دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها935
تعداد مقالات7,686
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,529,694
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,905,831
Tavassoli, Kobra, Rahmatollahi, Maryam. (1403). Differential impact of synchronous and asynchronous computer-assisted dynamic assessment on higher-order and lower-order writing skills. جلوه هنر, 8(1), 33-61. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41130.1720
Kobra Tavassoli; Maryam Rahmatollahi. "Differential impact of synchronous and asynchronous computer-assisted dynamic assessment on higher-order and lower-order writing skills". جلوه هنر, 8, 1, 1403, 33-61. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41130.1720
Tavassoli, Kobra, Rahmatollahi, Maryam. (1403). 'Differential impact of synchronous and asynchronous computer-assisted dynamic assessment on higher-order and lower-order writing skills', جلوه هنر, 8(1), pp. 33-61. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41130.1720
Tavassoli, Kobra, Rahmatollahi, Maryam. Differential impact of synchronous and asynchronous computer-assisted dynamic assessment on higher-order and lower-order writing skills. جلوه هنر, 1403; 8(1): 33-61. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2023.41130.1720

Differential impact of synchronous and asynchronous computer-assisted dynamic assessment on higher-order and lower-order writing skills

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 2، دوره 8، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 19، شهریور 2024، صفحه 33-61    اصل مقاله (589.85 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2023.41130.1720
نویسندگان
Kobra Tavassoli* 1؛ Maryam Rahmatollahi2
1Department of ELT, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
2Department of ELT, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
چکیده
This study endeavored to scrutinize the differential impacts of asynchronous and synchronous computer-assisted dynamic assessment (CADA) on English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ higher-order and lower-order writing skills. In a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest research design, 60 Iranian EFL university students of both genders were selected through convenience sampling and were randomly assigned to two experimental groups. They experienced dynamic assessment (DA) procedures and received mediation on their writing either asynchronously or synchronously for 12 weeks where the higher-order and lower-order writing skills were rated by the researchers based on the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) (2011) writing rubric. The results of MANOVA revealed that both groups performed significantly better on the writing posttest in all the higher-order and lower-order writing skills. Nevertheless, no significant inter-group differences were found in the practiced writing skills on the posttest results. Further, 10 participants were randomly selected from each experimental group to explore their perceptions of and attitudes toward the CADA procedures. Analyzing their responses, it was observed that members of the asynchronous CADA group had more positive perceptions of writing, less level of stress, and more sense of rapport with the instructor. The findings highlight the potential of CADA to enhance EFL learners’ higher-order and lower-order writing skills both in synchronous and asynchronous contexts.
کلیدواژه‌ها
asynchronous؛ computer-assisted dynamic assessment (CADA)؛ higher-order writing skills؛ lower-order writing skills؛ synchronous
عنوان مقاله [English]
تاثیر متفاوت ارزشیابی پویا به کمک رایانه بصورت همزمان و غیرهمزمان بر مهارتهای نوشتاری سطوح بالا و پایین
نویسندگان [English]
کبری توسلی1؛ مریم رحمت الهی2
1گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران
2گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران.
چکیده [English]
این پژوهش می‌کوشد تأثیر متفاوت ارزشیابی پویا به‌کمک رایانه به‌صورت همزمان و غیرهمزمان بر مهارت‌های نوشتاری مرتبه بالاتر و پایین‌تر فراگیران زبان انگلیسی را بررسی کند. در این پژوهش نیمه‌تجربی که به ‌شکل پیش‌آزمون-پس‌آزمون انجام گرفت، 60 دانشجوی دختر و پسر ایرانی مشغول به تحصیل در رشته زبان انگلیسی به روش نمونه‌گیری دردسترس انتخاب و به‌طور تصادفی در دو گروه تجربی قرار گرفتند. زبان‌آموزان این دو گروه، به مدت 12 هفته، رویکردهای مربوط به ارزشیابی پویا را تجربه کردند و برای نوشتارشان به‌صورت همزمان یا غیرهمزمان آموزش دریافت کردند. مهارت‌های نوشتاری مرتبه بالاتر و پایین‌تر آن‌ها توسط پژوهشگران بر اساس معیار نمره‌دهی نوشتار گروه آموزش ویرجینیای غربی (2011) مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. یافته‌های تحلیل واریانس چندگانه نشان داد که هر دو گروه در پس‌آزمون نوشتاری در همة مهارت‌های نوشتاری مرتبه بالاتر و پایین‌تر به‌طور چشمگیری پیشرفت داشتند. با این‌ وجود، هیچ تفاوت بین‌گروهی قابل‌ِتوجهی در مهارت‌های نوشتاری تمرین‌شده در یافته‌های پس‌آزمون یافت نشد. همچنین، 10 شرکت‌کننده به‌طور تصادفی از هر گروه انتخاب شدند تا برداشت‌ها و نگرش‌هایشان نسبت به مراحل ارزشیابی پویا به کمک رایانه بررسی شود. بررسی پاسخ‌ها نشان داد که اعضای گروه ارزشیابی پویا به‌کمک رایانه به‌صورت غیرهمزمان نگرش مثبت بیشتری از نوشتن، سطح نگرانی کمتر، و ارتباط نزدیک‌تری با معلم شان داشتند. یافته‌های این پژوهش تأثیر بالقوه ارزشیابی پویا به‌کمک رایانه به‌صورت همزمان و غیرهمزمان برای تقویت مهارت‌های نوشتاری مرتبه بالاتر و پایین‌تر زبان‌آموزان را برجسته می‌سازد.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
غیرهمزمان, ارزشیابی پویا به‌کمک رایانه, مهارت‌های نوشتاری مرتبه بالاتر, مهارت‌های نوشتاری مرتبه پایین‌تر, همزمان
مراجع
  1. Andujar, A. (2020). Mobile-Mediated dynamic assessment: A new perspective for second language development. ReCALL, 32(2), 178-194.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000247.
  2. Atmojo, A. E. P. & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL classes must go online! Teaching activities and challenges during Covid-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Register Journal, 13(1), 49-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.18326/rgt.v13i1.49-76.
  3. Azizah, A., & Nugraha, S. I. (2021). A qualitative study: Exploring EFL students’ attitude toward learning writing during online learning Covid-19 in Karawang senior high school. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 3(4), 2265-2270.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.31004/ edukatif.v3i4.1188.
  4. Carr, C. T. (2020). CMC is dead, long live CMC! Situating computer-mediated communication scholarship beyond the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 9-22.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz018.
  5. Chakowa, J. (2018). Enhancing beginners’ second language learning through an informal online environment. Journal of Educators Online, 15(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.9743/JEO2018.15.1.7.
  6. Chih-Ming, C., & Ying-You, L. (2020). Developing a computer-mediated communication competence forecasting model based on learning behavior features. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 10-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100004.
  7. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.1.2.48331.
  8. Daneshvar, A., Bagheri, M. S., Sadighi, F., Yarmohammadi, L., & Yamini, M. (2021). A probe into Iranian learners’ performance on IELTS academic writing task 2: Operationalizing two models of dynamic assessment versus static assessment. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(2), 25-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2020.13075.1617.
  9. Darhower, M. A. (2014). Synchronous computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A case study of L2 Spanish past narration. Calico Journal, 31(2), 221-243.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.2.221-243.
  10. Davoudi, M., & Ataie-Tabar, M. (2015). The effect of computerized dynamic assessment of L2 writing on Iranian EFL learners’ writing development. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 3(2), 176-186.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v3n2a16.
  11. Deiniatur, M. (2021). Students’ perception on the use of google classroom in essay writing class. INCARE, International Journal of Educational Resources, 1(6), 496-507.‏ http://ejournal.ijshs.org/index.php/incare/article/view/101.
  12. Eagly, A.E., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt, Brace, & Janovich.
  13. Ebadi, S., & Bashir, S. (2021). An exploration into EFL learners’ writing skills via mobile-based dynamic assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 26 (1), 1-22.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10348-4.
  14. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362.
  15. Estaji, M., & Saeedian, A. (2020). Developing EFL learners’ reading comprehension through computerized dynamic assessment. Reading Psychology, 41(4), 1-22.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1768981.
  16. Helm, F. (2015). The practices and challenges of tele-collaboration in higher education in Europe. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2), 197-217. http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2015/helm.pdf.
  17. Kazemi, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2020). The comparative effect of dynamic vs. diagnostic assessment on EFL learner’s speaking ability. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 8(2), 223-241. https://doi.org/10.30486/RELP.2019.1878561.1155.
  18. Kazemi, P., Pourdana, N., Khalili, G. F., & Nour, P. (2022). Microgenetic analysis of written languaging attributes on form-focused and content-focused e-collaborative writing tasks in google docs. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11039-y.
  19. Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747.
  20. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
  21. Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 207-226). Routledge.
  22. Lee, E. J. (2020). Authenticity model of (mass-oriented) computer-mediated communication: Conceptual explorations and testable propositions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 60-73.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz025.
  23. Manalu, B. H. (2019). Students’ perception of digital texts reading: A case research at the English education department of Universitas Kristen Indonesia. Journal of English Teaching, 5(3), 191-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.33541/jet.v5i3.1312.
  24. Melani, E., & Kuswardani, R. (2022). Students’ perception and challenges on online learning during pandemic: EFL senior high school speaking learning context. Retain, 10(2), 1-8. https://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/retain/article/view/47954.
  25. Mu’awanah, N., Sumardi, & Suparno, (2021). Exploring EFL students’ perception of using zoom during learning from home period. PROCEEDING AISELT (Annual International Seminar on English Language Teaching), 6(1), 191-204. https://jurnal.untirta.ac.id/index.php/aiselt/article/view/12509/7719.   
  26. Mukminin, A., & Habibi, A. (2020). Technology in the classroom: EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge. Informatologia, 53(1-2), 24-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.32914/i.53.1-2.3.‏
  27. Nazara, S. (2011). Students’ perception on EFL speaking skill development. Journal of English Teaching, 1(1), 28-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.33541/jet.v1i1.50.
  28. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2014). Longman academic writing series: Paragraphs to essays. Pearson.‏
  29. Pallant, J. (2011). A step-by-step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program: Survival manual (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Berkire.
  30. Phuong, Y. H., & Nguyen, P. T. Y. (2019). Impact of online peer feedback on students’ writing performance and attitude. In H. Y. Phuong & T. V. Nguyen (Eds.), Using alternative assessment to improve EFL learners’ learning achievement from theory to practice (pp. 81-98). Nova Science Publishers.
  31. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Springer.
  32. Pourdana, N., & Tavassoli, K. (2022). Differential impacts of e-portfolio assessment on language learners’ engagement modes and genre-based writing improvement. Language Testing in Asia, 12(7), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00156-7.
  33. Prasojo, L. D., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Hendra, R., & Iqroni, D. (2019). Building quality education through integrating ICT in schools: Teachers’ attitudes, perception, and barriers. Quality - Access to Success, 20(172), 45-50.
  34. Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of teaching and applied linguistics. Pearson Education.
  35. Rojabi, A. R. (2020). Exploring EFL students’ perception of online learning via Microsoft teams: university level in Indonesia. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 163-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2349.
  36. Rosalinda, E., Hamamah, H., & Degeng, P. D. D. (2022). Students’ perception on the use of WhatsApp for learning writing during Covid-19 pandemic: A case study. Jurnal Pendidikan: Riset dan Konseptual, 6(3), 500-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.28926/ riset_konseptual.v6i3.557.
  37. Rukmi, N. S., Novianti, H., & Rukminingsih (2021). Students’ perceptions toward distance education with online collaborative platforms in EFL critical reading course. New Language Dimensions, 2(1), 102-115. https://journal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/nld/index.
  38. Shafaiee Rad, H. (2021). Exploring use of mobile-mediated hybrid dynamic assessment in improving EFL learners’ descriptive writing skills. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 111-127.‏
  39. Shrestha, P. N. (2020). Dynamic assessment of students’ academic writing: Vygotskian and systemic functional linguistic perspectives. Springer Nature.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55845-1.
  40. Tavassoli, K., & Nikmard, F. (2019). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ performance on selective and productive reading comprehension tasks. Foreign Language Research Journal, 9(2), 445-478. https://doi.org/10.22059/JFLR.2019.257289.505.
  41. Torabi, S., & Safdari, M. (2020). The effects of electronic portfolio assessment and dynamic assessment on writing performance. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 21(2), 51-69.‏
  42. Tran, T. Q. (2020). EFL students’ attitudes toward learner autonomy in English vocabulary learning. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(2), 86-94.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i2.2361.
  43. Tran T. Q., Duong, T. M., & Huynh, N. T. T. (2019). Attitudes toward the use of TELL tools in English language learning among Vietnamese tertiary English majors. VNU Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(5), 581-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/ vjossh.v5i5.498.
  44. Tusino, Faridi, A., Saleh, M., & Fitriati, S. W. (2021). Online task-based language teaching using google classroom in writing class: How does it affect EFL learners’ writing performance and attitude? Journal of Asia TEFL, 18(1), 262-270.‏
  45. Vakili, S., & Ebadi, S. (2019). Exploring EFL learners’ developmental errors in academic writing through face-to-face and computer-mediated dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning,35 (4), 1-36.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1698616.
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  47. Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003.
  48. Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2019). Promoting L2 English learners’ reading proficiency through computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 628-652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1585882.
  49. Zafarani, Z., & Maftoon, P. (2016). Investigating dynamic writing assessment in a Web 2.0 asynchronous collaborative computer-mediated context.‏ Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 195-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.29252/ijal.19.2.195.
  50. Zandi, G., Tavassoli, K., & Nikmard, F. (2020). Improving EFL learners’ performance on receptive-response and productive-response listening comprehension items through diagnostic vs. dynamic assessment. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39(3.1), 217-252. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.38116.2865.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 315
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 251


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب