Diagnostic and Instructional Potential of Dynamic Assessment in Asynchronous Computer-mediated Communication (ACMC)

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Author
Allameh Mohaddes Nouri University
Abstract
The present case study had as its aim to uncover the diagnostic and instructional potential of dynamic assessment (DA) in the context of L2 writing during asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC). More precisely, the study investigated the role of ACMC-based DA through e-mail in diagnosing and promoting low-proficiency L2 learners’ writing abilities in an Iranian EFL context. To this end, a case study design was adopted and three low-proficiency students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) were selected to participate for a time span of ten weeks. The error analysis of learners’ performances in the pretest and posttest sessions led to the detection of a number of writing problems including the content, structural organization, grammatical accuracy, lexical appropriateness, and mechanics. A posterior examination of computer-mediated offline interactions led to the detection of a number of mediational strategies namely ask to revise, identify a problem area, specify the problem area, clarify the error kind, offer a choice and provide an explicit explanation as well as reciprocity patterns including unresponsive, growing autonomy and full autonomy which together helped diagnose the students' writing problems and trace their developmental trajectories. On implication side, it is argued that the ACMC-based DA serves as a strong diagnostic tool that makes a genuine understanding of L2 learners' writing abilities.

Keywords: dynamic assessment, sociocultural theory, asynchronous computer-mediated communication, writing

Keywords

Subjects


Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576–598. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x
Bakhoda, I., & Shabani, K. (2019). Bringing L2 learners’ learning preferences in the mediating process through computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 210-236.
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1483950
Choi, S. (2016). Processing and learning of enhanced English collocations: An eye movement study. Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 403–426.
DOI: 10.1177/1362168816653271
Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
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. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362
Eslami, Z. R., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners' pragmatic competence. System, 48(1), 99-111.
DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
Fukuta, J., Tamura, Y., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2019). Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback always effective? Language Awareness, 28(1), 1-14. DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2019.1567742
Güthke, J. (1993). Current trends in theories and testing of intelligence. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment: Theoretical, methodological and practical issues (pp. 13-18). Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276.
DOI: 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B
Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26-60.
DOI: 10.1177/0741088301018001002
Ishikawa, M., & Révész, A. (2020). L2 learning and the frequency and quality of written languaging. In W. Suzuki, & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 220–240). John Benjamins.
Jang, E. E., & Wagner, M. (2013). Diagnostic feedback in language classroom. In A. Kunnan (Ed.), Companion to language assessment. Wiley-Blackwell.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Learning Language, 13(2), 143-166. DOI:10.1076/0958-8221(200004)13:2;1-D;FT143
Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 64-84.
Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (2004). Overview of sociocultural theory. In O. S. John, K. van Esch & E. Schalkwijk (Eds.), New insights in second language learning and teaching (pp. 13-34). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Lantolf, J. P., & M. Poehner (2008). Dynamic assessment. In N. Hornberger (General Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 7: Language Testing and Assessment, E. Shohamy (Ed.), (pp. 285-273). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, S., & Roshan, S. (2019). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Mirzaei, A., & Eslami, Z. (2013). ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 35(1), 5-25. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2013.814198.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories. Routledge.
Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2016). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 406–426.
DOI: 10.1111/ijal.12138
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. DOI: 10.1080/09658410008667135
Owston, R. & Wideman, H. (1997). Word processors and children’s writing in a high-computer-access setting. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 30(2), 202-220. DOI: 10.1080/08886504.1997.10782223
Peña, E. D., & Gillam, R. B. (2000). Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluations. In Lidz C. S. & Elliott J. (eds.) Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (Vol. 6, pp. 543-576). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Pham, H. T. P. (2020). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
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. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323–340.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x
Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2016). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332–357.
DOI: 10.1558/lst.v2i2.26982
Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2020). Reconsidering time and process in L2 dynamic assessment. In M. E. Poehner & O. Inbar-Lourie (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of L2 classroom assessment: Praxis and researcher-teacher partnership (pp. 173-195). Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337-357. DOI: 10.1177/02655322145603
Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (2021). Dynamic Assessment and second language development. Language Teaching, 54(4) 1-19. DOI:10.1017/S0261444820000555
Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208. DOI: 10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
Retrieved from llt.msu. edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
Lee, S., Gad S., & Basse, R. (2021). The effect of additional time on the quality of argumentation in L2 writing assessment: A mixed-methods study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(3), 253-272. DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2021.1872080
Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners' writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.
DOI: 10.30466/IJLTR.2018.20494
Shaqaqi, M., & Soliemani, H. (2018). Effects of asynchronous and conventional paper-and-pen metalinguistic feedback on L2 learners' use of verb tense. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(3), 72-55.
DOI: 10.30479/jmrels.2019.10230.1269
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263100011943
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286–305.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70.
DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York, NY: Continuum.
Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/ learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 399-431. DOI: 10.1558/cj.v22i3.399-431
van Compernolle, R. A., & Kinginger, C. (2019). Second language concept-based pragmatics instruction: The role of languaging. In M. Haneda & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Language as social action: Insights from socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 99-118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MAL: Harvard University Press.
Wang, L. (2022). Effects of regulation on interaction pattern in web-based collaborative writing activity. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(1/2), 1-35.
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1667831
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
Xie, Q., & Lei, Y. (2021). Diagnostic assessment of L2 academic writing product, process and self-regulatory strategy use with a comparative dimension. Language Assessment Quarterly, 19(3), 1-33. DOI: 10.1080/15434303.2021.1903470
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2021). Types, features, and effectiveness of technologies in collaborative writing for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2790-2816. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1880441

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 13 July 2025