Web 2.0 Incorporated Dynamic Assessments to Assess Writing Ability of Iranian EFL learners

Shiva Seyed Erfani; Ahmad Agha Ebrahimiyan

Authors

Shiva Seyed Erfani
Ahmad Agha Ebrahimiyan

Keywords:

blog, call, dynamic assessment, web 20, writing ability

Abstract

In dynamic assessment which emphasizes the process rather than product learners are provided with corrective feedback in categorized levels. On the other hand, Blog is an on-line and user-value driven technology widely used in language learning. This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of the Web 2.0 on writing ability of Iranian EFL learners through the process of dynamic assessment. To do so, twenty low advanced EFL learners were randomly selected to take part in an eight-session class in advanced writing. The participants were assigned into two control and experimental groups consisting of ten members. Both groups were exposed to dynamic assessment however they differed in that the dynamic assessment of the experimental group was applied online through using a blog and the dynamic assessment of the control group was based on traditional paper-and-pencil method.

Downloads

How to Cite

Web 2.0 Incorporated Dynamic Assessments to Assess Writing Ability of Iranian EFL learners. (2014). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 13(G14), 49-55. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/902

Download Citation

References

A Aljaafreh, J Lantolf (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. 78, 465-483.

M Azizinezhad, M Hashemi (2011) The use of blogs in teaching and learning translation. 28, 867-871.

P Birjandi, S Ebadi (2010) Dynamic assessment in synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC). 3(10).

Parviz Birjandi, Saman Ebadi (2012) Microgenesis in dynamic assessment of L2 learners' socio-cognitive development via web 2.0. 32, 34-39.

R Bran (2009) Do the math: ESP + Web 2.0 = ESP 2.0!. (1), 2219-2523.

V Delclos, S Burns, N Vye (1993) A comparison of teachers' responses to dynamic and traditional assessment reports. 11(46).

G Dettoria, V Lupib (2010) ICT and new methodologies in language learning. 2, 2712-2716.

R Ellis (2008) The study of second language acquisition.

Gabriela Grosseck, Carmen Holotescu (2010) Microblogging multimedia-based teaching methods best practices with Cirip.eu. 2(2), 2151-2155.

A Ingram, L Hathorn, A Evans (2000) Beyond chat on the internet. 35, 21-35.

Malinka Ivanova, George Ivanov (2010) Cloud computing for authoring process automation. 2(2), 3646-3651.

A Kovacic, G Bubas, A Coric (2012) Mobilising students' grammar skills through collaborative etivities with Web 2.0 tools. 34, 132-136.

James Lantolf, Matthew Poehner (2011) Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. 15(1), 11-33.

C Lidz (1987) Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.

Ana Oskoz (2009) Learners' Feedback in Online Chats. 27(1), 48-68.

Gulcin Sarica, Nadire Cavus (2009) New trends in 21st Century English learning. 1(1), 439-445.

P Shresthaa, C Coffin (2012) Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. 17, 55-70.

R Sternberg, E Grigorenko (2002) Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential.

L Swanson, C Lussier (2001) A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. 71, 321.

Daniela Tuparova, Georgi Tuparov (2010) Management of students' participation in e-learning collaborative activities. 2(2), 4757-4762.

J Wyrick (2008) Steps to writing well.

Shiou-Wen Yeh, Jia-Jiunn Lo (2005) Assessing metacognitive knowledge in web-based CALL: a neural network approach. 44(2), 97-113.

A Zaini, I Kemboja, H Supyan (2011) Blogs in language learning: Maximizing students' collaborative writing. 18, 537-543.