An Investigation into the Effectiveness of the Adopted Strategies through Dynamic Assessment and Their Comparison with Reference to Washback Effect
Abstract. In the current climate of testing practices, language assessment is expected to serve the purposes of testing and teaching alike. This ambition is most pronounced in Dynamic Assessment (DA), which consists in using a number of strategies during assessment, ranging from simple hints and prompts to detailed explanations. The present study aimed to specify, besides the effectiveness of the strategies, whether they affect learning equally and which one has the most positive effect on learning comparing others. To this end, using a pre-experimental research design, and applying a test–teach–retest paradigm, consistent with the interventionist approach to DA, intervention (teaching strategies) was performed in six phases in a group of 30 elementary students, who were randomly selected, to specify the effectiveness of the strategies. In the seventh session, employing a true-experimental design, 15 students received detailed score reporting as one of the strategies supposed to have positive washback effect while the other 15 students were provided with other strategies (simple hints and different prompts). The analysis of t-tests indicated that all learners made score gains in posttests in all phases, however, the experimental group, who received detailed description of the test, benefited significantly compared to the control group, who received other strategies. As the strategies used during dynamic assessment and consequences of detailed score reporting can be beneficial for both testers and learners, this type of assessment and the given strategy is recommended. This study further discusses the significance of the findings in the context of testing and learning.
Alderson, C.J., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: a study of washback. Language Testing, 13, 280-297.
Alderson, C.J., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied linguistics, 14, 115-129.
Amengual-Pizarro, M. (2009). Does the English test in the Spanish university entrance examination influence the teaching of English? English Studies, 90, 582–598.
Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback—a case-study. System, 30, 207–223.
Bailey, K.M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13 (3), 257-279.
Bailey, K.M. (1999). Washback in language testing. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Barrera, M. (2003). Curriculum-based dynamic assessment for new- or second-language learners with learning disabilities in secondary education settings. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29 (1), 69-84.
Berman, J., & Graham, L. (2002). School counselor use of curriculum-based dynamic assessment. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 12(1), 21–40.
Bethge, H. J., Carlson, J. & Wiedl, K. H. (1982). The effects of dynamic assessment procedures on Raven matrices performance, visual search behavior, test anxiety, and test orientation. Intelligence, 6, 89-97.
Bolig, E. E. & Day, J. D. (1993). Dynamic assessment and giftedness: The promise of assessing training responsiveness, Roeper Review, 16 (2), 110-113.
Boyle, J., & Fisher, S. (2007). Educational Testing. A competence-based approach.
Oxford: BPS Blackwell. Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1992a). Principles of dynamic assessment: The application of specific model. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 153-166.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1992b). The dynamic assessment of intelligence. In H. C.
Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment (pp. 167–186). New York: Springer- Verlag. Delclos, V. R., Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1992).
Improving the quality of instruction: Roles for dynamic assessment. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment (pp. 317-331). New York: Springer. Gattullo, F. (2000). Formative assessment in ELT primary (elementary) classrooms: An
Italian case study. Language Testing, 17 (2), 278–288. Green, A. (2007). Washback to learning outcomes: A comparative study of IELTS preparation and university pre-sessional language courses. Assessment in Education, 14, 75–97.
Guterman, E. (2002). Toward dynamic assessment of reading: Applying metacognitive awareness guidance to reading assessment tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 283– 2
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Social, professional and individual responsibility in language testing. System, 28, 579-591.
Haywood, H.C. & Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Haywood, H. C., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40–63.
Kolahi, S. (2007). Investigating the washback effects on improving the writing performance of Iranian EFL university student.In: The Second Biennial International
Conference on Teaching and Learning of English in Asia : Exploring New Frontiers (TELiA2), 14-16 June 2007, Holiday Villa Beach & Spa Resort, Langkawi. Faculty of Communication and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, pp. 1-13. ISBN 978-983-42061-2-3.
Kozulin, A. & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
Marquardt, T.P., & Gillam, R.B. (1999). Assessment in communication disorders: Some observations on current issues. Language Testing, 16 (3), 249–269.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company, pp. 86-113, 190-2
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2013).The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Pearson Education Asia Limited. (2011). The official guide to PTE – Pearson test of
English general. Hong Kong: Pearson Longman Asia ELT. Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471-49
Saif, S. (2006). Aiming for positive washback: A case study of international teaching assistants. Language Testing, 23, 1-34.
Spolsky, B. (1997). The ethics of gatekeeping tests: What have we learned in a hundred years? Language Testing, 14, 242-247.
Taylor, L., & Geranpayeh, A. (2011). Assessing listening for academic purposes: Defining and operationalizing the test construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 89-101.
Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385-435.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1994). Principles of social education for deaf and dumb children in Russia.
In The Vygotsky Reader. R. Vander Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.). Cambridge, MA:Blackwell. APPENDICES Appendix A Table Descriptive statistics for the performance on Pre- and Post-test 3 N 30 7333 2.77841 Pre-test Post-test 30 21.7667 2.11209 50727 38561
Table Correlations between Pre- and Post-test 3 N 30 .941 000 Table Paired samples t-test for the participants’ performance on Pre- and Post-test 3 Paired Sample Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -03333 06620 19466 -43146 -63521 -583 29 000
Table Descriptive statistics for the performance on Pre- and Post-test 4. N 30 30 9667 04237 37288 Post-test
Table Correlations between Pre- and Post-test 4. N 30 Correlation 871 Sig. 000 Table Paired samples t-test the participants’ group’s performance on Pre- and Post-test 4 Paired Sample Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -46667 16658 21299 -90228 -03106 -276 29 000
Table Descriptive statistics for the performance on Pre- and Post-test 5 N 30 30 2667 77984 32495 Post-test
Table Correlations between Pre- and Post-test 5. N 30 Correlation 917 Sig. 000 Table Paired samples t-test for the participants’ performance on Pre- and Post-test 5 Paired Sample Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -60000 00344 18320 -97469 -22531 -650 29 000
Table 10. Descriptive statistics for the performance on Pre- and Post-test 6. N 30 30 6000 47625 26952 Post-test
Table 11. Correlations between Pre- and Post-test 6. N 30 Correlation 0.817 Sig. 0.000 Table 12. Paired samples t-test for the participants’ performance on Pre- and Post-test 6. Paired Sample Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -70000 17884 21523 -14018 -25982 -191 29 000 Appendix B
Table Descriptive statistics for experimental group. N 15 15 8000 47358 38048 Post-test
Table Correlations between Pre- and Post-test for experimental group. N 15 Correlation 850 Sig. 000 Table Paired samples t-test for experimental group. Paired Sample Test Paired Differences Std. Error Mean t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -20000 37321 35456 -96046 -43954 -666 14 0.000
Table Descriptive statistics for control group. N 15 15 2667 28244 58932 Post-test
Table Correlations between Pre- and Post-test for control group. N 15 Correlation 953 Sig. 000 Table Paired samples t-test for the control group. Paired Sample Test Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Deviation Mean the Difference Lower Upper -13333 74322 19190 -54492 -72175 -117 14 000