تعداد نشریات | 19 |
تعداد شمارهها | 385 |
تعداد مقالات | 3,152 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,296,410 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,889,042 |
Computer-mediated Diagnostic Assessment of Mixed-ability EFL Learners’ Performance on Tiered Tasks: Differentiating Mediation on Google Meet™ | ||
Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
مقاله 1، دوره 9، شماره 2، تیر 2022، صفحه 1-26 اصل مقاله (1.11 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2021.16118.1950 | ||
نویسندگان | ||
Fahimeh Rafi1؛ Natasha Pourdana* 2؛ Farid Ghaemi3 | ||
1Department of Teaching English and Translation, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran. | ||
2Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch | ||
3Department of ELT and English Translation, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran | ||
تاریخ دریافت: 02 شهریور 1400، تاریخ بازنگری: 12 آبان 1400، تاریخ پذیرش: 22 آبان 1400 | ||
چکیده | ||
Grounded in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of mind and the learner-centered approach to second/foreign language acquisition (SLA), this study investigated the extent to which the embedded differentiated instructions and diagnostic assessment, being mediated on Google Meet™ computer-mediated communication platform, would impact the improvement of mixed-ability English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) learners’ English words pronunciation and their degree of engagement in language learning. In a repeated-measures research design, an intact group of 66 EFL learners were partitioned into three tiers of higher, mid- and lower achievers to complete a virtual pretest of listening comprehension, followed by a series of parallel tiered performance tasks of English words pronunciation on a weekly basis. Their task outcomes were subsequently subjected to collective computer-mediated diagnostic assessment. After 10 sessions of intervention, the participants performed on an immediate virtual posttest of listening comprehension, and a post hoc interview. The results of mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated both the significant learning progress by the tiers, and the outperformance of the lower achievers on the tiered tasks. The statistical results of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) similarly reported significant improvement of the tiers’ performance on the pretest-posttest summative assessment in this study. The inductive content analysis of the participants’ responses to the structured interview elicited seven themes which were interpreted as the participants’ strong approval of the usefulness of differentiated instructions, effectiveness of diagnostic assessment, and successful appeal of Google Meet platform. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
Computer-mediated؛ Diagnostic assessment؛ Differentiated instructions؛ Mixed-ability؛ Google Meet | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
بررسی ارزیابی تشخیصی رایانه-محور بر عملکرد فراگیران ناهمگون زبان انگلیسی در تکالیف طبقه بندی شده: نقش واسطه ای تمایزیافته ™Google Meet | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
ناتاشا پوردانا2؛ | ||
2دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج | ||
31 | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
در پژوهشی بر پایه نظریه اجتماعی-فرهنگی ویگوتسکی و رویکرد فراگیر-محور به یادگیری زبان دوم/خارجی، میزان اثربخشی تلفیق آموزش تمایزیافته و ارزیابی تشخیصی بر بهبود تلفظ کلمات انگلیسی زبان آموزان و میزان مشارکت آنها در بستر ارتباطات رایانه ای Google Meet مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. در اجرای این طرح تحقیقی سنجش مکرر، یک گروه دست نخورده مرکب از 66 زبان آموز به سه طبقه از فراگیران برتر، متوسط و ضعیف تقسیم بندی شدند. زبان آموزان در هر سه طبقه در پیش آزمون مجازی درک مطلب شنیداری شرکت نموده و پس آن، تکالیف طبق بندی شده تلفظ کلمات انگلیسی را به صورت موازی و هفتگی در بستر رایانه-محور Google Meet انجام دادند. سپس نتایج کار آنها به صورت همزمان، در جلسات موازی تحت ارزیابی تشخیصی قرار گرفت. پس از 10 جلسه مداخله، شرکت کنندگان در یک پس آزمون درک مطلب شنیداری و یک مصاحبه ساختارمند شرکت کردند. نتایج تجزیه و تحلیل بین درون-گروهی مرکب ANOVA نشان دهنده پیشرفت چشمگیر فراگیران برتر، متوسط و ضعیف بوده، در حالی که بهترین نتیجه توسط فراگیران ضعیف در تکالیف طبقه بندی شده بدست آمد. همچنین، نتایج آماری آزمون ANCOVA بهبود قابل ملاحظه ای از عملکرد فراگیران برتر، متوسط و ضعیف را در ارزیابی نهایی پیش آزمون- پس آزمون گزارش کرد. تجزیه و تحلیل محتوای استقرایی پاسخ های زبان آموزان به مصاحبه ساختارمند منجر به استخراج هفت مفهوم کلی گردید که همگی بر مفید بودن آموزش تمایزیافته ، اثزبخشی ارزیابی تشخیصی و جذابیت بستر رایانه-محور Google Meet دلالت داشتند. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
ارزیابی تشخیصی, آموزش تمایزیافته, رایانه-محور, ناهمگون, Google Meet | ||
مراجع | ||
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. Continuum.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Ardin, M. (2018). The effect of diagnostic assessment vs. dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ descriptive and narrative writing. Unpublished MA Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran.
Atkinson, S. P. (2018). Developing effective learning outcomes. Retrieved from https://sijen.com/research-interests/8-stage-learning-design-framework/4-intended-learning-outcomes-ilos
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
Bremner, S. (2008). Some thoughts on teaching a mixed ability class. Scottish Languages Review, 18, 1-10. Brown, J. D. & Hudson, T. D. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment: advantages and disadvantages. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 653-675.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.
Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Chen, Y. H. (2007). Exploring the assessment aspect of differentiated instruction: College EFL learners’ perspectives on tiered performance tasks. University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations.
Colby-Kelly. C. & Turner, C. E. (2007). AFL research in the L2 classroom and evidence of usefulness: Taking formative assessment to the next level. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 9-37.
Coman, C., Tîru, L. G., Mesesan-Schmitz, L., Stanciu, C., & Bularca, M. C. (2020). Online teaching and learning in higher education during the Coronavirus pandemic: Students’ perspective. Sustainability, 1-24.
de Graaf, A., Westbroek, H., & Janssen, F. (2018). A practical approach to differentiated instruction: How biology teachers redesigned their genetics and ecology lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 6–23.
Doe, C. (2015). Student interpretations of diagnostic feedback. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(1), 110-135.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Gomma, O. M. K. (2014). The effect of differentiating instruction using multiple intelligences on achievement in and attitudes towards science in middle school students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Psycho-educational Sciences, 3(3), 109–117.
Gorin, J. S. (2007). Test Construction and diagnostic testing. In J. Leighton & M. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications, (pp. 173 - 201). Cambridge University Press.
Harding, L., Alderson, C. J., & Brunfaut, T. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing, 32(3), 1-20.
Henson, K. (2003). Foundations for Learner-Centered Education: A Knowledge Base. Education, 124(5), 3-13.
Hismanoglu, M., & Hismanoglu, S. (2011). Task-based language teaching: what every EFL teacher should do. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 46-52.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Hogan, R. E. (2009). Differentiated instruction and tiered assignments. Mathematical and Computing Sciences Masters, 3(5), 42-49.
Jang, E. E., & Wagner, M. (2014). Diagnostic feedback in the classroom. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment: Approaches and development (pp. 157-175). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2016). Calculation of effect sizes. Bibergau.
Lee, L., & Bernard, J. (2011). Select Readings: Intermediate and Upper-intermediate. Oxford University Press.
Levis, J., & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching Intonation in Discourse Using Speech Visualization Technology. System, 32, 505-524.
Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. Clearing the House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(4), 161-164.
Martin, D., & Miller, C. (2003). Speech and language difficulties in the classroom. David Fulton.
Mahdi, H. S., & Al Khateeb, A. A. (2019). The effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training: A meta-analysis. Review of Education, 7(3), 733-753.
Mahoney, J. & Hall, C. (2017). Using technology to differentiate and accommodate students with disabilities. E-Learning and Digital Media, 14(5), 291 – 303. Mehlinger, H. D. (1995). School reform in the information age. Indiana University Press.
Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., & Almond, R. G. (2003). On the structure of education assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 1(1), 3–62.
Natsir, R. Y., & Asrawiah, A. (2013). Improving the students' reading comprehension using tiered tasks strategy. Exposure, 2(1), 76-94.
Nikmard, F., & Tavassoli, K. (2020). The effect of diagnostic assessment on EFL learners’ performance on selective and productive reading tasks. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 7(1), 79-104.
Nunley, K. F. (2006). Differentiating the high school classroom: Solution strategies for 18 common obstacles. Thousand Oaks.
Pohl, M. (2000). Learning to think and thinking to learning. Hawker Brownlow Education.
Pourdana, N., & Shahpouri Rad, M. (2017). Differentiated instructions: Implementing tiered listening tasks in mixed-ability EFL context. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 4 (4), 45-63.
Pourdana, N., Nour, P., & Yousefi, F. (2021). Investigating metalinguistic written corrective feedback focused on EFL learners’ discourse markers accuracy in mobile-mediated context. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(7), doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00111-8
Ritter, O. N. (2018). Integration of educational technology for the purposes of differentiated instruction in secondary STEM education. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Tennessee.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.
Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Sage.
Seferoglu, G. (2005) Improving students’ pronunciation through accent reduction software. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 303-316.
Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 557-573.
Shohamy, E. (1992). Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing model for assessing foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 513-521.
Spolsky, B. (1992). The gentle art of diagnostic testing revisited. In E. Shohamy & A. R. Walton (Eds.), Language assessment for feedback: Testing and other strategies (pp. 29-41). Kendall/Hunt.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Palmer.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Alexandria.
Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahn, C. M., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L. A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119-145.
Ur, P. (2005). A course in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). Plenum.
Wang, X. & Munro, M. J. (2004). Computer-Based Training for Learning English Vowel Contrasts. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 539-552.
Westbroek, H. B, van Rens, L., van den Berga, E., & Janssen, F. (2020). A practical approach to assessment for learning and differentiated instruction. International Journal of Science Education, (42)6, 955–976.
Yatvin, J. (2004). A room with a differentiated view: How to serve ALL children as individual learners. Heinemann.
Yin, M., Sims, J., & Cothran, D. (2012). Scratching where they itch: Evaluation of feedback on a diagnostic English grammar test for Taiwanese university students. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(1), 78–104. | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 693 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 705 |