The Effect of Dynamic and Non-Dynamic Assessment on the Comprehension of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Speech Acts of Apology and Request

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
A. Derakhshan 1
F. Shakki 2
M. A. Sarani 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
2 PhD Candidate in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
3 MA in TEFL, Department of English Language Teaching, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran
Abstract
Pragmatics, which is one of the most eminent concepts in the world of language learning and teaching, has established itself in various academic fields. The teachability of pragmatics has been investigated in a plethora of studies (Derakhshan & Shakki, 2020; Shakki et al., 2020), though scant attention has been given to assessing and testing pragmatic features. It has been a long time that practitioners and teachers use traditional assessment to assess students, but with the emergence of new approaches in teaching, there should be new ways to test and assess learners. The present study is theoretically underpinned by Vygotsky’s (1978) Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT), which postulates that a person’ cognition is mediated socially during the interaction, and it emphasizes a mediated relationship not a direct relationship which is the basis for Dynamic Assessment (DA). He believes that the development of a child consists of two levels, namely actual level and potential level of development. Activating the Zone of Proximal Developmnet (ZPD), which is the distance between the actual developmental level and the level of potential development, requires guidance and collaboration. Since assessing the speech acts of apology and request through DA has not been taken into account so far, the present study aimed to find out the effects of DA on the acquisition of Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ speech act of apology and request. To this end, 66 students, selected from Shokouh Language Institute in Kalaleh, Golestan Providence, Iran, participated in this study.

Research Question:

Does dynamic vs. non-dynamic assessments (NDA) have any effect on the acquisition of Iranian intermediate EFL learner’s speech act of apology and request?

Three groups of language learners whose language proficiency was determined by Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT), participated in the present study. The total number of the participants was 85 Iranian learners, from whom 66 were selected as intermediate level whose scores ranged from 24 to 30, according to OQPT. The gender of the students was both male and female, and learners aged from 15 to 19. Their native language was Persian, and they were studying English as a second language. After homogenizing learners, they were divided into three groups, one DA, one NDA, and one control group. Listening pragmatic comprehension test, devised and validated by Birjandi and Derakhshan (2014), was utilized as the pretest and posttest of the study. First, the participants were tested before the intervention; after teaching speech acts to learners (30 apology and request video vignettes that were taken from seasons and episodes of 13 Reasons Why and Suits), the learners were tested by the listening pragmatic comprehension test to compare the results. In this study, to have homogeneous learners for all three groups, the mean and standard deviation of the proficiency test were calculated. To answer the research question, the scores taken from pretest and posttest were submitted to the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS).

To find the effectiveness of the treatment, the means of control group, NDA group, and DA group were compared. In order to make sure whether or not the groups were statistically different, One-way ANOVA test and post hoc test of Tukey were run. Based on the mean scores for the pretest in one DA and two NDA groups, which are 58.88, 55.92, and 55.67, it is shown that little difference exists among the three groups. However, in order to make sure whether or not the groups are similar statistically, One-way ANOVA test was conducted. The Sig. value is .92 which demonstrates that since this is more than .05, it can be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the three groups. On the other hand, the mean scores for the posttest in one DA, NDA, and control group, respectively, were 117.42, 72.83, and 61.58, showing that the groups are different. Furthermore, the Sig. value is 0.00, which is smaller than .05, so this means that the intervention which was implemented in the DA group was effective. Since the obtained value does not show where the significant difference exists, post hoc test of Tukey was used to find the statistical significance between the groups. The values corresponding with the comparison between the DA group and NDA groups are smaller than .05.

For this reason, it can be concluded that the difference between DA group and the other two groups is statistically significant. However, the comparison between the two NDA groups revealed that they are not significantly different from each other (p=.392>.05). The results of one-way ANOVA test indicated that there were statistically meaningful differences across groups, and the results of post hoc test of Tukey revealed that dynamic group outperformed both non-dynamic and control groups, but no meaningful difference was found between non-dynamic and control groups although non-dynamic had a better mean score compared to that of control group. Considering the findings of the present study, it is suggested that harmonizing the instruction and testing provides opportunities for the learners, and learning should be individualized in order to have better outcomes. To put it in a nutshell, giving students contextually appropriate input has been a pivotal factor to increase learners’ pragmatic ability while understanding and performing the speech acts. In light of the gained results, the present study offers some implications for teachers, learners, and materials developers. It is suggested that teachers apply DA in their language classrooms to maximize interaction, mediation, and negotiation.

Keywords

Subjects

• • Alcón-Soler, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 359-377.
• Alcón-Soler, E., & Martı’nez-Flor, A. (2005). Editors’ introduction to pragmatics in instructed language learning. System, 33(3), 381-384.
• Bahramlou, K., & Esmaeili, A. (2019). The effects of vocabulary enhancement exercises and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(4), 889-901.
• Birjandi, P., & Derakhshan, A. (2014). Pragmatic comprehension of apology, request and refusal: An investigation on the effect of consciousness-raising video-driven prompts. Applied Research on English Language, 3(1), 67-86.
• Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Crandall, E., & Basturkmen, H. (2004). Evaluating pragmatics-focused materials. ELT Journal, 58(1), 38-49.
• Derakhshan, A. (2019). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ proficiency level and their knowledge of idiosyncratic and formulaic implicatures. Language Related Research, 10(5), 1-27.
• Derakhshan, A., & Arabmofrad, A. (2018). The impact of instruction on the pragmatic comprehension of speech acts of apology, request, and refusal among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. English Teaching & Learning, 42(1), 75-94.
• Derakhshan, A., & Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2015). The effect of consciousness raising instruction on comprehension of apology and request. TESL-EJ, 18(4). Retrieved in June 2019 from:http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/.
• Derakhshan, A. & Shakki, F. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners’ listening comprehension through mediational strategies. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 4(2), 29-45.
• Ebadi, S., & Asakereh, A. (2017). Developing EFL learners’ speaking skills through dynamic assessment: A case of a beginner and an advanced learner. Cogent Education, 4(1), 2-18.
• Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6), 527-555.
• Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2015). The effects of computerized dynamic sssessment on promoting at-risk advanced Iranian EFL students’ reading skills. Issues in Language Teaching, 4(2), 26-1.
• Eslami-Rasekh, Z., Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Fatahi, A. (2004). Using metapragmatic instruction to improve advanced EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. TESL EJ, 8(2), 1-12. Retrieved in July 2019 from:http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej72/ej72a6/.
• Eslami-Rasekh, A., & Mardani, M. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian context. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30(1), 96-103.
• Farrokh, P., & Rahmani, A. (2017). Dynamic assessment of writing ability in transcendence tasks based on Vygotskian perspective. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(10), 1-23.
• Gettinger, M. (1984). Measuring time needed for learning to predict learning outcomes. Exceptional Children, 51(3), 244-248.
• Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbooks and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 362-374.
• Hashemi Shahraki, S., Ketabi, S., & Barati, H. (2015). Dynamic assessment in EFL classrooms: Assessing listening comprehension in three proficiency levels. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(3), 73-89.
• Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 225-252.
• Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537-545.
• Istifci, İ. (2009). The use of apologies by EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 15-25.
• Jernigan, J. E. (2012). Output and English as a second language pragmatic development: The effectiveness of output-focused video-based instruction. Canadian ELT Journal, 5(4), 2-14.
• Jitendra, A.K., & Kameenui, E.J. (1993). Dynamic assessment as a compensatory assessment procedure: A description and analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 14(5), 6-18.
• Kamali, M., Abbasi, M., & Sadighi, F. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(1), 72-78.
• Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
• Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2002). Pragmatic in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.
• Kozulin, A., & Grab, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112-127.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research,15(1), 11-33.
• Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman.
• Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and impact on English language learners’ reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2), 22-31.
• Poehner, M.E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
• Razavi, A., Tabatabaei, O. (2014). The effect of dynamic and non-dynamic assessment on acquisition of apology speech act among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 4(8), 1-20.
• Roohani, A., Jam, B., Yeganeh, S., & Domakani, M. R. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 11(4), 59-70.
• Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Shahsavar, M., Alavi, S. M., &Norouzi, M. H. (2018). Dynamic Assessment of pragmatic competence: A case of speech acts of Apology and request. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 8(1), 187-206.
• Shariati, M., & Chamani, F. (2010). Apology strategies in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 1689-1699.
• Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ acquisition of request and apology. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 31(2), 87-118.
• Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
• Tianshun, M. I. A. O., & Lv, M. (2013). Dynamic assessment in ESL writing classroom. London: Longman.
• Usó-Juan, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2006). Approaches to language learning and teaching: Towards acquiring communicative competence through the four skills. In E. Usó-Juan & A. Martínez- Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 3-26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Vogt, W. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Zangoei, A., Zareian, G., Adel, S. M. R., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). The impact of computerized dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(4), 165-139.
Language Related Research
Volume 11, Issue 4 - Serial Number 58
September and October 2020
Pages 605-637