Dynamic Assessment , Computerized Dynamic Assessment , Static Assessment and Reading Comprehension: Effects and Percepts

Yaghoobi, Mehdi; Razmjoo, ُSeyyed Ayatollah

Dynamic Assessment , Computerized Dynamic Assessment , Static Assessment and Reading Comprehension: Effects and Percepts

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mehdi Yaghoobi ¹

ُSeyyed Ayatollah Razmjoo ²

¹ Department of English Language, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran

² Shiraz University

Abstract

The current study aimed at comparing the effects of computerized dynamic assessment(CDA), dynamic assessment (DA) and static assessment (SA) on reading comprehension performance. Additionally, the learners' attitudes towards the SA, DA and CDA were also investigated. The participants of the present study included 60 Iranian EFL learners. The learners’ reading performance was tested to assure that the three groups were not significantly different in terms of reading comprehension prior to treatment. After checking their readability were followed by some reading comprehension questions. Following that, one of the groups received DA for reading comprehension questions via receiving the least implicit to most explicit hints provided by the teacher until the learners came up with the correct responses. As for the CDA group the software provided hints in a step-wise manner from the most implicit to the most explicit for the learners until they came up with the right response. The treatments lasted for four sessions and immediately afterwards the learners in the three groups sat for the reading comprehension posttest. Moreover, 10 participants in each group were interviewed to explore their attitudes towards SA, DA and CDA. The results of statistical analysis indicated that both DA and CDA had significant effects on improving the participants’ reading comprehension performance. Moreover, it was revealed that CDA was significantly more effective on reading comprehension performance compared with DA. The analysis of interview contents indicated that overall the participants held more positive attitudes towards the CDA compared to the conventional DA and SA assessment types.

Keywords

Dynamic assessment

Computerized dynamic assessment

Static assessment

Reading comprehension

Attitudes

20.1001.1.23831324.1399.14.49.2.1

حمادی، ح.، فقیهی، ع.، سیفی، م.، و ناطقی، ف. (1397). بررسی و تحلیل کیفی انواع مدل‏های آموزش دانش‏آموزان دوزبانه. نشریه پژوهش در نظام‏های آموزشی، 12(ویژه‏نامه)، 839-852.

محمدخانی، س.، قیومی، ع.، محمد داودی، الف.، امیرارجمندی، ن. (1396). عوامل مؤثر بر ارتقاء مؤلفه‏های فرهنگی آموزش زبان خارجی و ارائه یک الگوی مناسب (موردمطالعه: زبان انگلیسی). نشریه پژوهش در نظام‏های آموزشی، 11(39)، 207-210.

Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.

Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Bakhoda, I., & Shabani, K. (2019). Enhancing L2 learners’ ZPD modification through computerized-group dynamic assessment of reading comprehension. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 31-44.

Barzegar, R., & Azarizad, R. (2014). Using dynamic assessment to improve L2 learners’ knowledge of grammar: evidence from the tenses. In Classroom-oriented Research (pp. 219-227). Springer, Heidelberg.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Crick, R. D., & Yu, G. (2008). Assessing learning dispositions: Is the effective lifelong learning inventory valid and reliable as a measurement tool? Educational Research, 50(4), 387-402.

Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 303–322.

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.

Donaldson, R. P., & Haggstrom, M A. (Eds). (2006). Changing language education through CALL. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. England: Oxford University Press.

Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2015). The effects of computerized dynamic assessment on promoting at-risk advanced Iranian EFL students’ reading skills. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 4(2), 1-26.

Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2016). Planning future instructional programs through computerized l2 dynamic assessment. Teaching English with Technology, 16(4), 12-32.

Guthke, J., & Beckmann, J. F. (2000). The learning test concept and its applications in practice. In C. S. Lidz& J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 17–69). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Hamadi, H, Faghihi, A., Seifi, M., & Nateghi, F. (1397). Qualitative analysis of various models of bilingual students' education. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 12 (Special Issue), 839-852. [In Persian]

Hessamya, G., & Ghaderi, E. (2014). The role of dynamic assessment in the vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 645 – 652.

Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2007). A comparison analysis of computer-supported learning models and guidelines. In F. M. M. Neto, & F. U. Brasilerio (Eds.), Advances in computer- supported learning. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.1–19). England: Cambridge University Press.

Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (2008). Asynchronous forums in EAP: Assessment issues. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (2), 49-70.

Lambert, D., & Lines, D. (2000). Understanding assessment: Purposes, perceptions, practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

MehriKamrood, A., Davoudi, M., Amiria, S. M. R., & Ghaniabadi, S. (2018). Transcendence of learning in an online computerized dynamic test of English listening. CALL-EJ, 19(1), 23-42.

Mohammadkhani, S., Qayyumi, A., Mohammad Davoodi, A., & Amir Arjomandi, N. (1396). Factors affecting the promotion of cultural components of foreign language teaching and providing a suitable model (read: English language). Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 11 (39), 207-210. [In Persian]

Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.

Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English language learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2 (2), 22-41.

Navarro, J. J., Mourgues-Codern, C., Guzmán, E., Rodríguez-Ortiz, I. R., Conejo, R., Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C., De la Fuente, J., Martella, D., & Saracostti, M. (2018). Integrating curriculum-based dynamic assessment in computerized adaptive testing: Development and predictive validity of the EDPL-BAI battery on reading competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1), 1-21.

Nirmalakhandan, N. (2007). Computerized dynamic assessment. International Conference on Engineering Education, 1-6.

Nirmalakhandan, N. (2009). Use of computerized dynamic assessment to improve student achievement: Case study. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 135(2), 75–80.

Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL1), 15(1), 73-95.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.

Ragan, L. C. (1998). Good teaching is good teaching: An emerging set of guiding principles andpractices for the design and development of distance education. DEOSNEWS, 8 (12).

Shabani, K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners' reading comprehension processes: A Vygotskian perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,32, 321-328.

Silverman, D. (2019). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (4^thed). London: SAGE.

Simuth, J., & Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2013). Cognitive style variable in e-learning. 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences, Italy, Rome.

Simuth, J., & Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2014). Cognitive style variable in e-learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1464-1467.

Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321 – 363.

Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 21–32.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The socialist relation of man. In R. de Veer, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), TheVygotsky reader (pp. 175-184). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.

Yildirim, A. G. O. (2008). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and dynamic assessment in language learning. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 301-308.