درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

This study aimed to investigate the application of Group Dynamic Assessment (GDA) to writing accuracy of EFL learners and explore whether secondary interactants could benefit from interactions between mediator and primary interactants. The idea of implementing DA (Dynamic Assessment) in dyads seems unworkable since teachers are required to teach the whole class (Guk & Kellog, 2007). Moreover, Lantolf and Poehner (2004) suggest a new approach to DA that is GDA, which involves applying DA with a large number of learners rather than individuals. Following a multiple case study design and interactionist DA, the development of ten students in a class of twenty five was tracked during the eight sessions of DA program. Data were collected though written artifacts, video-recording of interactions, interview, and observation. The results indicated that GDA was an effective way of helping learners overcome their linguistic problems and there were signs of microgenetic as well as macrogenetic development within the same DA session and across sessions. The present findings provide further insight into understanding how secondary interactants benefit from the interactions between mediator and primary interactants.

The studies on the merits of processing instruction (PI) and output-based instruction (OI) have mostly treated the two approaches as mutually exclusive. To address the potentials of combining interpretation and production activities, this research compared the two isolated approaches of PI and OI with two combined approaches in which processing and output tasks were used in two opposite orders suggested by the researcher, i.e. processing-output-based instruction (POI) and output-processing-based instruction (OPI). The target structure was English passives. Participants included 185 Iranian EFL students from five intact classes, with four assigned to each treatment and one comprising a control group. Results on sentence-level interpretation and production tests administered before, immediately after, and one month following instruction indicated similar improvement for the treatment groups on the first interpretation posttest, and the superiority of POI over OPI and PI over the delayed posttest. On the first production test, POI, OPI, and OI performed equally well and better than PI, while more accurate uses of the target form were observed by POI and OPI on the delayed posttest. It was concluded that the combined approaches, particularly POI, could produce more persistent outcomes by giving learners the opportunity to both process a form and produce it.

It is often wrongly assumed that the provision of teacher corrective feedback naturally entails learners' attendance to and application of it, but learners have repeatedly been reported not to pay attention to teacher feedback due to lack of motivation and the distracting effect of the grades they receive. The present study was an attempt to tackle this problem. To do so, the technique named Draft-Specific Scoring (Nemati & Azizi, 2013) was implemented. In DSS, learners receive both teacher feedback and grades on their first drafts; however, they are given up to two opportunities to apply teacher feedback and revise their drafts accordingly. The scores they receive may improve as a result of the quality of revisions they make. Students’ final scores will be the mean score of the grades they receive on the final drafts of each assignment. 57 Iranian intermediate students attending the ‘Advanced Writing’ course at University of Teheran, with an age range of 21 to 27 took part in this study. The gain score analysis and the SPANOVA used showed the superiority of DSS over more traditional methods in improving learners’ overall writing proficiency as well as fluency and accuracy of their written texts. Moreover, no adverse effect was observed for the treatment group regarding the grammatical complexity of their texts. This indicates that in order to make teacher feedback work, there are a number of intervening variables one needs to consider, the most important of which being learners’ motivation to attend to teacher feedback.