دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها911
تعداد مقالات7,489
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,110,476
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,566,240
Safaei Asl, Nader, Ahangari, saeideh, Saeidi, Mahnaz. (1401). The Effect of Group type and Mediation type in Group Dynamic Assessment on the Improvement of Iranian Homogeneous and Heterogeneous EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension. جلوه هنر, 6(4), 103-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.28998.1214
Nader Safaei Asl; saeideh Ahangari; Mahnaz Saeidi. "The Effect of Group type and Mediation type in Group Dynamic Assessment on the Improvement of Iranian Homogeneous and Heterogeneous EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension". جلوه هنر, 6, 4, 1401, 103-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.28998.1214
Safaei Asl, Nader, Ahangari, saeideh, Saeidi, Mahnaz. (1401). 'The Effect of Group type and Mediation type in Group Dynamic Assessment on the Improvement of Iranian Homogeneous and Heterogeneous EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension', جلوه هنر, 6(4), pp. 103-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.28998.1214
Safaei Asl, Nader, Ahangari, saeideh, Saeidi, Mahnaz. The Effect of Group type and Mediation type in Group Dynamic Assessment on the Improvement of Iranian Homogeneous and Heterogeneous EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension. جلوه هنر, 1401; 6(4): 103-124. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.28998.1214

The Effect of Group type and Mediation type in Group Dynamic Assessment on the Improvement of Iranian Homogeneous and Heterogeneous EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 5، دوره 6، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 14، اردیبهشت 2023، صفحه 103-124    اصل مقاله (347.37 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2020.28998.1214
نویسندگان
Nader Safaei Asl1؛ saeideh Ahangari* 2؛ Mahnaz Saeidi3
1Ph.D. candidate of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
3Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.
چکیده
Based on Vygotsky's concept of Zone of Proximal Development, dynamic assessment (DA) has at its core the integration of assessment and instruction through mediation. DA is practiced either individually or collectively. In group-dynamic assessment (G-DA), as Poehner (2009) introduced, learners are simultaneously exposed to mediation.  The problem which has been ignored in G-DA is the homogeneity and heterogeneity of EFL leaners while being mediated. This study tried to investigate the effect of group-dynamic assessment on homogeneous and heterogeneous EFL learners' ability in listening comprehension. It also intended to find out if expert-novice and peer-to-peer mediation types in G-DA differed in their effects on homogeneous and heterogeneous EFL learners' command of listening comprehension. To this end, eighty intermediate EFL learners were chosen to be the participants. According to their language proficiency, they were assigned to two groups of forty homogeneous and forty heterogeneous learners. Then, each group was divided into two experimental groups. The participants in all groups attended three listening sessions. For the mediation, the participants were assisted through novice-expert and peer-to-peer mediation types. To find out the main and interaction effect of group type and mediation type in G-DA, the post-test scores were analysed through running a two-way ANOVA.  The results indicated that both group type and mediation type had significant main and interaction effect on learners' listening comprehension. A post hoc test was also utilized to compare the mean differences between the groups.
کلیدواژه‌ها
group-dynamic assessment؛ homogeneous؛ heterogeneous؛ mediation type؛ zone of proximal development
عنوان مقاله [English]
تاثیر نوع گروه بندی و نوع مداخله در ارزشیابی پویای گروهی بر بهبود مهارت شنیداری فراگیران زبان انگلیسی ایرانی
نویسندگان [English]
نادر صفایی اصل1؛ سعیده آهنگری2؛ مهناز سعیدی3
1دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، شعبة تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
2استادیار آموزش زبان انگلیسی، گروه زبان انگلیسی، شعبة تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
3دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی- واحد تبریز- دانشگاه ازاد اسلامی - تبریز - ایران
چکیده [English]
ارزیابی پویا که مبتنی بر مفهوم حوزه تقریبی رشد ویگوتسکی است، یکپارچگی ارزیابی و آموزش از طریق مداخله را در مرکز توجه خود دارد. ارزیابی پویا یا به صورت فردی و یا به صورت جمعی اجرا می‌شود. در ارزیابی پویا-گروهی که توسط پوهنر (2009) معرفی شد، زبان‌آموزان به شکل همزمان در معرض مداخله قرار می‌گیرند. مسأله‌ایی که به طور گسترده در ارزیابی گروهی نادیده گرفته شده، همگنی و ناهمگنی فراگیران زبان انگلیسی در حینِ مداخله است. این پژوهش، کوشید تا تأثیر ارزیابی پویا-گروهی بر توانایی درک شنیداری فراگیران زبان انگلیسیِ همگن و ناهمگن را مورد بررسی قرار دهد. همچنین این پژوهش بر آن است تا دریابد آیا دو نوع مداخلة کارشناس-تازه‌کار و همتا-به-همتا در ارزیابی پویا-گروهی می‌تواند تأثیر متفاوتی بر کنترل درک شنیداری فراگیران زبان انگلیسی همگن و ناهمگن داشته باشد. به همین منظور، 80 فراگیر زبان انگلیسیِ سطح متوسط به عنوان شرکت‌کننده انتخاب شدند. آن‌ها، بر مبنای مهارت زبانی‌شان در دو گروه 40 نفری زبان‌آموزان همگن و ناهمگن قرار گرفتند. سپس، هر گروه به دو گروه آزمایش تقسیم شدند. شرکت‌کننده‌ها در همة گروه‌ها، در سه جلسه شنیداری شرکت کردند. برای مداخله، به شرکت‌کننده‌ها از طریق انواع مداخلة کارشناس- تازه‌کار و همتا-به-همتا کمک شد. برای یافتن تأثیر اصلی و تعاملی نوع گروه و مداخله در ارزیابی  پویای گروهی، نمره‌های پس‌آزمون از طریق تحلیل واریانس دوطرفه مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان داد که هم نوع گروه و هم نوع مداخله، تأثیر اصلی و تعاملی بر درک شنیداری زبان‌آموزان دارند. همچنین، از یک آزمون تعقیبی برای مقایسه تفاوت میانگین بین گروه‌ها، هم بهره گرفته شد.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
ارزیابی پویا-گروهی, همگن, ناهمگن, نوع مداخله, حوزه تقریبی رشد
مراجع
  1. Ableeva, R. (2010).  Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
  2. Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2012). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening.  Teaching Language Skills، 30 (4)27-58            Listening,https://civilica.com/doc/1185732
  3. Alber, R. (2011). Six scaffolding strategies to use with your students. Teacher Leadership, 30(45), 5.  https://ijltr.urmia.ac.ir/article_120931_1571ec72d95f0ce7d7976fac51317413.pdf
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In Defense of Advance Organizers: A Reply to the Critics. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543048002251
  5. Bornstein, M. H., & Bruner, J. S. (Eds.). (1989). Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology: Interaction in human development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  6. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning research (pp. 33-56). Albex.
  7. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1998). Don't accept me as I am: Helping the retarded performers excel.  Plenum.
  8. Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, R.S. (2011). Is dynamic assessment compatible with psychometric model? In A.S Kaufman & N.L. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 218-246).  Cambridge University Press.
  9. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Hidri, S. (2014).  Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in EFL context. Language Testing in Asia.4/4/. pp.2-19. doi:10.1186/2229-0443-4-4
  11. Kaufman, R., & R. Burden. (2004). Peer tutoring between young adults with severe and example learning difficulties: The effects of mediation training with Feuerstein’s instrumental enrichment programme. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 107–117. DOI: 10.1007/BF03173239
  12. Kaur, H. (2010). Mixed ability teaching. VSRD International Journal of Technical and Non-Technical Research, I (1), 47-51. www.visualsoftindia.com/vsrd/vsrdindex.htm
  13. Knestrick, J. (2013). Early learning: Teacher and administrator benefits of teaching in the zone. Retrieved from https://www.nwea.org
  14. Kozulin, A., Garb, E. Dynamic assessment of literacy: English as a third language. Eur J Psychol Educ 19, 65 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173237
  15. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 78, No. 4). Oxford university press.
  16. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002646
  17. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy, & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. (pp.273-284). Springer Science.
  18. Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(03), 355-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005569
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
  20. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  21. Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. Guilford.
  22. Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Lussier, C. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Dynamic assessment: A selective synthesis of the experimental literature. In G. M. van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M. Resing & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (pp. 65-87).  Elsevier.
  24. McNamara, T. (2004). Language testing. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.). The handbook of Applied Linguistic (pp.763-783).  Blackwell.
  25. Mehri, E., & Amerian, M. (2015). Group dynamic assessment (G-DA): The case for the development of control over the past tense. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4/5.  doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5 p.11
  26. Naeni, J., & Duall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2),22-41. https://languagetestingasia.springeropen.com
  27. Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. doi: 10.1191/1362168805lr1660a
  28. 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://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x
  29.  Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development.  Springer.
  30. Poehner, M. (2009). Group Dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. doi: 10.1002 /j1545-7249.2009.tb002245.x
  31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030903338509
  32. Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson. Tesol Quarterly, 26(2), 225-241.             https://doi.org/10.2307/3587004
  33. Rogoff, B. , & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). (1984). Children's learning in the zone of proximal development. New Directions for Child Development.  Jossey-Bass
  34. Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners' writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149. https:// doi.10.30466/ijltr.2018.20494
  35. Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: Teaching, learning, and assessment in the classroom.  Open University Press.
  36. Slavin, R. E. (1993). Students Differ: So What? Educational Researcher, 22(9), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022009013
  37. Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, M., & 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.  https://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2018.36854
  38. Tutty, J.I., & Klein, J.D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Education Tech Research Dev 56, 101–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.  Harvard University Press.
  40. Wang, M. (1983). Development and consequences of students’ sense of personal control. In J.M.            
  41. Levine and M. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perception: Implications for learning. 56-87
  42. Wang, P. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on the listening skills of Lower-intermediate EFL learners in Chinese technical college: A pilot study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,6(6). https://doi.org.10.17507/jltr.0606.14
  43. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (2000). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructive approach. Cambridge University Press
  44. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-      
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 700
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 298


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب