Students' Dynamic Assessment Via Online Chat
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v22i3.513-536Keywords:
Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication (SCMC), Dynamic Assessment (DA), Assessment in SCMC, Process in SCMCAbstract
While there is ample documentation on the use of synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) in the foreign language classroom for instructional purposes (Beauvois, 1994, 1998; Beauvois & Eledge, 1996; Chun, 1994; Darhower, 2002; Kelm, 1992, Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996), research devoted to assessment in this area is quite rare (Heather, 2003; Oscoz, 2003). One reason for this lack of research is the process-oriented nature of SCMC that demands new research and evaluation tools (Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001). This study explores the possibility of applying dynamic assessment (DA), which focuses on process rather than on the product, to SCMC. The study draws on the work of Antón (2003), who examined students' performance in oral interaction following DA techniques and on Aljaafreh and Lantolf's (1994) 5-level scale (based on the frequency and type of assistance provided to the learner) to assess learners' language development in SCMC. The data presented in this study shows that the application of the 5-level scale makes it possible to obtain a more accurate picture of learners' stage of development. In spite of the benefits of DA, the study also suggests that the traditional modes of assessment are still required to assess students' performance in SCMC. As Johnson (2004) stated, both modes are needed to obtain a richer and more complete understanding of students' language development.
References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Review, 78, 465-483.
Antón, M. (2003, March). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC.
Bachman, L. (1990). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bearden, R. (2001, March). An interactionist study of small-group oral discussion vs. computer-assisted class discussion (CACD) between native speakers and nonnative learners for Spanish. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Saint Louis, MO.
Beauvois, M. (1992). Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 455464.
Beauvois, M. (1993). E-talk: Empowering students through electronic discussion in the foreign language classroom. The Ram’s Horn, 7, 41-47.
Beauvois, M. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.
Beauvois, M. (1997a). Computer-mediated communication (CMC), technology for improving speaking and writing. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Beauvois, M. (1997b). High-tech, high-touch: From discussion to composition in the networked classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10, 57-69.
Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 198-217.
Beauvois, M., & Eledge, J. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2/3), 27-45.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
Brown, J. D. (1997). Computers in language testing: Present research and some future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 44-59. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/brown/default.html
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (1995a). Deriving oral assessments scales across different tests and rater groups. Language Testing, 12, 16-33.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (1995b). A contextualized approach to describing oral language proficiency. Language Learning, 45, 251-281.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (Ed.). (1999). Issues in computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiency. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.
Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Deville, C. (1999). Computer-adaptive testing in second language contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 273-299.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.
Cononelos, T., & Oliva, M. (1993). Using computer networks to enhance foreign language/ culture education. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 525-534.
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding on second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Dunkel, P. A. (1999). Considerations in developing or using second/foreign language proficiency computer-adaptive tests. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 77-93. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article4
Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 279-294.
Fidalgo-Eick, M. (2001). Synchronous on-line negotiation of meaning by intermediate learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.
Fulcher, G. (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13, 23-51.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 55-102. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/furstenberg/default.pdf
Heather, J. (2003). The validity of computer-mediated communicative language tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona.
Henning, G. (1983). Oral proficiency testing: Comparative validities of interview, imitation, and completion methods. Language Learning, 33, 315-332.
Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-445.
Kelm, O. (1996). The application of computer network in foreign language education: Focusing on principles of second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 19-28). Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Laurier, M. (2000). Can computerized testing be authentic? ReCALL, 12, 93-104.
Lee, L. (2002). Synchronous online exchanges: A study of modification devices on non-native discourse. System, 30, 275-288.
Lidz, C. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potentials. New York: Guilford Press.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potentials (pp. 116-140). New York: Guilford Press.
Nicholas, M. A., & Toporski, N. (1993). Developing “The critic’s corner:” Computer assisted language learning for upper-level Russian students. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 469-478.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oscoz, A. (2003). Jigsaw and free discussion in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.
O’Sullivan, B. (2001). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19, 277-295.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-58.
Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. (2004). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. CALPER professional development document (CPDD) 0411. The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency, Education and Research.
Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99-140.
Salaberry, R., Barrette, K., Elliot, P., & Fernández-García, M. (2004). Impresiones. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scheneider, E., & Ganschow, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment and instructional strategies for learners who struggle to learn a foreign language. Dyslexia, 6, 72-82.
Shohamy, E. (1983). The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning, 33, 527-540.
Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. (2002). Dynamic testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82-119. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development. Human Development, 44, 84-97.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2/3), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470-481.
