MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186665705 · doi:10.5539/elt.v14n8p73

Dynamic Assessment in Language Learning; An Overview and the Impact of Using Social Media

2021· article· en· W3186665705 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haya Mohammed Anazi Alsaadi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic assessmentSummative assessmentZone of proximal developmentLanguage assessmentFormative assessmentLanguage acquisitionMediationSocial mediaProcess (computing)Computer sciencePsychologyLanguage educationForeign languageComprehension approachAlternative assessmentMathematics educationWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language assessment is a vital part of the process of learning and teaching a foreign language. Language learners need to be provided with the best methods to measure how much they are acquiring the target language and to select the most authentic tasks of testing for them. As it has been recommended to use multiple assessment instead of traditional summative one where nothing is concerned except measurement of decontextualized tasks without interactive feedback, dynamic assessment has been used as a means to reinforce learning and to motivate students as well as enhance language teaching. Dynamic assessment, can be rooted on Socio-cultural theory (SCT) and Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) by Vygotsky, as it allows for learning through interaction and mediation which indicates how beneficial it could be to utilize this method of assessment particularly through social media which is embedded nowadays with all of our daily tasks. Thus, this paper demonstrates the nature and effects of dynamic assessment as an influential method of assessing and maintaining the progress of language learners. Additionally, a comparison between dynamic assessment and static one is manifested. Besides, the theoretical background that supports this method is displayed. Moreover, how technology has been used effectively in language assessment and testing is illustrated. Furthermore, this paper presents implications and recommendations for further research regarding using social media to implement dynamic assessment in language learning which is considered the major goal of reviewing this literature. 

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207