Testing
Ali Mohammadi Darabad; Gholam-Reza Abbasian; Bahram Mowlaie; Ali Asghar Rostami Abusaeedi
Abstract
AbstractClassroom performance assessment has gained prominence parallel to the multiplicity of the purposes ahead of assessment. Of many, the major controversy, which was the motive behind this study, is the incorporation of L1-based elicitation as a valid measure of second language (L2) performance ...
Read More
AbstractClassroom performance assessment has gained prominence parallel to the multiplicity of the purposes ahead of assessment. Of many, the major controversy, which was the motive behind this study, is the incorporation of L1-based elicitation as a valid measure of second language (L2) performance assessment. To shed empirical lights on this issue, this explanatory sequential mixed-methods research employed 87 Iranian intermediate EFL learners, whose L2 classroom performance was assessed through L1-based elicitation techniques. In order to validate this mechanism, multi-method mono-trait model (namely, Pearson correlation, structural equations, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, composite reliability and convergent validity) suggested by Henning and Mesick’s Unitary Concept of validity were applied. The results from these multiple sources of evidence yield support to their common consensus that L1-based elicitation techniques are valid measures of L2 performance assessment. The findings then offer legacy to the educational implications of L1-based mechanisms both in L2 instruction and assessment.
Gholam-Reza Abbasian; Nazilsa Yekani
Volume 3, Issue 1 , June 2014, , Pages 134-113
Abstract
The present study investigated comparatively the impact of two types of input enhancement (i.e. textual vs. compound enhancement) on developing grammar ability in Iranian EFL setting. Sixty-five female secondary high school students were selected as a homogenous sample out of about a 100-member population ...
Read More
The present study investigated comparatively the impact of two types of input enhancement (i.e. textual vs. compound enhancement) on developing grammar ability in Iranian EFL setting. Sixty-five female secondary high school students were selected as a homogenous sample out of about a 100-member population based on Nelson language proficiency test. Then, their grammar ability was measured based on a researcher-made diagnostic test prior to the experiment. The sample was randomly divided into two equal groups; one group received text-enhancement-based instruction of grammar, while the other received compound-based enhancement. Finally, they received an achievement test of grammar as a posttest to measure their progress in light of two different types of input enhancement mechanisms. The pertinent statistical analyses of the results indicated that a) the effect of textual enhancement-based instruction of grammar is not significantly meaningful, while b) the compound enhancement-based instruction has significant effect on learning grammatical structures. Comparatively speaking, therefore, c) compound enhancement-based instruction of grammar is more significantly effective than that of textual in developing grammar ability. It can be safely concluded that grammar instruction and its resultant development are subject to intervention type, which, pedagogically, bears promising messages for both teachers and syllabus designers to incorporate parameters of input enhancement in both teaching and materials development, respectively.