Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
2 result(s) for "computerized dynamic assessment (c-da)"
Sort by:
Iranian EFL Learners' Attitudes toward the Application of Different Models of Dynamic Assessment to Listening Comprehension Instruction
Simultaneous evaluation of the impact of different types of dynamic assessment on EFL learners' listening comprehension has never been conducted as far as the related literature discloses. Most of the studies connected with the dynamic assessment and various language skills have focused on speaking and writing performance. The present qualitative study aimed to examine Iranian EFL learners' attitudes toward the application of three models of dynamic assessment; namely, Interactionist Dynamic Assessment (I-DA), Group Dynamic Assessment (G-DA), and Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA to Listening Comprehension Instruction. For this purpose, the Preliminary English Test (PET) was administered to 140 Iranian EFL female learners in four English Language Institutes in Ahvaz, Iran, who were chosen through availability sampling, and 80 of them were selected as homogeneous participants of the study. Then, they were given a perception questionnaire intended to elicit their insights about applying the different types of dynamic assessment. Three parallel questionnaires were constructed, each consisting of 15 items, and asking the learners about the efficacy of interactionist dynamic assessment in the I-DA group, group dynamic assessment in the G-DA group, and computerized dynamic assessment in the C-DA group. The descriptive analysis of the respondents' answers revealed that the degree of the IDA, GDA, and CDA learners' positive attitudes towards the application of DA reached statistical significance. This finding implies that EFL teachers may need to deliberate on the positive influence of different dynamic assessment models on EFL learners' listening comprehension improvement and, therefore, provide them with more opportunities to interact.
Response latency as a tool to study L2 Learners’ ZPD, ZAD and ongoing information processing
Introduction Under the influence of Vygotsky, dynamic assessment (DA) has recently crept into the realm of L2 testing to assess learners’ cognitive modification through the concept of mediation and zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Ableeva, The Effects of Dynamic Assessment on L2 Listening Comprehension 2008 ; Lantolf, Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative 2010 ). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) is introduced as a technological offshoot of DA which has the applicability to provide a more vivid picture of learners cognitive functioning (Poehner, 2008 ). DA proponents proposed that the presentation of mediations is the only option to assess and assist learners’ ZPD and cognitive functioning. Result In this study, response latency (RL), with the potentiality to analyze on-going information processing of mind, is employed as a measurement tool in assessing learners’ cognitive functioning via C-DA form of an L2 reading comprehension task borrowed from Philips (Longman complete course for the TOEFL Test: preparation for the computer and paper tests, 2001). A software was programmed based on Campione and Brown’s (Dynamic assessment: one approach and some initial data, 1985; Dynamic assessment: an international approach to evaluating learning potential, 1987). Graduated Prompt Approach, an adapted version of Guthke and Beckmann’s (Dynamic assessment: prevailing models and applications, 2000), and Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s (Mod. Lang. J 78:465–483, 1994) hierarchical presentation of mediations to record the learners’ passive RL. Conclusion The results reveal that learners’ with larger ZPD not only reached the answer with implicit mediations but also reflected shorter RL in reaching the correct answer. The learners’ information processing also expedited through presentation of mediations.