بررسی تأثیر ارزشیابی پویا بر یادگیری ترکیب‌های لغوی متجانس و غیر متجانس در زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی به‌ عنوان زبان خارجی

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه ادبیات زبان انگلیسی دانشکده زبانهای دانشگاه تهران

2 دپارتمان آموزش زبان انگلیسی، پردیس بین‌المللی کیش، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

در تحقیق حاضر تلاش برای بررسی تاثیر ارزشیابی پویا بر یادگیری ترکیبهای لغوی متجانس و نامتجانس در زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی شده است. از بین صد و بیست زبان‌ آموز بر اساس آزمون تعیین سطح آکسفورد شصت دانش‌آموز انتخاب شده و به دو گروه سی نفره ی آزمایشی و کنترل تقسیم شدند. در طول ده جلسه اعمال آزمایش که در هر نوبت چهار ترکیب متجانس و چهار ترکیب نامتجانس به آن‌ها آموزش داده شد، درمجموع هشتاد ترکیب ارائه شد. گروه آزمایشی در معرض طرح پیش‌آزمون – همیاری - پس‌آزمون (مدل فشرده‌ی ارزشیابی پویا) قرار گرفتند، درحالی‌که برای آموزش این ترکیب‌ها به گروه کنترل از مدل‌های رایج آموزشی استفاده شد. یافته‌های حاصل از آزمون تحلیل کواریانس (ANCOVA) نشان می‌دهد ارزشیابی پویا تأثیر به سزایی بر یادگیری ترکیب‌های متجانس و به‌خصوص نامتجانس در زبان آموزان ایرانی دارد و به تأثیر آن‌ ها بر به چالش کشیدن شاخصه‌های زبانشناسی اشاره می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Effect of Dynamic Assessment on Learning Congruent and Non-Congruent Collocations by Iranian EFL Learners

نویسندگان [English]

  • Aliakbar KHomijani Farahani 1
  • GholamReza Mirzaei 2
1 Associate Professor of English Literature, Faculty of Languages, University of Tehran
2 Department of Humanities, Faculty of Foreign Languages Studies, Tehran University, Kish Int'l Campus, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The current study was an attempt to explore whether dynamic assessment had any significant impact on learning non-congruent and congruent collocations by Iranian EFL learners. To this end, 60 out of 120 Iranian EFL learners were selected based on their scores in an Oxford Placement Test, and divided into experimental (N=30) and control (N=30) groups. During ten sessions of treatment, eight of the collocations incorporated in the initial test including four congruent and four noncongruent collocations in each session were presented to the learners, thus 80 collocations were covered. The experimental group was exposed to the pre-testmediation-posttest design (sandwich model of dynamic assessment) while the control group was instructed through conventional ways of teaching collocations. The findings of paired samples t-test revealed that the dynamic assessment instruction had a significant effect on learning congruent and specifically noncongruent collocations by Iranian EFL learners. However, there was no difference between the participants with and without prior learning experience in foreign language community. If the purpose is to have an active learning environment, attention needs to be devoted to the integration of a dynamic approach in the classroom, providing learners, with and without prior learning experience, with appropriate and leveled-feedback within the evaluation and teaching process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dynamic Assessment
  • Congruent Collocation
  • Non-Congruent Collocations
  • ZPD
  • EFL Learners

Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language
learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA, USA. Retrieved from: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/11063
(March 2013).
Alemi, M., &Tayebi, A. (2011). The Influence of Incidental and Intentional Vocabulary
Acquisition and Vocabulary Strategy Use on Learning L2 Vocabularies. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 81-98.
Antón, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper
presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.,
and March 2003.
Bahns, J., &Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocations? System, 1(1),
101-114.
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. NY: Routledge/Falmer.
Davin, K.J. (2011). Group dynamic assessment in an early foreign language learning
program: Tracking movement through the zone of proximal development. University
of Pittsburg.
Davin, K.J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to
promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language
Teaching Research, 17, 303–322.
Donato, R. (2014). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse. Topics in
Language Disorders, 20, 33-46.
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native
and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Fernández, R.F., Prahlad, S. R., Rubtsova, E., & Sabitov, O. (2009). Collocations in the
vocabulary English teaching as a foreign language. Acimed, 19(6), 51-69.
Gomez, R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure, Psychological
Science, 13, 431–6.
Harrington, S., Rickly, R., & Day, M. (Eds.). (2000b). The online writing classroom.
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice. Clinical and
educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heugten, M. V., & Shi, R. (2010). Infants’ sensitivity to non-adjacent dependencies
across phonological phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 128, 223–8.
بررسی تأثیر ارزشیابی پویا بر یادگیری ترکی بهای لغوی متجانس و غیرمتجانس در زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان ... 811
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
Hoey, M. (2012). Lexical priming in The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.
1002/9781405198431.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics.
IS(1),24-44.
Jafary, M., Nordin, N., & Mohajeri, R. (2012). The effect of dynamic versus static
assessment on syntactic development of Iranian college preparatory EFL learners.
English Language Teaching, 5(7), 45-69.
Kaszubski, P. (2000). Selected aspects of lexicon, phraseology and style in the writing of
Polish advanced learners of English: a contrastive, corpus-based approach.
Retrieved from http://main.amu.edu.pl/przemka/research.html.
Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on
EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning
conditions. System, 65, 104-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.009
Khezrlou, S., & Sadeghi, K. (2012). Self-regulated vocabulary strategy use: Implications
for CALL and individual variables. MEXTESOL Journal, 36(1), 1-17.
Kozulin, A., & E. Garb. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of atrisk
learners. School Psychology International, 23, 112–127.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectical integration of instruction and
assessment. Language Teaching, 42, 355-368.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom. University
Park, PA.
Laufer, B., Waldman, T. (2011). Verb–noun collocations in second language writing: A
corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672.
Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in
an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(2), 212-227.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach.
Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2010). The development of collocation use in academic texts by
advanced L2 learners: A multiple case study approach. In Wood, D. (Ed.),
Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 22–46).
New York: Continuum.
Lin, Y. P. (2002). The effects of collocation instruction on English vocabulary
developments of senior high students in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s thesis,
National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
A Journal of Human Behavior, 31, 1–16.
812 پژوهش های زبانشناختی در زبان های خارجی، دورة 9، شمارة 3، پاییز 1398
Martyńska, M. (2004). Do English language learners know collocations? Międzychodzka
5, 60-371.
McCarthy, M. J., & O’Dell, F. (2005). English collocations in use. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McNeil, L. (2013). Exploring the relationship between situated activity and CALL
learning in teacher education. ReCALL, 25, 215–232.
McNeil, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computermediated
dynamic assessment: A teacher education study. Language Teaching
Research, 1-21.
Men H. (2018). Vocabulary increase and collocation learning. Singapore: Springer.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some
implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 43, 223–242.
Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance I. Statistical learning of
non-adjacent dependencies, Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127–62.
Nguyen, T. M. H., & Webb, S. (2017). Examining second language receptive knowledge
of collocation and factors that affect learning. Language Teaching Research, 21(3),
298-320.
Pishgahadam, R., Barabadi, E., Kamrood, A. M. (2011). The differing effect of
computerized dynamic assessment of L2c reading comprehension on high and low
achievers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2(6), 1353-1358.
Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding
and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Ramos, M. (2006). Towards a dynamic way to learn collocations in a second language.
In E. C. Corino, C. Marello, & Y. Onesti (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth
EURALEX International Congress (pp. 909-923). Turín: Accademiadella Crusca,
Università di Torino, Edizionidell. Orso Alessandria.
Sadeghi, K., Khezrlou, S., & Modirkhamene, S. (2017). CALLing Iranian learners of L2
English: Effect of gloss type on lexical retention and academic reading performance
under different learning conditions. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 1-25.
DOI:10.1111/1467-9817.12088
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior
of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.
Shabani, K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ reading comprehension
processes: A Vygotskian perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,32,
321-328.
بررسی تأثیر ارزشیابی پویا بر یادگیری ترکی بهای لغوی متجانس و غیرمتجانس در زبان آموزان ایرانی زبان ... 813
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic
development writing. System, 17, 55-70.
Siyanova, A., & Schmitt, N. (2008). L2 learner production and processing of collocation:
A multi-study perspective, Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 429–58.
Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects
on off-line/on-line collocational processing, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
18, 419–37.
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: Is it worth
the effort? ELT Journal, 64(3), 253-260.
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL
learners' acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language
Skills, 4(2), 87-118.
Vilkaite, L., & Schmitt, N. (2017). Reading collocations in an L2: Do collocation
processing benefit extend to non-adjacent collocations? Applied Linguistics, 1-27.
Vuong, L. C., Meyer, A. S., & Christiansen, M. H.. (2016). Concurrent statistical
learning of adjacent and nonadjacent dependencies, Language Learning, 66, 8–30.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2009, March). The effects of vocabulary learning on
collocation and meaning. TESOL Quarterly,43(1),55-75.
Webb, S., Newton, J., Chang, A.C.S. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation.
Language Learning, 63, 91–120.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolter, B., Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing: A
comparison of congruent and incongruent collocations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 451–482.
Wouden, T.V. (1997). Negative contexts: Collection, polarity, and multiple negation.
New York: Routledge.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and
practice. Applied Linguistics, 21, 463–489.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B.
Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared
cognition (pp. 85-100). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process
writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40
814 پژوهش های زبانشناختی در زبان های خارجی، دورة 9، شمارة 3، پاییز 1398
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the
influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482.
Yamashita, J., & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations:
Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL
Quarterly, 44, 647–668.
Yassami, S. (2011). Curious collocations: Congruent and non-congruent collocations.
Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Zoghi, M., & Malmeer E. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 584-591.
Zhang, X. (2017). Effects of receptive-productive integration tasks and prior knowledge
of component words on L2 collocation development. System, 66, 156-167