Mediating Multilingual Immigrant Learners’ L2 Writing Through Interactive Dynamic Assessment

Year 2022, , 307 - 326, 22.04.2022

Tuba Özturan , Hacer Hande Uysal Gürdal

https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1004155

Abstract

Learning-oriented assessment approaches, such as Dynamic Assessment (DA), have recently grabbed increasing attention, and appeared as an alternative by embedding instruction into the assessment. During DA, teachers actively intervene in the assessment process, tailor mediational moves to learners’ ever-shifting needs and diagnose their microgenetic growth. Grounded in the dialogic reciprocal teacher-learner interaction during an in tandem work, DA asserts that diagnosing the learners’ matured abilities and needs, mediating accordingly, and then observing their maturing abilities are crucial. This assertion paves the way to reveal each learner’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Despite some influential studies on the use of DA in language education, more studies are warranted to explore the use of DA in different contexts and with different participants. Therefore, this case study recruited two multilingual immigrants/refugees who were underachievers in L2 writing classes. They were provided individual interactive DA for ten weeks, and the dialogic interaction between the teacher and the students was analyzed. The data were also compared to their writing test scores in three different periods. The results revealed that initially, the mediational moves mostly rested on teacher-agency, but over time more learner-agency-oriented mediational moves were also adopted. Furthermore, these students started to narrow the gap between themselves and their classmates. Lastly, a semi-structured interview was conducted to illustrate the participants’ perspectives towards DA in the L2 writing context, and the related data revealed recurrent themes that had bidirectional relation with DA’s theoretical premises.

Keywords

Dynamic assessment, L2 writing, Multilingual immigrants/refugess

References

• Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment, 19, 1-16. Doi: 10.1080/10627197.2014.869446.
• Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.
• Beck, S. W., Jones, K., Storm, S., & Smith, H. (2020). Scaffolding students’ writing process through dialogic assessment. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 6(6), 651-660. Doi: 10.1002/jaal.1039.
• 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. Doi: 10.1177/1362168813482934.
• Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: A critical examination of constructs and practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 1-17. Doi: 10.1111/modl.123520026-7902/16/1-17.
• Davin, K. J., & Herazo, H. D. (2020). Reconceptualizing classroom dynamic assessment: Lessons from teacher practice. In Matthew E. P., & Ofra I. L. (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment: Praxis and researcher-teacher partnership (pp. 197-217). Springer.
• Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., & Falik, L. H. (2010). Beyond smarter: Mediated learning and the brain’s capacity for change. Teachers College Press.
• Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 19-44.
• Ganem-Gutierrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A. (2018). Expert-novice interaction as the basis for L2 developmental activity: A SCT perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 5(1), 21-45. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.33621.
• Garbaj, M. M. (2018). Thinking through the non-native language: The role of private speech in mediating cognitive functioning in problem solving among proficient non-native speakers. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 5(2), 108-129. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.35975.
• Haywood, H. C., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Application and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40-63. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7702_5.
• Infante, P., & Poehner, M. E. (2019). Realizing the ZPD in second language education: The complementary contributions of dynamic assessment and mediated development. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 6(1), 63-91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.38916.
• Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Harvard University Press.
• Kozulin, A., and Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at risk students. School Psychology Internatiınal, 23 112-127. Doi: 10.1177/0143034302023001733.
• Kozulin, A., & Levi, T. (2018). EFL learning potential: General or modular? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(1), 16-27. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.17.1.16.
• Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford University Press.
• Lantolf, J. P., Kurtz, L., & Kisselev, O. (2016). Understanding the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(2), 153-171. Doi: 10.1558/lst.v3i2.32867.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2), 141-157. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.767616.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press.
• Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In Bill V., & Jessica W. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 207-226). Routledge.
• Leung, C. (2020). Learning-oriented assessment: More than the chalkface. In Matthew E. P., & Ofra I. L. (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment: Praxis and researcher-teacher partnership (pp. 85-106). Springer.
• Lidz, C. S. & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V.S. & Miller, S.M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-118). Cambridge University Press.
• Peterson, S. S., Altidor, A., & Kerwood, J. (2021). Young children’s written and verbal responses in a dynamic assessment context. Assessing Writing, 49. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100543.
• Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University.
• Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Springer.
• Poehner, M. E., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). An epistemology of action for understanding and change in L2 classroom assessment: The case for praxis. In Matthew E. P., & Ofra I. L. (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment: Praxis and researcher-teacher partnership (pp. 1-120). Springer.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2015). Mediated development: Inter-psychological activity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 161-183. Doi: 10.1558/lst.v2i2.26982.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2016). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 275-289). De Gruyter.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332-356. Doi: 10.1002/tesq.308.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2019). Mediated development and the internalization of psychological tools in second language (L2) education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, 1-14. Doi: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100322.
• Poehner, M. E., Infante, P., & Takamiya, Y. (2018). Mediational processes in support of learner L2 writing development: Individual, peer, and group contexts. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(1), 112- 132. Doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.17.1.112.
• Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. Doi: 10.1191/1362168805lr166oa.
• Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342. Doi: 10.1177/1362168813482935.
• Poehner, M. E., & Leontjev, D. (2018). To correct or to cooperate: Mediational processes and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 1-22. Doi: 10.1177/1362168818783212.
• Poehner, M. E., & Swain, M. (2016). L2 development as cognitive-emotive process. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(2), 219-241. Doi: 10.1558/lst.v3i2.32922.
• Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2020). Reconsidering time and process in L2 dynamic assessment. In Matthew E. P., & Ofra I. L. (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment: Praxis and researcher-teacher partnership (pp. 173-195). Springer.
• Poehner M. E., & Wang, Z. (2020). Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language Teaching, 1-19. Doi: 10.1017/S0261444820000555.
• Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337-357. Doi: 10.1177/0265532214560390.
• Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208. Doi: 10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956.
• Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.
• Shrestha, P. N. (2017). Investigating the learning transfer of genre features and conceptual knowledge from an academic literacy course to business studies: Exploring the potential of dynamic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 1-17. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.002.
• Shrestha, P.N. (2020). Dynamic Assessment of Students’ Academic Writing: Vygotskian and Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspectives. Springer.
• Shrestha, P. N., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic Assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70. Doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003.
• Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277. Doi:10.1017/S0261444818000034.
• Tzuriel, D., & Kaufman, R. (1999). Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: Dynamic assessment of young Ethiopian immigrant children to Israel. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 3(3), 359-380.
• Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 21-32.
• Xian, L. (2020). The effectiveness of dynamic assessment in linguistic accuracy in EFL writing: An investigation assisted by online scoring. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 18, 98-114. Doi: 10.32038/ltrq.2020.18.07.
• Van Compernolle, R. (2016). CA-for-SCT: Dialectics and the analysis of cognition on the ground. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(2), 173-193. Doi: 10.1558/lst.v3i2.33171.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
• Zhang, H., & van Compernolle, R. (2016). Learning potential and the dynamic assessment of L2 Chinese grammar through elicited imitation. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(1), 99-119. Doi: 10.1558/lst.v3i1.27549.