Volume 6, Issue 3 (Autumn 2023)
Iranian Journal of Educational Sociology 2023, 6(3): 204-215 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rafizade Tafti M R, Rahimi Esfahani F, Shafiee S. (2023). The Impact of Audio Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Improvement at Micro and Macro levels: Static and Dynamic Assessment in Focus. Iranian Journal of Educational Sociology. 6(3), 204-215. doi:10.61186/ijes.6.3.204
URL: http://iase-idje.ir/article-1-1299-en.html
URL: http://iase-idje.ir/article-1-1299-en.html
1- Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran.
2- Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran (Corresponding Author)
2- Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran (Corresponding Author)
Abstract: (582 Views)
Purpose: This study was an attempt to find the impact of audio corrective feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ writing improvement at micro and macro levels using static and dynamic assessment methods.
Methodology: This study employs a quasi-experimental design; The study population comprises individuals residing in Yazd, Iran, aged between 22 and 30 years old, and possessing intermediate-level proficiency in the English language.Forty Iranian intermediate EFL learners were randomly chosen and assigned to two groups of static and dynamic assessment, each comprising 20 learners. Both groups received audio corrective feedback on the micro (grammatical range and accuracy and lexical resource) and macro (task response and coherence and cohesion) writing skills. The data were collected by the pre-test and post-test of writing and analyzed by multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).
Findings: The results revealed significant effects of audio corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing skills. Improvements were observed in grammatical accuracy (F = 12.45, p < 0.01), lexical resource (F = 9.67, p < 0.05), task response (F = 14.32, p < 0.01), and coherence and cohesion (F = 11.21, p < 0.01). Furthermore, comparison between the static and dynamic assessment groups showed a more pronounced improvement in the dynamic group, with significant differences in micro skills (F = 5.78, p < 0.05) and macro skills (F = 6.34, p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the dynamic assessment approach had a statistically significant effect on enhancing both micro and macro-level writing skills among the participants. Notably, it had a more pronounced impact on the improvement of task response and grammatical range and accuracy. This highlights the potential of dynamic assessment as a valuable tool for educators and curriculum designers to promote more comprehensive writing skill development in Iranian EFL learners.
Methodology: This study employs a quasi-experimental design; The study population comprises individuals residing in Yazd, Iran, aged between 22 and 30 years old, and possessing intermediate-level proficiency in the English language.Forty Iranian intermediate EFL learners were randomly chosen and assigned to two groups of static and dynamic assessment, each comprising 20 learners. Both groups received audio corrective feedback on the micro (grammatical range and accuracy and lexical resource) and macro (task response and coherence and cohesion) writing skills. The data were collected by the pre-test and post-test of writing and analyzed by multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).
Findings: The results revealed significant effects of audio corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing skills. Improvements were observed in grammatical accuracy (F = 12.45, p < 0.01), lexical resource (F = 9.67, p < 0.05), task response (F = 14.32, p < 0.01), and coherence and cohesion (F = 11.21, p < 0.01). Furthermore, comparison between the static and dynamic assessment groups showed a more pronounced improvement in the dynamic group, with significant differences in micro skills (F = 5.78, p < 0.05) and macro skills (F = 6.34, p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the dynamic assessment approach had a statistically significant effect on enhancing both micro and macro-level writing skills among the participants. Notably, it had a more pronounced impact on the improvement of task response and grammatical range and accuracy. This highlights the potential of dynamic assessment as a valuable tool for educators and curriculum designers to promote more comprehensive writing skill development in Iranian EFL learners.
Keywords: Audio Feedback, Dynamic Assessment, L2 Writing, Macro Skills, Micro Skills, Static Assessment
Type of Study: Research Article |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2023/07/19 | Accepted: 2023/12/21 | Published: 2023/12/1
Received: 2023/07/19 | Accepted: 2023/12/21 | Published: 2023/12/1
References
1. Ahern Dodson, J., & Reisinger, D. (2017). Moving beyond corrective feedback:(Re) engaging with student writing in L2 through audio response. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 129-152.
2. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x]
3. Anjarani , S. ., & Furqon , M. . (2022). Hearing Your Feedback Loud and Clear: Students' Voices of Audio Feedback in Virtual Writing Class. Metathesis: Journal of English Language, Literature, and Teaching, 6(1), 1-11. [DOI:10.31002/metathesis.v6i1.136]
4. Bilbro, J., Iluzada, C., & Clark, D. E. (2013). Responding effectively to composition students: Comparing student perceptions of written and audio feedback. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(1), 47-83.
5. Bless, M. (2017). Impact of audio feedback technology on writing instruction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
6. Bradshaw, M. J. (2020). Practical tips for use of audio feedback on student writing assignments. Nurse Educator, 45(2), 66-67. [DOI:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000681] [PMID]
7. Chalfin, G. (2018). Audio feedback on student writing: Could voice recording foster the tenets of care theory? Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 20(1/2), 61-71.
8. Daneshvar, A., Bagheri, M. S., Sadighi, F., Yarmohammadi, L., & Yamini, M. (2021). A probe into Iranian learners' performance on IELTS academic writing task 2: Operationalizing two models of dynamic assessment versus static assessment. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(2), 58-24. [DOI:10.30479/jmrels.2020.13075.1617]
9. Davoudi, M., & Ataei-Tabar, M. (2015). The effects of computerized dynamic assessment of L2 writing on Iranian EFL learners writing development. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 3(2), 176-186. [Persian] [DOI:10.15640/ijlc.v3n2a16]
10. Ebadi, S., Ashtarian, S., & Yousefi, N. (2021). Teaching English Language. Journal Dynamic Assessment Training and Mediational Strategies of EFL Student Mediators, 15(2), 95-126. [Persian]
11. Estaji, M., & Ameri, AF (2020) Dynamic assessment and its impact on pre-intermediate and high-intermediate EFL learners' grammar achievement. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-18. [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2020.1740040]
12. Farrokh, P., & Rahmani, A. (2017). Dynamic assessment of writing ability in transcendence tasks based on Vygotskian perspective. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1). [Persian] [DOI:10.1186/s40862-017-0033-z]
13. Hayman, R. (2018). Using audio feedback for summative assessment feedback: Experiences of work-based postgraduate sport coaching students. Journal of Perspective in Applied Academia Practice, 6(2), 13-21. [DOI:10.14297/jpaap.v6i2.334]
14. Hidri, S. (2019) Static vs. dynamic assessment of students' writing exams: a comparison of two assessment modes, International Multilingual Research Journal, 13:4, 239-256, DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2019.1606875 [DOI:10.1080/19313152.2019.1606875]
15. Izadpanah, J., Sadighi, F., & Akbarpour, L. (2022). Investigating oral and written corrective feedback on language learners' grammar. Journal of Language and Translation, 12 (1), 49-61. [Persian]
16. Kocaman, O., & Maral, B. N. (2022). Effects of explicit corrective feedback on writing skill: A private middle school example. The Literacy Trek, 8(1), 108-120. [DOI:10.47216/literacytrek.1121256]
17. Mahdavi, M. (2014). The Effect of Dynamic Assessment on Essay Writing Ability of Iranian EFL Learners: A Gender Related Study. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimağusa, North Cyprus.
18. Mallahi, O., & Saadat, M. (2020). Effects of Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners' writing Development: Group Dynamic Assessment vs. Formative Assessment. Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal, 2(4), 258-277. [Persian] http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/ieepj.2.4.258 [DOI:10.52547/ieepj.2.4.258]
19. Nirwana, A. R., Iye, R., & bin Tahir, S. Z. (2020). SOME EFFECTS OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS'WRITING. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 6(1), 166-178. [DOI:10.24252/Eternal.V61.2020.A14]
20. Rahmani, A., Rashtchi, M., & Yazdanimoghadam, M. (2021). Interactionist and interventionist dynamic assessment approaches to teaching argumentative writing: Do complexity, accuracy, and fluency develop? Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 13(27), 100-128. [Persian]
21. Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effects of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners' process writing development. Sage Open, 8(2), 1- 14. [Persian] [DOI:10.1177/2158244018784643]
22. Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 3(3), 1-12. [Persian] [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2019.03.004]
23. Sharif, A. M., & Zainuddin, S. Z. (2017). Students' perceptions of their reflective essay writing experience and teacher feedback comments. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 204-212. [Persian] [DOI:10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4845]
24. Shi, Y., Matos, F, & Kuhn, D. (2019). Dialog as a bridge to argumentative writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 107-129. [DOI:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.04]
25. Sritrakarn, N. O. (2018). A comparison of teacher's and senior students' feedback: Student attitudes and their writing improvement. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 329. [DOI:10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.5.329]
26. Sun, H. & QI, W. (2022). Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on College EFL Students' Writing Accuracy and Linguistic Knowledge Acquisition. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 445-461. [DOI:10.1515/CJAL-2022-0310]
27. Wang, P. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on the listening skills of lower intermediate EFL learners in Chinese technical college: A pilot study. Journal of Language Teaching and research, 6(6), 1269-1279. [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0606.14]
28. Xu, Y. (2018). Not just listening to the teacher's voice: A case study of a university English teacher's use of audio feedback on social media in China. Frontiers in Education, 3,65. [DOI:10.3389/feduc.2018.00065]
29. Zafarani, Z., & Maftoon, P. (2018). Impact of Dynamic Assessment on the Writing Performance of English as Foreign Language Learners in Asynchronous Web 2. 0 and Face - to - face Environments. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(2), 39-55. [Persian]
30. Zohoor, S., & Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2021). Impact of dynamic assessment principles on learning and retention of conditional sentences amount in Iranian intermediate learners. Language Related Research, 12(5), 551-577. [Persian]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
.jpg)
