Volume 6, Issue 4 (Journal of Studies in Applied Language (JSAL) 2023)
JSAL 2023, 6(4): 1-26 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghaemi H, Sadoughvanini S. (2023). How Dynamic Assessment and the Online Intelligent Essay Assessor affect IELTS Writing [In English]. JSAL. 6(4), 1-26. doi:10.61186/jsal.6.4.1
URL: http://jsal.ierf.ir/article-1-101-en.html
URL: http://jsal.ierf.ir/article-1-101-en.html
1- Bahar Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran , Ghaemiacademy@gmail.com
2- Bahar Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran
2- Bahar Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract: (1544 Views)
The term dynamic assessment (DA) refers to an assessment, by an active teaching process, of a child's perception, learning, thinking, and problem solving. Dynamic assessment (DA) is a kind of interactive assessment used in education. Dynamic assessment is a product of the research conducted by developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky. The term dynamic assessment refers to an assessment, by an active teaching process, of a child's perception, learning, thinking, and problem solving. The process is aimed at modifying an individual's cognitive functioning and observing subsequent changes in learning and problem-solving patterns within the testing situation. The goals of the DA are to: (a) assess the capacity of the child to grasp the principle underlying an initial problem and to solve it, (b) assess the nature and amount of investment (teaching) that is required to teach a child a given rule or principle, and (c) identify the specific deficient cognitive functions and non-intellective factors that are responsible for failure in performance and how modifiable they are as a result of teaching. DA is usually administered to children who demonstrate some learning disability, low scores on standardized tests, or some emotional or personality disturbance. The study was conducted based on three stages, inspired by the evident role of Dynamic Evaluation in changing traditional assessment in favor of students. Its goal was to investigate the impact of dynamic assessment on the IELTS writing performance of applicants. To that end, 28 IELTS candidates were selected to undergo the procedure of three Mediated Learning Experience components namely: Intentionality, Reciprocity, and Transcendence. T-test results showed that IELTS candidates who took part in dynamic assessments improved more than those who took part in nondynamic assessments. The Intelligent Essay Assessor TM (IEA) online scoring method was used in the second half of the study. Students were given 40 minutes to complete a writing assignment that appeared in their IEA electronic portfolios. Online feedback can help improve IELTS writing scores by identifying and correcting grammatical faults, but it has little effect on the length or organization of a piece of writing. A structured interview was used to elicit participants' thoughts and feelings about DA and online evaluation as part of the study's third component. Students' attitudes toward DA were very positive, with nearly unanimous agreement that online assessment was superior to the previous method and that it was more time efficient.
Keywords: Language Teaching, Dynamic Assessment (DA), IELTS Writing, Intelligent Essay Assessor™ (IEA), Mediated Learning Experience, Online Scoring System
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Language Teaching
Received: 2022/03/22 | Accepted: 2022/12/24 | Published: 2023/08/1
Received: 2022/03/22 | Accepted: 2022/12/24 | Published: 2023/08/1
References
1. Ableeva, R. (2018). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening. In J.P. Lantolf and
2. M.E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57-86). London: Equinox
3. Ableeva, R. (2020). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in L2 French.
4. Ajideh, P., Farrokhi, F., & Nourdad, N. (2017). "Dynamic assessment of EFL reading: Revealing hidden aspects at different proficiency levels". World Journal of Education, 2, pp. 102-111. DOI:10.5430/WJE.V2N4P102 [DOI:10.5430/wje.v2n4p102]
5. Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2017). "Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening, [Electronic version]". The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 27-58. DOI: 10.22099/jtls.2011.370
6. Anton, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D. C
7. Attali, Y. (2004). Exploring the feedback and revision features of Criterion. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), San Diego, CA.
8. Attali, Y. & Burstein, J. (2006). "Automated Essay Scoring with e-rater V.2". The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.
9. Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Beierle, C., & Widera, M., (2003). "Automatic analysis of programming assignments". In: Bode, A., Desel, J., Rathmeyer, S. & Wessner, M. (Hrsg.), DeLFI 2003, Tagungsband der 1. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik, 16.-18. September 2003 in Garching bei München. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.. (S. 144-153).
11. Birjandi, P, Daftarifard, P., & Lange, R. (2021). "The effects of dynamic assessment on Raschitem and person hierarchies in second language testing". International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 125-140.
12. Baleni, Z. G. (2015). "Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons". Electronic Journal of e-Learning, Vol. 13, pp. 228-236.
13. Bosma, T., & Resing, W. C. M. (2018). "Bridging the gap between diagnostic assessment and classroom practice", [Electronic version]. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 174-198. [DOI:10.1891/194589508787381854]
14. Bavali, M., Yamini, M., & Sadighi, F. (2021). "Dynamic assessment in perspective: Demarcating dynamic and non-dynamic boundaries". Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 895-902. doi: 10.4304/jltr.2.4.895-902 [DOI:10.4304/jltr.2.4.895-902]
15. Burstein, J. (2003). The e-rater scoring engine: Automated Essay Scoring with natural language processing. In M. D. Shermis and J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated Essay Scoring: A cross disciplinary approach (pp. 113-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Burstein, J., Chodorow, M., & Leacock, C. (2003). Criterion: Online essay evaluation: an application for automated evaluation of student essays. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artiicial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico.
17. Day, J. D., Engelhardt, J. L., Maxwell, S. E., & Bolig, E. E. (1997). "Comparison of static and dynamic assessment procedures and their relation to independent performance". Journal of Educational Psychology, No. 89, pp. 358-368. [DOI:10.1037//0022-0663.89.2.358]
18. Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F.C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice, Vol. 55, pp. 153-159. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989 [DOI:10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989]
19. Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Alavi, S. (2017). "The effect of digital video games on EFL students' language learning motivation". Teaching English with Technology, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 87-112
20. Elliot, J. G., & Lidz, C. S. (2000). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. New York, USA: JAI Press, Elsevier Science Inc.
21. Elliott, J. G. (2000b). "The psychological assessment of children with learning difficulties". British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 27, pp. 59-66. [DOI:10.1111/1467-8527.00161]
22. Eshaghi Sardood, J. (2021). "Dynamic assessment in Iranian EFL classrooms: A post- method enquiry". The Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 47-63.
23. Fatemipour H and Jafari F. (2015). "The Effect of Dynamic- Assessment on the Development of Passive Vocabulary of Intermediate EFL Learners". J. Educ. Manage. Stud., Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 41-51.
24. Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., Rand, Y., & Feuerstein, R.S. (2002). Dynamic assessment of cognitive modiiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
25. Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. (1995). Mediated Learning Experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications. London, England: Freund Publishing.
26. Feuerstein R., Rand Y., & Hofman M. (1988). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device-Theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
27. F. Shamsi and A. Elnagar, (2017). "An intelligent assessment tool for students' Java submissions in introductory programming courses". Journal of Intelligent Learning Systems and Applications (JILSA), Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 59-69. [DOI:10.4236/jilsa.2012.41006]
28. Ghahramani, D., & Azarizad, R. (2018). "The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL process writing: Content and organization", [Electronic version]. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 874-878
29. Greenberg, K. H. (2000). Inside professional practice: A collaborative systems orientation to linking dynamic assessment and intervention. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliot (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 489-519). New York, NY: Elsevier
30. Hamers, J. H. M., & Resing, W. C. M. (1993). Learning potential assessment: Introduction. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 23-41). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. [DOI:10.1201/9781003077398-4]
31. Hashemi, M. R., Behrooznia, S., & Mohaghegh Mahjoob, F. (2016). "A critical look into Iranian EFL university students' critical thinking and argumentative writing". Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 71-92.
32. Hymer, B., Michel, D., & Todd, L. (2002). Dynamic consultation: Towards process and challenge. Educational Psychology in Practice, 18, 47-62 Jill Burstein, Karen Kukich, Susanne Wolf, Chi Lu, Martin Chodorow, Lisa Braden-Harder, [DOI:10.1080/02667360120122813]
33. and Mary Dee Harris. (1998). Automated Scoring Using A Hybrid Feature Identification Technique. In Proceedings of ACL/COLING, pages 206-210.
34. J. L. F. Alemán (2021). "Automated assessment in a programming tools course". IEEE Tran.on Education, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 576-581. [DOI:10.1109/TE.2010.2098442]
35. Johnston, T. C. (2004). "Online homework assessments: Beneits and drawbacks to students". Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 29-40
36. Klaus Zechner, Derrick Higgins, Xiaoming Xi, and David M. Williamson. (2019). "Automatic Scoring of Non-native Spontaneous Speech in Tests of Spoken English". Speech Communication, Vol. 51, No. 10, pp. 883-895. [DOI:10.1016/j.specom.2009.04.009]
37. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). "Critical language pedagogy: a postmethod perspective on English language teaching". World Englishes, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 539-550. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00317.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00317.x]
38. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2000, September/ October). The Intelligent Essay Assessor. In M. A. Hearst (Ed.), The debate on automated essay grading. IEEE Intelligent systems, 27-31. Retrieved November 12, 2004, from http:// que.info-science.uiowa.edu/ ~light/ research/mypapers/ autoGradingIEEE.pdf
39. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., & Foltz, P. W. (2003). Automated Essay Scoring: A cross disciplinary perspective. In M. D. Shermis and J. C. Burstein (Eds.), Automated Essay Scoring and annotation of essays with the Intelligent Essay Assessor (pp. 87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
40. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M.E. (2021). "Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development". Language Teaching Research, Vol. 15, pp. 11-33. [DOI:10.1177/1362168810383328]
41. Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Mahmoud Fahmy, M. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on adult learners of Arabic: A mixed-method study at the defense language institute foreign language center (Doctoral dissertation). University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
43. Mahmoudikia, M. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Shiraz University, Iran.
44. Mardani, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2021). "Beyond reading comprehension: The effect of adding a dynamic assessment component on EFL reading comprehension". Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, pp. 688-696. [DOI:10.4304/jltr.2.3.688-696]
45. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. [DOI:10.21832/9781800418288]
46. Murray, B. (1998). The latest techno tool: Essay grading computers. American Psychological Association (APA), 8(29). Retrieved April 16, 2005, from http://www.apa.org/ monitor/aug98/grade.html [DOI:10.1037/e530002010-028]
47. Poehner, M.E. (2018). "Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic Assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning". The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 91, pp. 323-40. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x]
48. Poehner, M. E. (2018). Dynamic Vygotskian understanding and second language development. Berlin, Germany: Springer. assessment: A promoting approach.
49. Rudner, L. & Gagne, P. (2001). An overview of three approaches to scoring written essays by computer (ERIC Digest number ED 458 290).
50. Shermis, M. D., Raymat, M. V., & Barrera, F. (2003). Assessing writing through the curriculum with Automated Essay Scoring (ERIC document reproduction service no ED 477 929).
51. Shrestha, P., & Coin, C. (2017). "Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development", [Electronic version]. Assessing Writing, Vol. 17, pp. 55-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003]
52. Streeter, L., Psotka, J., Laham, D., & MacCuish, D. (2004). The credible grading machine: Essay scoring in the DOD [Department of Defense]. Retrieved on January 10, 2005, from http://www.k-a-t.com/ papers/ essayscoring.pdf
53. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. Stringer, P., Elliott, J. G., & Lauchlan, F. (1996). "Dynamic assessment and its potential for educational psychologists: Part 2 - The zone of next development?" Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 12, pp. 234-239. [DOI:10.1080/0266736970120409]
55. Tabatabaei, S. & Bakhtiarvand, (2016). "Application Dynamic Assessment in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. for Teachers of English". The International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 1-14.
56. Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4615-1255-4]
57. Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2020). "A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing". Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 24-40.
58. Yeomans, J. (2018). "Dynamic assessment practice: Some suggestions for ensuring follow up". Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 24, pp. 105-114. [DOI:10.1080/02667360802076107]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |