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

Year 2017, , 1 - 24, 15.03.2017

Mowla Miri Goudarz Alibakhshi Ali Kushki Peyman Salehpour Bavarsad

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.461025

Cited By: 10

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 thirdgrade

high 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 their

knowledge of articles, prior to and after the treatment, was measured by administering two parallel cloze

tests. G-DA sessions lasted for three sessions, during which both groups worked on three editing tasks on

articles according to the operational definitions proposed by Poehner (2009) for G-DA procedures. Results

of the study revealed that both types of G-DA increased gains in learning articles. Additionally, it came

to light that the concurrent group outperformed the cumulative one. The results are discussed in the light of the tenets of sociocultural theory

Keywords

Dynamic Assessment; Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA); Concurrent and Cumulative GDA; Sociocultural Theory

References

• 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.
• 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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation.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
• 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.
• Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42 (3), 576-598.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.
• 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.
• Butler, Y. (2002). Second language learners' theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (3), 451-480.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Guk, I., & D. Kellogg. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11 (3), 281-299.
• Kao, Y. (2015). How interactive discussions support writing development: the application of Dynamic Assessment for learning Chinese rhetoric. Language Testing in Asia, 5(14), 1-16.
• Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Lantolf, J. (2012). Sociocultural Theory: A Dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. M. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57-72).
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 49-72.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. London: Routledge.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Yáñez-Prieto, C. (2003). Talking yourself into Spanish: Intrapersonal communication and second language learning. Hispania, 86 (1), 97-109.
• Lidz, C. (1987). Dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, New Jersey London.
• Liu, D., & Gleason, J. I. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English: An analysis of four nongeneric uses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 1-26.
• Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher and G. Briane (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 183-204). New York: Ablex.
• McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold.
• Moradian, M., & Baharvand, P. (2015). The effect of group dynamic assessment on raising young Iranian EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 67-86.
• Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: The Effect of random vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles. Language Awareness, 9 (1), 34-51. http://doi.org/fbc2xk
• Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Petrovsky, A. V. (1985). Studies in psychology. The Collective and the individual. Moscow: Progress.
• Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. Modern Language Journal, 91 (3), 323-340.
• Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
• Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (3), 471-491.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2016). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/tesq.308.
• Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9 (1), 1-33.
• Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The Case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17 (4), 312-330.
• Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Frames of interaction in dynamic assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18 (2), 183-198.
• 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.
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
• Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2013). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Awareness, 64 (1), 103-131.
• Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2), 29-46.
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Swain, M., Huang, L. S., Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., & Lapkin, S. (2009). The speaking section of the TOEFL iBT™ (SSTiBT): Test-takers’ reported strategic behaviors (TOEFL iBT™ Research Series No. TOEFLiBT-10). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
• van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39–60.
• van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L., (2013). Group dynamics in language classroom: embodied participation as active reception in the collective Zone of Proximal Development. Classroom Discourse, 4(1), 1-21.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.