The Effects of Dynamic Criteria Mapping Assessment on Students’ Conceptions and Writing Skills Development

Öz

Learner center assessment procedure and application is very crucial for students writing skills improvement. Hence, this study aimed to explore the effects of dynamic criteria mapping assessment on students’ conceptions and writing skills development with reference to Vygotsky, zone of proximity development. To examine the issues, time series, quasi experimental research design was employed. The major data gathering tools were pre and post-tests, questionnaire and focus group discussion. Multistage sampling technique was employed to choose the sample of the study, and 63 first year software engineering students were the subjects of the study. Among these participants, 32 students were assigned to experimental group and the other 31 students’ were assigned to control group. The findings indicated that dynamic criteria mapping assessment was effective in improving students writing skills development; students were able to construct sentence with better text structure and arguments. Furthermore, they used various cohesive devices, appropriate punctuation marks and dictions in their writing. Moreover, the assessment techniques had changed their conceptions on learning writing skills and engagment in writing assessment. Generally, the researcher learned that dynamic criteria mapping assessment strategy was vital to enhance students writing skills and conceptions on learning writing skills. Lastly, it is recommended that teachers should prepare various and dynamic criteria with their respective students while they assess their students writing skills, and teachers should not use judgmental assessment techniques.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dynamic criteria mapping assessment
• Writing skill
• Conception
• Zone of proximity development

The Effects of Dynamic Criteria Mapping Assessment on Students’ Conceptions and Writing Skills Development

Abstract

Learner center assessment procedure and application is very crucial for students writing skills improvement. Hence, this study aimed to explore the effects of dynamic criteria mapping assessment on students’ conceptions and writing skills development with reference to Vygotsky, zone of proximity development. To examine the issues, time series, quasi experimental research design was employed. The major data gathering tools were pre and post-tests, questionnaire and focus group discussion. Multistage sampling technique was employed to choose the sample of the study, and 63 first year software engineering students were the subjects of the study. Among these participants, 32 students were assigned to experimental group and the other 31 students’ were assigned to control group. The findings indicated that dynamic criteria mapping assessment was effective in improving students writing skills development; students were able to construct sentence with better text structure and arguments. Furthermore, they used various cohesive devices, appropriate punctuation marks and dictions in their writing. Moreover, the assessment techniques had changed their conceptions on learning writing skills and engagment in writing assessment. Generally, the researcher learned that dynamic criteria mapping assessment strategy was vital to enhance students writing skills and conceptions on learning writing skills. Lastly, it is recommended that teachers should prepare various and dynamic criteria with their respective students while they assess their students writing skills, and teachers should not use judgmental assessment techniques.

Keywords

• Dynamic criteria mapping assessment
• Writing skill
• Conception
• Zone of proximity development

References

1. Abiy Y. (2005) Effects of Teacher Mediation on students’ conceptions and Approaches of reading. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Addis Ababa University.
2. Abiy Y. (2013). High school English teachers’ and students’ perceptions, attitudes and actual practices of continuous assessment. Global Journal of Teacher Education. 1(1), 112-121.
3. Alamdarloo, G.H., Moradi, S., & Dehshiri, G.R. (2013). The relationship between students’ conceptions of learning and their academic achievement, Psychology, 4 (1), 44-49. 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), 1-16.
4. Aghaebrahimian, A., Rahimirad, M., Ahmadi, A., & Alamdari, J. (2014). Dynamic Assessment of writing skill in Advanced EFL Iranian Learners: International Conference on Current trends in ELT.
5. Amare T. (2017). Teachers’ Cognition on process genre approach and practices of teaching writing skills in EFL context. English for specific purposes world, 54 (19), 1-17.
6. Anderson, J.S., & Mohrweis, L.C. (2008). Using rubrics to assess accounting students’ writing, oral presentations and Ethics skills. American Journal of Business Education, 1 (2), 85-94.
7. Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beason, L. (2005). Review of what we really value: beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing: Council of writing program administration.
8. Breland, H. M., (1996). Writing Skill Assessment Problems and Prospects. Policy information center. Princeton, Educational Testing service.

9. Breland, H.M., (1983). The direct assessment of writing skill: A measurement review, College Board report, No. 83-6. Retrieved on October 20, 2017 from https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-1983-6-direct-assessment-writing-measurement.pdf
10. Breideband, T. (2016). Alternative Assessment criteria, but how? George State University Student Innovation. Retrieved on July, 17, 2017 from http://sites.gsu.edu/innovation/2016/02/01/alternative-assessment-criteria-but-how/.
11. Brindley, G. (2001). Assessment. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (eds.), the Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.137-143.
12. Broad, B., Adler-Kassner, L., Alford, B., Detweiler, J. Estrem, H., Harrington, S., McBride, M., Stalions, E., & Weeden, S. (2009). Organic writing assessment: Dynamic criteria mapping in action. Utah, Utah state university press.
13. Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing writing. Utah. Utah state university press.
14. Brown, G.T. (2004). Teachers’ Conceptions of assessment: implications for policy and professional development. Assessment in education. 11(3), 301-318. DOI: 10.1080/0969594042000304609
15. Brown, G.T.L. & Hirschfeld, G.H.F. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to outcomes. Assessment in Education: principles, policy and practice. 15 (1), 3-17.
16. Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in education and teaching international, 44 (1), 57-66.
17. CERI (2008). Assessment for learning- the case for formative assessment, retrieved on June 20, 2017 from www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf Chanyalew E. & Abiy Y. (2015). Effects of teacher scaffolding on students reading comprehension. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4 (2), 263-271.
18. Christmas, D., Kudzai, C., & Josiah, M. (2012). Vygotsky’s Zonal Proximity Development Theory: what are its implications for Mathematical teaching? Greener Journal of social sciences, 3 (7), 371-377.
19. Crusan, D., Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and practices. Assessing writing, 28, 43-56.
20. Diab, N.M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essay, system, 57, 55-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014.
21. Escorcia, D. (2015). Teaching and assessing writing skills at university level: a comparison of practices in French and Colombian universities, Educational Research, 57, (3), 254-271.
22. Freeman, D. & Richards, J. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education of second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 193-216. Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group.
23. Graham, S. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all students, Renaissance learning.
24. Hailay T. (2017). Investigating the practices of assessment methods in Amharic language writing skill context. The case of selected higher education in Ethiopia. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(8), 488-493.
25. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language writing. Cambridge. Cambridge University press.
26. Isavi, E. (2012). The effects of dynamic assessment on Iranian L2 writing performance. Retrieved on October 25, 2017 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530902.pdf
27. Ismail, S. A. A. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of ESL writing. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 73-83.
28. Janssen, G., Meier, V., & Trace, J. (2015). Building a better rubric: Mixed methods rubric revision. Assessing writing. 26, 51-66.
29. Johnson, K.E. & Schuck, C. (2014). Using dynamic criteria mapping to improve curriculum alignment across institutions. Retrieved on July, 18, 2017 from http://cop.hlcommission.org/Assessment/johnson.html
30. Kim, J. & Kim, Y. (2005). Teaching Korean university writing class: Balancing the process and the genre approach. Asian EFL Journal. 7 (2). 1-15.
31. Kim, A.H., & Kim, H.J. (2017). The effectiveness of instructor feedback for learning-oriented language assessment: using an integrated reading-to write task for English for academic purposes. Assessing writing. 32, 57-71.
32. Krawczyk, J. (2001). Writing attitudes: Determining the effect of a community of learners project on the attitudes of composing students, MA thesis, Oklahoma state University.
33. Li, J., & Lindsey, P. (2015). Understanding variations between student and teacher application of rubrics. Assessing writing, 26, 67-79.
34. Lovorn, M. G., & Rezaei, A. R. (2011). Assessing the assessment: Rubrics training for pre-service and In-service teachers. Practical assessment, research and evaluation, 16 (16).
35. Marzec-Stawiarska, M. (2016). The influence of summary writing on the development of reading skills in a foreign language, system, 59, 90-99.
36. McCune, V. (2004). Development of first year students’ conceptions of essay writing. Higher Education, 47, 257-282.
37. McLean, M. (2001). Can we relate conceptions of learning to student academic achievement? Teaching in higher education, 6 (3), 399-413. DOI: 10.1080/13562510120061241
38. Ministry of education (2013). English department harmonized curriculum, unpublished curriculum, Addis Ababa.
39. Nazari, A. (2017). Dynamic assessment in higher education English classes: a lecturer perspective. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 100-118.
40. Neibling, J.L. (2014). Teachers’ Conceptions Towards Type of Assessment: Grade Level and State Tested Content Area. MA thesis, Kansas University.
41. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
42. Poehner, E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Pennsylvania State University.
43. Rezaei, A.R.,& Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and Validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing writing, 15(1), 18-39. Richards, J. (1990). The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
44. Seifoori, Z., Mozaheb, M.A., & Beigi, A.B. (2012). A profile of an effective EFL writing Teachers (A technology-based approach). English Language Teaching, 5 (5), 107-117.
45. Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation, and academic writing development. Assessing writing, 17 (1), 55-70.
46. Sills, E. (2016). Multimodal assessment as disciplinary sense making: Beyond rubrics to framework. The journal of writing assessment, 9 (2). Retrieved on October 27, 2017 from http://journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=109
47. Steketee, C.N. (1996). Conceptions of learning held by students in the lower, middle and upper grades of primary school. Retrieved on September 14, 2017 from http://ro.edu.au/theses_hons/677
48. Tabar, M., & Davoudi, M. (2015). The Effects of computerized Dynamic Assessment of L2 Writing on Iranian EFL Learner’s Writing Development. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication. 3 (2), 176-186.
49. Tekle F., Endalfer M., & Ebabu T. (2012), a descriptive survey on Teachers’ perception of EFL writing and their practice of teaching writing: Preparatory schools in Jimma zone in focus. Ethiopian journal of education and science, 1 (1), 29-52.
50. Temesgen E. (2013), Factors that affect learners’ motivations towards the writing skills: the case of grade twelve students in Wachemo preparatory school, Hosanna, MA thesis.
51. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research: In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127-146). New York: Macmillan.
52. Trace, J., Meier, V., & Janssen, G. (2016). “I can see that”: Developing shared rubrics category interpretations through score negotiation. Assessing writing, 30, 32-43.
53. Tuan, H.L., Chin, C.C., & Shieh, S.H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science and Education. 27 (6), 639-654.
54. Vygotsky, S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher psychology Processes: Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
55. West-Puckett, S. (2016). Making classroom writing assessment more visible, equitable and portable through digital badging. College English, 79 (2), 127-151.
56. Xiaoxiao, L., &Yan, L. (2010). A case study of Dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33 (1), 24-40.
57. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy to use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group, system, 58, 1-11. Yiheyis S., & Getachew S. (2014). The implementation of continuous assessment in writing classes of Jimma College of teacher education. Ethiopia Journal of Education and science. 10 (1), 109-135.
58. Zepernick, J.S. (nd). Reviewed Organic writing assessment: Dynamic criteria mapping in action, by Broad, B., Adler-Kassner, L., Alford, B., Detweiler, J., Estrem, H., Harrington, S., McBrdide, M., Stalions, E., & Weeden, S. (2009). Longon: Utah State UP.
59. Zoghi, M., & Ma lmeer, E. (2013). The effect of Dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ intrinsic motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 584-591.