Exploring the Impact of Computer-Based Hybrid Dynamic Assessment on EFL Students’ Academic Writing Development
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i3.13747Keywords:
Computer-based hybrid dynamic assessment, Computer-assissted language learning, Academic writing, Writing assessment, Corrective feedbackAbstract
Little attention has been paid to the computer-based hybrid dynamic assessment (C-HDA) in the context of English as a foreign language (EFL) academic writing. However, This study aimed to examine the impact of C-HDA in improving the writing skills of Indonesian higher education students. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. To gather quantitative data, one-group pretest-posttest research design was employed. Qualitatively, semi-structured interviews with the experimental group were also conducted to investigate the extent to of mediation benefited the participants during the teaching session. The interview was conducted after the post-test was completed accordingly. Eleven of twenty-two aged 19-20 years old enrolled in the Writing for Academic Purposes course and participated in this research project. The participants were required to write an argumentative essay of 150-300 words consisting of three paragraphs (introduction, body, and conclusion) and their essays were then assessed by using the recent C-HDA. All essays were, then, scored (by three raters) based on five criteria of academic writing, content, organization, language use, mechanics, and style. T-test and the thematic analysis were used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. The results showed that the the current C-HDA improved the participants’ academic writing although no maximal score was achieved. In addition, the qualitative data found three themes, positive and negative perspectives, and suggestions that addressed the participants’ perceptions toward the C-HDA. This study yields implications for academic writing teachers about the implementation of C-HDA in developing academic writing for low-competent students.Â
References
Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.869446
Andujar, A. (2020). Mobile-mediated dynamic assessment: A new perspective for second language development. ReCALL, 32(2), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000247
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 576–598.
Awada, G. (2016). Effect of WhatsApp on critique writing proficiency and perceptions toward learning. Cogent Education, 3.
Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300303.
Bataineh, R.F., Al-Hamad, R.F., & Al-Jamal, D.A. (2021). Gender and EFL writing: Does Whatsapp make a difference? Teaching English with Technology, 18(2), 21-33.
Burns, S. (1984). Comparison of “graduated prompt†and “mediational†dynamic assessment and static assessment with young children (No. 2; A Series of Technical Reports and Working Papers).
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
Ebadi, S., & Bashir, S. (2020). An exploration into EFL learners’ writing skills via mobile-based dynamic assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1995–2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10348-4.
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362.
Ebadi, S., Gholami, M., & Vakili, S. (2022). Investigating the effects of using Grammarly in EFL writing: The case of articles. Computers in the Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2150067
Estaji, M., & Ameri, A.F. (2020). Dynamic assessment and its impact on pre-intermediate and high-intermediate EFL learners’ grammar achievement. Cogent Education, 7, 1-18.
Ferris, D. R. 2010. Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2): 181–201.
Giray, L. (2024). “Don’t let Grammarly overwrite your style and voice†Writers’ advice on using Grammarly in writing. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 28(3). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10875301.2024.2344762?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Hadidi, A. (2023). Comparing summative and dynamic assessments of L2 written argumentative discourse: Microgenetic validity evidence. Assessing Writing, 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100691
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing 36(May), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.002.
Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). Why am I paraphrasing?â€: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005.
Holliday, L. (2001). Thesis and research writing in English by Indonesian higher degree students studying overseas. TEFLIN Journal, 12(1).
Irvin, L. L. (2010). What is “Academic†Writing? In C. Lowe & P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing Spaces: Reading on Writing (pp. 3–17).
Kao, Y.-T. (2015). How interactive discussions support writing development: the application of Dynamic assessment for learning Chinese rhetoric. Language Testing in Asia, 5(14), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-015-0022-4
Khurram, S., Palpanadan, S.T., & Chachar, Z.A. (2024). Analyzing the contribution of WhatsApp in enhancing English writing skills among undergraduate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners: A systematic review. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.59400/fls.v6i2.1174
Ko, CJ. (2022). Online individualized corrective feedback on EFL learners’ grammatical error correction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1449-1477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2118783
Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102800
Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102800
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development. In B. VanPatten & J. Willams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 207–226). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1487024
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development. In B. VanPatten & J. Willams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 207–226). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1487024
Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing : Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System, 45, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005.
Mauludin, L. A. (2018). Dynamic assessment to improve students ’ summary writing skills in an ESP class. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548296.
Pear, J. J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction. Computers and Education, 38(1–3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00070-7.
Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T. D., & Miller, R. T. (2017). A functional approach to analyzing student challenges with the argument genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38(October), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.013.
Pham, V. P. H. (2019). The effects of lecturer’s model e-comments on graduate students’ peer e-comments and writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 324–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1609521.
Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced l2 learners of French. Unpublished dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment and the Problem of Validity in the L2 Classroom. In CALPER Working Paper Series (Issue 10).
Rakedzon, T., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). Assessing and improving L2 graduate students’ popular science and academic writing in an academic writing course. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1192108
Rassaei, E. (2020). Effects of mobileâ€mediated dynamic and nondynamic glosses on L2 vocabulary learning: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 284–303. https:// doi.org/10.1111/modl.12629
Riahi, I. (2018). Revisiting the Assessment of Second Language Abilities: From Theory to Practice. Second LanguRiahi, I. (2018). Revisiting the Assessment of Second Language Abilities: From Theory to Practice. Second Language Learning and Teaching. In Second Language Learn. In Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer. http://www.springer.com/series/10129
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge.
Roohani, A., & Rad, H.S (2019). Effectiveness of Hybrid Dynamic Assessment in L2 learners’ descriptive writing development. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2019.4004
Sadek, N. (2011). A Hybrid Dynamic Assessment (HDA) Model of Essay Writing by English Language Learners (ELL): An Exploratory Qualitative Study (Issue December). Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Sadek, N. (2015). Dynamic Assessment (DA): Promoting Writing Proficiency through Assessment. International Journal of Bilingual & Multilingual Teachers of English, 03(02), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.12785/ijbmte/030201
Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing : impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course types of corrective feedback in an experimental. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164
Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H., Whittingham, J., & Dolmans, D. (2020). Peer-to-peer dialogue about teachers’ written feedback enhances students’ understanding on how to improve writing skills. Educational Studies, 46(6), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1651692
Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149.
Shang, H.F. (2024). Effectiveness of automated corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing proficiency and perception. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2347318
Shrestha, P. N. (2011). Dynamic assessment of academic writing for business studies. Unpublished dissertation, The Open Univerisity.
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
Smet, M. J. R. De, Brand-gruwel, S., Broekkamp, H., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Computers in Human Behavior Write between the lines : Electronic outlining and the organization of text ideas. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2107–2116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.015
Tang, Y., & Ma, X. (2023). An Interventionist dynamic assessment approach to college English writing in China. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2022.2155165.
Vakili, S., & Ebadi, S. (2019). Exploring EFL learners` developmental errors in academic writing through face-to-face and computer-mediated dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(3), 345–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1698616.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors' written responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
Whitaker, A. (2009). Academic writing guide: A step-by-step guide to writing academic papers. Bratislava, Slovakia: City University of Seatle.
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Designing a genre-based lesson plan for an academic writing course. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(3), 173–199.
Widodo, H. P. (2016). Language Policy in Practice: Reframing the English Language Curriculum in the Indonesian Secondary Education Sector. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (Vol. 11, pp. 127–151). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22464-0_6.
Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL Process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24–40.
Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2019). Promoting L2 English learners’ reading proficiency through computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 628-652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1585882
Yeh, H. C. (2014). Facilitating metacognitive processes of academic genre-based writing using an online writing system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.881384.
Zhao, C. G. (2017). Assessing writing voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing. Assessing Writing, 31, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.004.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.
Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Â
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
Licensing for Data Publication
- Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
