Diagnostic and Developmental Potentials of Dynamic Assessment for L2 writing

Abstract

Many theoretical claims have been made about the role and effectiveness of Dynamic assessment (DA) in L2 learning. It has, for example, been suggested that this kind of approach provides learners with appropriate and timely feedback in a supportive and interactive environment and in ways that can maximize L2 development (Poehner & Lantolf, 2013). However, issues remain about how to measure the effects of DA and how these effects compare with those of traditional ways of providing feedback. This qualitative case study explores the role of interactional DA in the development of L2 writing skills. Three advanced EFL students each produced first 10 writing samples in ten individualized writing sessions. They then engaged in 10 collaborative tutorial sessions with their teacher and received feedback based on the DA principles. The interactions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The results revealed important diagnostic and treatment effects for interactive DA.

Going beyond One-to-One Mediation in Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment

“…Moreover, findings of the study resonated with other studies (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994;Anton, 2009;Kao, 2015;Moradian & Baharvand, 2015;Nassaji & Swain, 2000;Poehner, 2009;Rahimi et al, 2015) that ZPD-sensitive feedback can help learner to build upon their current level of abilities and go beyond them by relying on the temporary crutch of offered feedback. In this study, through ZPDsensitive feedback, the learners could co-construct further awareness and knowledge about English articles and internalize it in intra-personal level.…”

“…From then on, empirical DA studies in L2 setting have appeared in technical L2 journals more. The bulk of reported DA literature has focused on one-on-one DA-based mediation sessions where a teacher and a student dialogically cooperate to find a solution for a linguistic problem which cannot be solely overcome by the student (e.g., Ableeva, 2008Ableeva, , 2010Poehner and Lantolf, 2010;Rahimi, Kushki, & Nassaji, 2015). This has led to the misconception that, and actually one of the obstacles to implementing DA in large classes, DA is more appropriate for one-to-one instructional settings rather than for whole classes.…”

A Comparison Study of Dynamic Assessment and Nondynamic Assessment on EFL Chinese Learners' Speaking Performance: Transfer of Learning

“…There is a growth in DA research related to L2 development. The studies have mainly investigated the impact of DA on the acquisition of specific linguistic elements [24,[38][39][40][41][42]. If one compares DA research among the four language skills, one can notice that fewer studies have focused on investigating L2 learners' speaking ability.…”

Focus on form and corrective feedback research at the University of Victoria, Canada

“…Thus, there is a need to investigate what mental processes are involved in learning from feedback or how learners process feedback in various contexts and on various target forms. We also believe research should emphasize not only the cognitive but also the social dimensions of feedback including the various ways in which the dynamics of the social interaction serves to enhance the success of feedback (see Nassaji & Swain 2000; Nassaji 2013; Rahimi, Kushki & Nassaji 2015; Nassaji 2017a). For example, Nassaji (2013) examined the role of classroom participation structure and its effects on the provision and effectiveness of reactive and preemptive incidental focus on form.…”