groups (three experimental groups and one control group). Before the treatment, the students’ homogeneity was checked using Oxford Placement Test (OPT). Then, all the groups were given listening and speaking anxiety questionnaires as pretests. During 10 sessions, the first group received listening and speaking instruction using Buddof’s Learning Potential Measurement Approach (LPM); the second group was treated with Guthke’s Lerntest Approach; the third group was treated with Testing-the-Limits Approach.  Lastly, the control group was taught conventionally in a teacher-fronted way.  The same questionnaires were given to the participants in the twelfth session as posttests. Data were analyzed using two one-way analysis of covariance procedures. Significant differences were found among the groups’ listening and speaking anxiety mean scores on the posttests after controlling for the initial differences. Those experimental groups that received testing-the-limits and Lerntest approaches had a lower level of listening and speaking anxiety on the posttest. It was concluded that employing dynamic assessment models can decrease speaking and listening anxiety among EFL learners and enhance their productivity. The findings can have important implications for students, teachers and materials designers.
کلیدواژه‌ها
anxiety؛ dynamic assessment؛ Learning Potential Measurement Approach؛ Lerntest Approach؛ Testing-the-Limits Approach
عنوان مقاله [English]
تاثیر مدل های ارزیابی پویا بر اضطراب شنیداری و گفتاری در زبان دوم
نویسندگان [English]
عباس علی زارعی1؛ الهام شیشه گرها2
1گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران
2گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران.
چکیده [English]
کاستن از اضطراب در یادگیری‌ زبان خارجی از دیرباز یکی از نگرانی‌های بسیاری از معلم‌ها بوده‌است. پژوهش کنونی به بررسی اثرات سه مدل ارزیابی پویا بر اضطراب شنیداری و گفتاری زبان خارجی متمرکز بود. شرکت‌کنندگان در پژوهش تعداد 120 فراگیر زبان انگلیسی ایرانی سطح پیش‌میانی در آموزشگاه زبانی در قزوین، ایران بودند. زبان‌آموزان به‌طور تصادفی در چهار گروه (سه گروه آزمایشی و یک گروه کنترل) قرار گرفتند. پیش از آغاز آموزش، همگونی زبان‌آموزان به‌لحاظ سطح بسندگی با آزمون بسندگی آکسفورد کنترل شد. سپس پرسشنامه‌های اضطراب شنیداری و گفتاری به‌عنوان پیش‌آزمون به هر چهار گروه داده شد. آن‌گاه، به‌مدت 10 جلسه، زبان‌آموزان گروه اول آموزش شنیدار و گفتار خود را با رویکرد سنجش قابلیت یادگیری بودلف دریافت نمودند؛ درحالی‌که گروه دوم با رویکرد گاتکس لرنست؛ گروه سوم با رویکرد آزمون-محدودیت‌ها مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند. درنهایت، گروه کنترل به‌صورت سنتی و معلم‌محور مورد آموزش قرار گرفت. در جلسه دوازدهم، همان پرسشنامه‌ها به‌عنوان پس‌آزمون به همه گروه‌ها داده شد. داده‌های به‌دست‌آمده با به‌کارگیری فرایند آماری تحلیل کوواریانس مورد پردازش قرار گرفت. پس از در نظر گرفتن تفاوت‌های اولیه، در اضطراب شنیداری و گفتاری گروه‌ها در پس‌آزمون مختلف تفاوت معنا‌داری به دست آمد. بر اساس یافته‌ها، گروه‌هایی که بر اساس آزمون-محدودیت‌ها و لرنست مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفته بودند در پیش‌آزمون اضطراب شنیداری و گفتاری کمتری داشتند. چنین نتیجه‌گیری می شود که به‌کارگیری مدل‌های ارزیابی پویا می‌توانند اضطراب شنیداری و گفتاری زبان‌آموز را کاهش و تولید زبانی آن‌ها را افزایش دهند. این یافته‌ها می‌توانند کاربردهای مهمی برای زبان‌آموزان، معلم‌ها و طراحان مطالب درسی داشته باشد.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
اضطراب, ارزیابی پویا, رویکرد آزمون-محدودیت, رویکرد لرنست, مدل‌های ارزیابی پویا
مراجع
  1. Abdolrezapour, P. & Ghanbari, S. (2021). Enhancing learning potential score in EFL listening comprehension and self-regulation through self-regulated dynamic assessment procedures. Language Testing in Asia, 2(10), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00126-5
  2. Abu-Rabia, S. (2004). Teachers' role, learners' gender differences, and FL anxiety among seventh-grade students studying English as a FL, Educational Psychology, 24(5), 711-720.            https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/0144341042000263006
  3. Ahmadi Safa, M. & Beheshti, S. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 37-56.  https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2018.120600
  4. Ahmadpour, L. & Asadollahfam, H. (2018). The effects of dynamic assessment and gender on EFL learners' oral narrative task performance. International Journal of Language Testing and Assessment, 1(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.24815/ijolta.v1i1.9773
  5. Alemi, M. (2015). The Impact of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL students’ writing self-assessment. TELL, 9(1), 145-169. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2015.53735
  6. Aydin, S. (2008). An investigation on the language anxiety and fear of negative evaluation among Turkish EFL learners, Asian EFL Journal, 30(1), 421-444.
  7. Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E.  (1999). Foreign language anxiety and learning style. Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 63-76.
  8. Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Anxiety about foreign language students in French, Spanish, and German classes. Psychological Reports, 8(2), 1007-1010.
  9. Bekka, K.G. (2010). Dynamic assessment for learning potential: A shift in the focus and practice of evaluating Japanese oral proficiency. Japanese Journal of Education, 2(1), 53-66.
  10. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.
  11. Budoff , M. (1987). Learning potential as a supplementary testing procedure. In J. Hellmuth (ed.) Learning disorders, (Vol. 3). Special Child.
  12. Capan, S. A., & Karaca, M. (2013). A comparative study of listening anxiety and reading anxiety. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70(5), 1360-1373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.198
  13. Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1978). Use of testing-the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82(6), 559-564.
  14. Chang, A., C. S., & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40(5), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264527
  15. Earl, L. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Western Northern Canadian Protocol.
  16. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
  17. Estaji, M. (2019). The Immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment approaches on EFL learners’ oral narrative performance and anxiety. Educational Assessment, 24(2), 135-154.            https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1578169   
  18. Fatemipour, H., & Jafari, F. (2015). The Effect of dynamic-assessment on the development of passive vocabulary of intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 5(1), 41-51.
  19. Guthke, J. (1982). The learning test concept and its application in practice. In C. S. Lidz, & J. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 17-69). Elsevier.
  20. Haywood H. C. & Lidz C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
  21. 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. http://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1606875
  22. Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
  23. Horwitz, M. B., Horwitz, E. K. & Cope, J. A. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/327317
  24. Ito, N. (2008). Exploring the nature of language anxiety: Experiences of nonNative English speaking college students in the United States. University of New Orleans, Theses and Dissertations. 821. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/821
  25. Kazemi, N. & Tavassoli, K. (2020). The Comparative Effect of dynamic vs. diagnostic assessment on EFL learners’ speaking ability. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 3(4), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.30486/relp.2019.1878561.1155
  26. Kazemi, A., Bagheri, M., & Rassaei, E. (2020). Dynamic assessment in English classrooms: Fostering learners’ reading comprehension and motivation. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1-10.  http://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1788912 
  27. Kim, J. H. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of Korean students learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas.
  28. Kimura, H. (2017). Foreign language listening anxiety: Its dimensionality and group differences. JALT, 30(2), 173-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ30.2-2
  29. Köroğlu, Z. C. (2019). Interventionist dynamic assessment’s effects on speaking skills testing: case of ELT teacher candidates. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(3), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.3p.23
  30. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
  31. Lantolf, J., & Beckett, T. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition.
  32. Language Teaching, 42(4), 459-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809990048
  33. Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 199-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.1.199
  34. MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modem Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.2307/329395
  35. Murphy, R. (2008). Dynamic assessment precursors: Soviet ideology and Vygotsky. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 29(4), 193-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2008.10446285
  36. Murphy, R. & Maree, D. J. F. (2009). Revisiting core issues in dynamic assessment. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 420-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900404
  37. Naeini, J. (2015). A Comparative study of the effects of two approaches of dynamic assessment on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(10), 33-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.54
  38. Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.
  39. Pahlavani, P., & Maftoon, P. (2015). The impact of using computer-aided argument mapping (CAAM) on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners' writing self-regulation. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 7(2), 127-156.
  40. Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students oral test performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb02573.x
  41. Poehner, M. E, & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
  42. Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323–340. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x
  43. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Springer
  44. Roebuck, R. F. (2001). Teaching composition in the college level foreign language class: Insights and activities from sociocultural theory. Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 206-215.
  45. Safdari, M. & Fathi, J.  (2020). Investigating the role of dynamic assessment on speaking accuracy and fluency of pre-intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 2(3), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1818924
  46. Sanaeifard, S. H. & Nafarzadeh Nafari, F. (2018). The effects of formative and dynamic assessments of reading comprehensions on intermediate EFL learners’ test anxiety. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(5), 533-540.  http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0805.12
  47. Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners' writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2018.20494
  48. Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
  49. Sohrabi, S., & Ahmadi Safa, M. (2020). Group dynamic assessment and EFL learners’ oral production, motivation, and classroom anxiety. English Teaching & Learning, 44(2), 1-27. http://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00054-2
  50. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.
  51. Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, A., & Sarkeshikian, A. H. (2018). The effect of interventionist and cumulative group dynamic assessments on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2018.36854
  52. Thouësny, S. (2010). Assessing second language learners ' written texts: An interventionist and interactionist approaches to dynamic assessment. Educational Studies, 4(3), 3517-3522.
  53. Veresov, N. N. (2017). ZBR and ZPD: Is there a difference? Cultural-Historical Psychology, 13(1), 23-36. http://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2017130102
  54. Vogely, A. J. (1998). Listening comprehension anxiety: Students' reported sources and solutions. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 67–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1998.tb01333.x
  55. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
  56. Young, D. J. (1991). An investigation of students' perspective on anxiety and speaking. Foreign Language Annals, 23(6), 539-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00424.x
  57. Young, D. J. (1992). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 426-439.
  58. Wang, W (2015). Teaching English as an international language in China: investigating university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards China English. System, 53, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.008
  59. Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37(3), 308-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315
  60. Worde, R. V. (1998). Students’ perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Language Learning, 44, 283-305.
  61. Zarei, A., & Khojasteh, A. (2020). Models of dynamic assessment affecting the learning of English lexical collocations. Journal of Language Horizons, 4(2), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2020.29463.1229
  62. Zarei, A., & Rahmaty, H. (2021). The effects of interactionist and interventionist dynamic assessment on EFL students’ perfectionism, willingness to communicate, and foreign language anxiety. International Journal of Language Testing, 11(2), 13-33.
  63. Zarei, A. A. & Rezadoust, H. (2020). The effects of scaffolded and unscaffolded feedback on speaking anxiety and self-efficacy. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 7(4), 111-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2020.13464.1655
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 472
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 610


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب