SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Going beyond One-to-One Mediation in Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment

Mowla MİRİ
Goudarz ALİBAKHSHİ
Ali KUSHKİ
Peyman Salehpour BAVARSAD
Pages
1–24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results are discussed in the light of the tenets of sociocultural theory

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper reports on a study delving into the efficiency of two types of Group-Dynamic Assessment (GDA,concurrent and cumulative) in teaching English articles.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this aim, two intact classes of thirdgradehigh school students were included in the study and randomly assigned to Cumulative G-DA (n=34) and Concurrent G-DA (n= 33) groups.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results are discussed in the light of the tenets of sociocultural theory
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Dynamic Assessment · Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA) · Concurrent and Cumulative GDA

Abstract

This paper reports on a study delving into the efficiency of two types of Group-Dynamic Assessment (GDA,concurrent and cumulative) in teaching English articles. To this aim, two intact classes of thirdgradehigh school students were included in the study and randomly assigned to Cumulative G-DA (n=34) and Concurrent G-DA (n= 33) groups. The homogeneity of the classes was determined and theirknowledge of articles, prior to and after the treatment, was measured by administering two parallel clozetests. G-DA sessions lasted for three sessions, during which both groups worked on three editing tasks onarticles according to the operational definitions proposed by Poehner (2009) for G-DA procedures. Resultsof the study revealed that both types of G-DA increased gains in learning articles. Additionally, it cameto light that the concurrent group outperformed the cumulative one. The results are discussed in the light of the tenets of sociocultural theory

🔖

Cite This Article

MİRİ, M., ALİBAKHSHİ, G., KUSHKİ, A., BAVARSAD, P. S. (2017). Going beyond One-to-One Mediation in Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 1–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/284873

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57-86). London: Equinox Press.
  2. Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in L2 French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of Proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. http://doi.org/cs3dz8
  3. Anani Sarab, M. R., & Gordani, Y. (2015). The role of private speech in cognitive regulation of learners: The case of English as a foreign language education. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1-10.
  4. Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42 (3), 576-598.
  5. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.
  6. Bitchener, J. Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
  7. Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners' theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (3), 451-480.
  8. Davin, K. J. (2011). Group dynamic assessment in an early foreign language learning program: Tracking movement through the zone of proximal development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from http://d‐scholarship.pitt.edu/7269/1/DAVINKJ_ETD.pdf
  9. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51-68. http://doi.org/bm2kk5
  10. DiCamilla, F., & Anton, M. (2004). Private speech: a study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(1), 36–69.
  11. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).
  12. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1-11.
  14. Guk, I., & D.