تعداد نشریات | 161 |
تعداد شمارهها | 6,488 |
تعداد مقالات | 70,094 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 123,124,648 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 96,359,908 |
تأثیر خودسنجشی، همکلاسیسنجشی و مدرسسنجشی بر توسعه مهارت نوشتن به زبان دوم فراگیران زبان خارجه انگلیسی | ||
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی | ||
مقاله 4، دوره 6، شماره 1، فروردین 1395، صفحه 93-114 اصل مقاله (301.28 K) | ||
نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی(عادی) | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jflr.2016.62811 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
مجید نعمتی* 1؛ مهران غفوری2 | ||
1گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه تهران، ایران | ||
2گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبانهای خارجی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران | ||
چکیده | ||
چکیده مطالعه حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر انواع سنجشها بر توسعه مهارت نوشتن در میان فراگیران ایرانی زبان خارجه انگلیسی انجام گردید. تعداد 60 فراگیر همگنسازی شده در سطح فوق متوسطه از دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد قزوین در چهار گروه (سه گروه آزمون و یک گروه کنترل) در تحقیق حاضر شرکت نمودند. فراگیران، پیشآزمون، تیمار و پسآزمون را سپری کرده و نتایج حاکی از آن بود که انواع سنجشهای موردنظر شناخت فراگیران را نسبت به مدل نوشتاری، درستی، کلمهبندی، املا، دستور و موارد مشابه افزایش دادند و به شکل معنیداری در توسعه مهارت نوشتن آنها تأثیرگذار بودند. یافتهها همچنین نشان داد که خودسنجشی از انواع دیگر سنجش، تأثیرگذاری بیشتری داشت و همکلاسیسنجشی نیز همین برتری را نسبت به مدرسسنجشی داشت. نتایج تحقیق حاضر میتواند زمینه را جهت فراگیران در توسعه عملکرد در مهارت نوشتن به زبان انگلیسی در مدارس، دانشگاهها و مؤسسات آموزشی زبان ایران با توجه به روشهای سنجش محور فراهم سازد. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
سنجش پویا؛ بازخورد؛ همکلاسی سنجشی؛ خودسنجشی؛ مدرسسنجشی | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
The Comparative Effect of Self-Assessment, Peer Assessment and Teacher Assessment on the EFL Learners’ Second language Writing Development | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Majid Nemati1؛ Mehran Ghafoori2 | ||
1English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University of Tehran, Iran | ||
2Department of Literature and Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
Abstract The present study intended to investigate the effect of assessment types on the development of L2 writing among Iranian EFL learners. To do so, 60 homogenized upper intermediate learners in Qazvin Islamic Azad University in Iran took part in the study in four groups (three experimental groups and one control group). The learners experienced pretest of writing, intervention, and posttest of writing. The results of the study revealed that different types of assessment including teacher, self, and peer assessment increased the familiarity with writing model, correctness, wording, dictation, grammar, pragmatics, and the like. The findings revealed that via such activities the learners’ writing could improve. Analysis of the results revealed that different types of assessment such as teacher assessment, peer assessment, and self-assessment significantly affected second language writing development of Iranian EFL learners. The findings also revealed that self-assessment took priority over other assessment types; meanwhile peer assessment was conducive to more fruitful results compared to teacher assessment. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
Dynamic Assessment, Feedback, Peer Assessment, Teacher Assessment, Self-assessment | ||
مراجع | ||
منابع Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Socio-cultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57-86). London: Equinox Press. Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education, 18, 133-149. Alderson, C., & Tankó, G. (2010).Into Europe: The writing handbook. London: British Council. Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria‐referenced self-assessment. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 32(2), 159-181. Angelova, M. (1999).An exploratory study of factors affecting the process and product of writing in English as a foreign language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo. Astin, A. W. (2012). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: OUP. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: OUP. Baek, S. G., & Kim, K. J. (2003). The effect of dynamic assessment based instruction on children’s learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 4(2), 182-198. Bozorgian, H. (2014). The role of metacognition in the development of EFL learners’ listening skill. International Journal of Listening, 28 (2), 1-13. Brindley, G., & Slayter, H. (2002). Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 369-394. Cazden, C. (1996). Selective traditions: Readings of Vygotsky in writing pedagogy. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 165-185). New York: Cambridge University Press. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language teaching methodology. London: Prentice Hall. Chen, H. (2003). A study of primary school English teachers’ beliefs and practices in multiple assessments: A case study in Taipei City. Unpublished master theses. Taipei: National Taipei Teachers College. Falchikov, N. (2001) Learning together. Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge. Farhady, H. (2006). Twenty-five years of living with applied linguistics. Collections of articles. Iran: Rahnama Press. Gordon, A. M. (2015). Paper based testing vs. mobile device based testing in an EFL Environment: What’s the Difference? Language Learning, 23(2), 123-132. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (2014). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Routledge. Guterman, E. (2002). Toward dynamic assessment of reading: Applying metacognitive awareness guidance to reading assessment tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 283-298. Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Language Testing in Asia, 4(4). Retrieved from http://www.languagetestingasia.com/content/4/1/4 Hill, C., & Parry, K. (2014). From testing to assessment: English an international language. London: Routledge. Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 537-545. Howell-Richardson, C., & Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2016). Mixing metaphors for academic writing development. Student Attainment in Higher Education: Issues, Controversies and Debates, 2(1), 144-156. Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). Testing a burnout model based on affective-motivational factors among EFL teachers. Current Psychology, 12(1) 1-11. Kovacic, A. Bubas, G., & Coric, A. (2012). Mobilising students’ grammar skills through collaborative activities with web 2.0 tools. Procedia SBS, 34, 132-136. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-Method. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257-278. McCrostie, J. (2007). Examining learner writings. ELT Journal, 61(3), 246-255. Neukrug, E., & Fawcett, R. (2014). Essentials of testing and assessment: A practical guide for counselors, social workers, and psychologists. Nelson Education. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in HigherEducation, 31(2), 199-218. Oomen, A. G., Bos, P. M., Fernandes, T. F., Hund-Rinke, K., Boraschi, D., Byrne, H. J., & Hristozov, D. (2014). Concern-driven integrated approaches to nanomaterial testing and assessment–report of the NanoSafety Cluster Working Group 10. Nanotoxicology, 8(3), 334-348. Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239-250. Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: Springer. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. doi: 10.1191/1362168805lr166oa Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and teacher education, 27(2), 472-482. Richards, J. C. (1990). New trends in the teaching of writing in ESL/EFL. In Z. Wang (Ed.), ELT in China: Papers presented at the international symposium on teaching English in the Chinese context (pp. 213-222). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Saeidi, M., & Hosseinpour, A. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment as an instructional tool on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(10), 421-429. Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting. Language Testing, 25(4), 553-581. Seyed Erfani., & Agha Ebrahimiyan, A. (2013). Web 2.0 incorporated dynamic assessments to assess writing ability of Iranian EFL learners. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 13(14), 49-55. Smith, H. (2005). The writing experiment strategies for innovative creative writing. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stevick, E. W. (1982). Teaching and learning languages (Vol. 982). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Oxon: Routledge. Tseng, J. J. (2016). Developing an instrument for assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge as perceived by EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 302-315. Tzuriel, D. (2011). Revealing the effects of cognitive education programs through Dynamic Assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 113-131. Widdowson, H. G. (1987). Foreword. In Conner, U. & Kaplan, R. B. (Eds.). Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 3-5). Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company. Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Lingusitics, 33(1), 24-40. Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (2016). Bringing consequences and side effects of testing and assessment to the foreground. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 299-303. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 767 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 584 |