The Effect of Morphological Dynamic Assessment on EFL Learners’ Morphological Awareness

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Mahnoosh Hamavandi
• Mohammad Javad Rezai
• Golnar Mazdayasna

Department of Foreign Languages, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v50i2.63223

Abstract

1. Introduction
Dynamic assessment (DA) is grounded in the Vygotskyan concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and includes mediated teacher-learner dialog during the assessment procedure. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of DA on EFL learners’ morphological awareness. A secondary aim of the study was to examine whether there was a relationship between dynamic assessment and static assessment measures.
In this study, a new approach to measure morphology was adopted targeting the shortcomings of measures of morphological awareness, which have been dually noted in the literature (Apel, Diehm, & Apel, 2013; Moats & Smith, 1992). Neither criterion-referenced nor norm-referenced assessments that adequately assess derivational morphology are available (Moats & Smith, 1992); therefore, a new method of assessment can be adopted to examine morphology.
Despite promising findings gained from the implementation of DA in the domain of L1 morphological awareness (Larsen & Nippold, 2007; Ram, Marinellie, Benigno, & McCarthy, 2013; Wolter & Pike, 2015), no published study has tried to find whether a DA of morphological awareness task may improve morphological awareness in the EFL context. In this regard, the current study has applied the principles of DA to the teaching and assessment of EFL learners’ morphological awareness in order to offer an alternative perspective on assessment and its relevance to teaching and learning of morphological awareness based on the sociocultural theory of mind developed by Vygotsky (1987).

2. Methodology
The participants of this study were two groups of female students each consisting of 25 students between the ages of 14 and 18, all of whom had enrolled at the intermediate level of general English classes in Iran Language Institute, Yazd branch. First, all of the participants of this study, who were at the same level of general English proficiency based on the institute’s policies, in the experimental and control groups completed the static morphological awareness task (SMAT). In the DA sessions, students in the experimental group were asked to define each targeted word (e.g., define the word cookery). If needed, a series of prompts or scaffolds, consistent with Larsen and Nippold’s (2007) task, was then systematically provided to determine the level of assistance needed to define the given word. After each cue, the researcher paused for up to 10 seconds; if no response was given or the language learner responded incorrectly, the next clue was provided. In addition, the scoring stipulations of Larsen and Nippold (2007) were further adapted for EFL students and were similar to those of Ram et al. (2013). Finally, the SMAT, was administered in the posttest aimed at understanding the extent to which the intervention affected students’ reading morphological awareness.
3. Discussion
The first question of this study addressed the effect of DA task on morphological awareness. Comparing A comparison of the pre- and post- static morphological awareness of the students indicated that their performance on the dynamic morphological task significantly improved through the use of scaffolding [(t =3.81, df =48, p< .05)]. The statistical analysis showed that there is no significant difference (p< 0.01) in the performance of DA (M=14.16, SD=2.88) and non-dynamic assessment (M= 10.52, SD=3.80) groups.
The second question posed concerned the relationship between DATMA and MA, which is considered as an experimental measure with a limited use in previous research in the EFL context. The concurrent validity of the DATMA was tested by examining the correlation coefficient between the dynamic measure and a static measure of morphological analysis skill (i.e., SMAT). A significant and positive association between these two measures was found, supporting the concurrent validity of the DATMA (r = .736, p. ≤ .05). The significant relationship between the DATMA and SMAT scores is in line with prior research by Larsen and Nippold’s (2007) who administered the DATMA, which is a measure designed to evaluate a child’s ability to use morphological analysis as a word learning strategy. The significant correlation between the DATMA and static measure of morphology obtained from the current study supports the finding of their study in that there is a relationship between the static and dynamic measures of morphology knowledge.
The DA used in the study was graduated prompts, which frequently involve the presentation of a series of graded or graduated prompts (Campione, 1989). The fewer prompts required, or the less assistance, the greater the student’s potential for change was. This systematic method of prompting provides increasingly directive facilitation of a desired response. The gradual explicitness of the hints provided calibrated help for the learners’ progress toward their independent performance of a certain language feature. The engagement with the researcher created Vygotsky’s (1978) ZPD. The gradual hints provided enabled the teacher to identify the borders of the ZPD for every learner in the classroom by giving scores. This area was the range between the students’ assisted and independent performances (Brown, 2009; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011; Poehner & Lantolf, 2004). The hints promoted the quick learning of a language feature, because the mediator provided the needed incremental knowledge when the learner needed it the most (Poehner, 2004). These heightened occurrences of need evolved naturally to raise the students’ awareness to what was missing in their knowledge base. Several empirical studies provide supportive evidence for the effectiveness of the DA of morphology provided in the present study. As an example, DA using a test–teach–retest approach which was used in this study has been most commonly applied to the assessment of morphological awareness (Larsen & Nippold, 2007; Ram et al., 2013; Wolter & Pike, 2015). Also, a number of studies have demonstrated DA’s utility for the evaluation of language tasks such as vocabulary learning (Camilleri & Law, 2013; Peña, Iglesias, & Lidz, 2001; Kapantzoglou, Restrepo, & Thompson, 2012).
4. Conclusion
There was a significant improvement in the EFL learners’ ability to demonstrate morphological knowledge on low-frequency derivatives, indicating that scaffolding prompts likely resulted in morphological improvement. The findings can be a unique contribution to the literature as the study examines improvement in morphological awareness performance via DA, a subject that does not seem to have been investigated in previous research in the EFL context. In addition, findings concerning the validity of the DATMA are encouraging. In the current study, the dynamic measure was shown to have adequate internal consistency. Findings show that the DATMA had a strong relationship with the SMAT, a static measure of morphological awareness. It can be concluded that the DA was not just a measure of individual variations in a morphological analysis task; it was a measure of individual variations in a student’s ability to respond to adult instruction. Generally, static measures typically assess already-developed abilities whereas dynamic measures are an indicator of a student’s potential to learn new information (Lantolf & Pohner, 2004). The DATMA task may have potential as a tool to help determine an individualized instruction plan for EFL learners to improve their morphological awareness. Since each successive prompt increases the amount of scaffolding that is given to a language learner, it could potentially help a mediator how much instructional support needs to be provided. All in all, DA may open a new horizon in teaching and assessing morphology, paving the way for language learners to learn vocabulary more efficiently.

Keywords

• Morphological Awareness
• Dynamic Assessment
• ZPD
• Morphology

20.1001.1.22285202.1396.50.2.4.5

References

1. Alavi, M., Kaivanpanah Maralani,S., shabani,K.,(2012) Group Dynamic Assessment: An Inventory of Mediational Strategies for Teaching Listening, Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3, 4.

2. Aljaafreh, A. and J.P. Lantolf. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The modern language journal 78: 465-483.

3. Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.

4. Birjandi, P., & Ebadi, S. (2012). Micro genesis in dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ sociocognitive development via web 2.0. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 34–39.

5. Bloomfield, L. (1993). Language. New York. Henry Holt and company

6. Budoff, M. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp.52-81). New York: Guilford

7. Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. Journal of Special Education, 41, 254-270.

8. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–190.

9. Cole P, Segui, J, and Taft, M. (1997).Word and morphemes as unites for lexical access. J. memory and language, 37, 312-330.

10. Ferrara, R.A., Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1986). Children's learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child Development, 57, 1087-1099.

11. Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

12. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.

13. Haywood, H. C. & Tzuriel, D. (Eds.). (1992). Interactive assessment, NY: Springer-Verlag.

14. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15. Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 783–804.

16. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. Paper presented at the 9th conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Frobourg, Switzerland.

17. Ku, Y.-M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 399–422.

18. Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

19. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 49-72.

20. Larsen, J. A., & Nippold, M. A. (2007). Morphological analysis in school-age children: Dynamic assessment of a word learning strategy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38,201–212.

21. Little,D. (1991). Learner autonomy1: definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik

22. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

23. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33, 503-517.

24. Pascoe, M., Stackhouse,J. and Wells, B. (2006). Presisting speech difficulties in children. Department of comunicatio sciences, 3, 293-315.

25. Peña, E. D., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A non-biased procedure. Journal of Special Education, 26,269–280.

26. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group Dynamic Assessment: Mediation for the L2 Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.

27. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233-265.

28. Restrepo, M. A. (2007). beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and transcendence of mediated learning. Modern Language Journal, 91,323-340.

29. Shabani,K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ reading comprehension processes: A Vygotskian perspective. The 4th International Conference of Cognitive Science, 32, 321–328

30. Ukrainetz, T. A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 31, 142-154

31. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.