چکیده:
Originating from Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, dynamic assessment (DA) proposes a novel approach to second language acquisition (SLA) research according to which a dialectical relationship is envisaged between instruction and assessment. Although DA has been applied to some areas of SLA, there are areas, such as interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), that have been neglected. To address the issue, 40 university students of two proficiency levels were selected and assigned randomly to 1 of 4 groups consisting of two DA and two Non-DA groups. Each group received instruction concerning how to use appropriate request and apology strategies in the English language. However, following Lantolf and Poehner (2011), DA groups received ZPD-sensitive feedback whereas NDA groups received no more feedback but were assessed according to their independent performance. All participants completed a pretest, a posttest, and a delayed posttest of request and apology speech acts that were rated by two native speakers of English on a 6-point Likert scale. The findings revealed that DA groups outperformed NDA groups and that DA groups of both high and low proficiency levels differed significantly from pretest to posttest to delayed posttest. However, high NDA group didn’t show such a difference. The results also showed no interaction between proficiency and instruction indicating that instruction, but not proficiency, had a significant effect on posttest and delayed posttest performance of the students. The findings may be revealing in that they support DA and its applicability to ILP instruction.
خلاصه ماشینی:
The findings revealed that DA groups outperformed NDA groups and that DA groups of both high and low proficiency levels differed significantly from pretest to posttest to delayed posttest.
2. Is there any significant difference within each of DA and NDA groups in terms of their acquisition of the speech acts of request and apology from pretest to posttest to delayed posttest?
3. What are the effects of instructional approaches and learners’ levels of proficiency on DA groups and NDA groups’ acquisition of the speech acts of request and apology from pretest to posttest to delayed posttest?
20512 Sub-question 3 was concerned with the difference between high DA and high NDA groups in the pragmatic delayed posttest where the mean score in high DA was 4.
As a result, it can be concluded that there was not a significant difference between high DA and high NDA groups’ mean scores on the pragmatic delayed posttest (p<.
061) This means that there was no difference between DA and NDA in their long-run effects on pragmatic acquisition in high-proficiency groups.
However, it should be noted that no significant difference was found between the effects of high DA and high NDA groups in delayed pragmatic performance.
544 Sub-question 3 was related to the high-proficiency NDA group the mean scores of which on the pragmatic pretest, posttest and delayed posttest were 4.
This result documents the effect of interaction of high language proficiency and DA-based instruction on delayed pragmatic gains.