On the impact of online interactionist vs. interventionist dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance
Saved in:
| Title: | On the impact of online interactionist vs. interventionist dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Nouri, Donya, Alavinia, Parviz |
| Source: | Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol 13, Iss 3, Pp 611-622 (2024) Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics; Vol 13, No 3 (2024): Vol. 13, No.3, January 2024; 611-622 |
| Publisher Information: | Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), 2024. |
| Publication Year: | 2024 |
| Subject Terms: | argumentative writing, Language. Linguistic theory. Comparative grammar, P101-410, virtual learning environment, LC8-6691, interactionist dynamic assessment, 4. Education, Argumentative writing, interventionist dynamic assessment, 16. Peace & justice, Special aspects of education |
| Description: | This paper reports the results of a study aiming to investigate the effects of interactionist and interventionist dynamic assessment (DA) on learners’ writing performance. To do so, 63 upper-intermediate EFL learners were selected as the study participants. A writing pretest was administered to ensure the homogeneity of the participants and determine their level of proficiency prior to treatment. In the online interactionist DA group, the researchers implemented the treatment based on the ‘Dynamic Mediation Process’ proposed by Elliott (2002) and Xiaoxiao and Yan (2010). The framework comprised topic-choice, idea-generation, structuring and macro-revising stages. In doing so, the pre-task phase was conducted, followed by providing the mediation and performing post-task. In the interventionist DA group, Lantolf and Poehner’s (2011) framework was followed. Based on this framework, the learners’ erroneous language chunks were treated through the teacher’s underlining the error, putting a question mark, circling it, or posing a written question concerning the problematic part. Alternatively, the teacher would point out the incorrect part and offer two options for the learners to choose from. At the end, a writing posttest was given to all groups to evaluate their writing performance after treatment. As the study findings helped reveal, both interactionist and interventionist DA types improved learners’ writing performance. In addition, the comparison of the posttest scores indicated that the interactionist DA group participants even outperformed the interventionist ones on the writing posttest. The implications of the findings are discussed throughout the paper. |
| Document Type: | Article |
| File Description: | application/pdf |
| ISSN: | 2502-6747 2301-9468 |
| DOI: | 10.17509/ijal.v13i3.66936 |
| Access URL: | https://doaj.org/article/c005ba101a2849be8e477aa07ae656c0 https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/66936 |
| Rights: | CC BY SA |
| Accession Number: | edsair.doi.dedup.....08c72e384f25430af52028bc5e758627 |
| Database: | OpenAIRE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | This paper reports the results of a study aiming to investigate the effects of interactionist and interventionist dynamic assessment (DA) on learners’ writing performance. To do so, 63 upper-intermediate EFL learners were selected as the study participants. A writing pretest was administered to ensure the homogeneity of the participants and determine their level of proficiency prior to treatment. In the online interactionist DA group, the researchers implemented the treatment based on the ‘Dynamic Mediation Process’ proposed by Elliott (2002) and Xiaoxiao and Yan (2010). The framework comprised topic-choice, idea-generation, structuring and macro-revising stages. In doing so, the pre-task phase was conducted, followed by providing the mediation and performing post-task. In the interventionist DA group, Lantolf and Poehner’s (2011) framework was followed. Based on this framework, the learners’ erroneous language chunks were treated through the teacher’s underlining the error, putting a question mark, circling it, or posing a written question concerning the problematic part. Alternatively, the teacher would point out the incorrect part and offer two options for the learners to choose from. At the end, a writing posttest was given to all groups to evaluate their writing performance after treatment. As the study findings helped reveal, both interactionist and interventionist DA types improved learners’ writing performance. In addition, the comparison of the posttest scores indicated that the interactionist DA group participants even outperformed the interventionist ones on the writing posttest. The implications of the findings are discussed throughout the paper. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 25026747 23019468 |
| DOI: | 10.17509/ijal.v13i3.66936 |