The Effect of Dynamic Assessment of Toulmin Model through Teacher- and Collective-Scaffolding on Argument Structure and Argumentative Writing Achievement of Iranian EFL Learners

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

Abstract

Considering the paramount importance of writing logical arguments for college students, this study investigated the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) of Toulmin Model through teacher- and collective-scaffolding on argument structure and overall quality of argumentative essays of Iranian EFL university learners. In so doing, 45 male and female Iranian EFL learners taking part in the study were randomly assigned into three groups (two experimental groups including the teacher- and collective-scaffolding and one control group), each consisting of 15 learners. Toulmin Model of argumentation was used as an instructional tool in this research. The necessary data were collected through a pre- and post-test argumentative essay. During the experiment, the dynamic assessment groups wrote and revised their essays in response to teacher’s or peers’ supportive dialogue and zone of proximal development (ZPD) sensitive feedback on the argument structure of their essays; whereas, the control group did not receive such mediation and they were evaluated on their own independent performance. The results of statistical analyses carried out on post-test scores on argument structure and overall quality of the essays pointed out to the outperformance of the teacher- and collective-scaffolding groups on both variables. Furthermore, follow-up Post-hoc analyses revealed no significant difference between the teacher- and collective-scaffolding groups in terms of the overall quality of the argumentative essays. However, the statistically significant difference between the two experimental groups with regard to the argument structure indicated the outperformance of the teacher-scaffolding over the collective group. The obtained results support the fact that autonomy and improvement cannot be thrust upon learners, rather they need to be assisted wisely towards independence.

Keywords

References

Adokh, H., & Rafiee, M. (2017). Investigating the insiders’ perspectives about dynamic assessment process and practicality. International Journal of Research Studies, 6(2), 41-47.
Aghaebrahimian, A., Rahimirad, M., Ahmadi, A., & Khalifpour Alamdari, J. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing skill in advanced EFL learners. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(2014), 60-67.
Chenoweth, A.N., & John, R.H. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 99-118.
Crammond, J. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2) 230-268.
Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second language learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Newark: University of Delaware.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.). Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Nerwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dorfler, T., Golke, S., & Artlet, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 77-82.
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.
Ghahremani, D., & Azarizad, R. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL process writing: Content and organization. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(4), 864-878.
Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In A.A. Patricia, & H. W. Philip (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457-478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1992). Holistic writing assessment for LEP students. Proceeding of the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement. OBEMLA. Available at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/vol 2/holistic-ref.htm. 
Hillocks, G. Jr. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hillocks, G. Jr. (2005). At last: The focus on form vs. content in teaching writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(2), 238-248.
Johnson, A.P. (2008). Teaching reading and writing: A guidebook for tutoring and remediating students. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 273-285).
Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49-74.
Lantolf, J.P., & Throne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, M. (2013). Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System, 41(3), 752-769.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605-625.
Lu, Y. (2010). Cognitive factors contributing to Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance in timed essay writing. Dissertation, Georgia State University. Http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/13.
Lunsford, K.J. (2002). Contextualizing Toulmin’s model in the writing classroom: A case study. Written Communication, 19(1), 109-174.
McCann, T. (1989). Student argumentative writing knowledge and ability at three grade level. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 67-76.
Nasiri, M., & Khorshidi, S. (2015). Dynamic assessment of formulaic sequences in Iranian EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1, 26-32.
Nemeth, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5, 213-240.
Newell, G. E., VanDerHeide, J., & Olsen, A. W. (2013). High school English language arts teachers’ argumentative epistemologies for teaching writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 95-120.
Olinghouse, N.G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45-65.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System, 38, 444-456.
Qin, J. (2013). Applying Toulmin Model in teaching L2 argumentative writing. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 21-29.
Riazi, M., & Rezaii, M. (2011). Teacher- and peer-scaffolding behaviors: Effects on EFL students’ writing improvement. In A. Feryok (Ed.), CLESOL 2010: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference for Community Languages and ESOL (pp. 55-63).
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J.C. Richards, & W.A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 315-320). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Testing Research, 6(1), 129-149.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Processes and consequences of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian analysis: In P. Liyod, & C. Fernyhough (Eds), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments, (pp. 32-45). Rutledge: London & New York.
Uzun, K. (2017). The relationship between genre knowledge and writing performance. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 5(2), 153-162.
Varghese, S.A., & Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates arguing a case. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 287-306.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Child psychology (pp. 187-205). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. A. Koulzin (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wilson, A. H. (2014). The effects of scaffolded instruction in Toulmin Model of argument on the problem-solving strategies of four sixth-grade writers. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. Retrieved from http//www.academia.edu.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100.
Yeh, S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle-school students. Research in the teaching of English, 33, 49-83.
Zhang, Y. (2013). The theoretical construction of a dynamic assessment mode in Chinese tertiary EFL writing class with online teaching and scoring systems. CALL-EJ, 14(2)38-50.
Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 24-40.
Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies
Volume 11, Issue 2
October 2019
Pages 115-140

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics