The impact of interactionist vs. interventionist dynamic assessment on writing fluency and complexity of young vs. adult IELTS candidates
محورهای موضوعی : Curriculum Design and Development
Leyli Kashef
1
,
Naser Ghafouri
2
,
Akbar Valizadeh Oghani
3
,
Azadeh Mehrpouyan
4
1 - English Department, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran
2 - English Department, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
3 - Department of Management, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran
4 - Department of English Literature, Velayat University, Iranshahr, Iran
کلید واژه: Interactionist Dynamic Assessment, Interventionist Dynamic Assessment, IELTS Candidates, Writing Fluency, Writing Complexity,
چکیده مقاله :
According to sociocultural theory, dynamic assessment (DA) merges instruction and assessment. This study attempted to compare the effects of interactionist versus interventionist DA on the writing fluency and complexity of adult versus young IELTS candidates in an international language school in Tehran with the age range of 15-48. One hundred and forty students (90 males and 50 females) who had enrolled in the IELTS preparation course in the spring of 2021 participated in this study. The study participants were divided into four groups namely, young interactionist, young interventionist, adult interactionist, and adult interventionist. The participants in all groups were homogenized based on the result of their performance in a standard version of Preliminary English Test (PET). During the eight-week treatment period, the interactionist groups were given writing tests followed by the instructor’s feedback and guidance, while the interventionist groups received instructions and were given writing test samples without qualitative feedback. The pre-test and post-test comparisons among the four groups by Two Way ANCOVA showed that both young and adult individuals in the interactionist groups had a significant improvement in their writing performance compared to those in the interventionist group. In addition, the study revealed the significant impact of interactionist DA vs. interventionist DA on both young and adult participants' scores in both writing fluency and complexity post-test. Likewise, the results showed no statistically significant interaction between the type of assessment and the candidates’ age. The study presents pedagogical implications for teachers, students, and IELTS preparation program designers.
According to sociocultural theory, dynamic assessment (DA) merges instruction and assessment. This study attempted to compare the effects of interactionist versus interventionist DA on the writing fluency and complexity of adult versus young IELTS candidates in an international language school in Tehran with the age range of 15-48. One hundred and forty students (90 males and 50 females) who had enrolled in the IELTS preparation course in the spring of 2021 participated in this study. The study participants were divided into four groups namely, young interactionist, young interventionist, adult interactionist, and adult interventionist. The participants in all groups were homogenized based on the result of their performance in a standard version of Preliminary English Test (PET). During the eight-week treatment period, the interactionist groups were given writing tests followed by the instructor’s feedback and guidance, while the interventionist groups received instructions and were given writing test samples without qualitative feedback. The pre-test and post-test comparisons among the four groups by Two Way ANCOVA showed that both young and adult individuals in the interactionist groups had a significant improvement in their writing performance compared to those in the interventionist group. In addition, the study revealed the significant impact of interactionist DA vs. interventionist DA on both young and adult participants' scores in both writing fluency and complexity post-test. Likewise, the results showed no statistically significant interaction between the type of assessment and the candidates’ age. The study presents pedagogical implications for teachers, students, and IELTS preparation program designers.
Abbasian, G., & Khadempir, F. (2018). Implementation and Assessment Challenges in Iranian Secondary High School EFL Program. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 11(23), 1-20.
Abdolrezapour, P. (2017). Improving L2 reading comprehension through emotionalized dynamic assessment procedures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 747-770. doi:10.1007/s10936-016-9464-9.
Abdolrezapour, P., & Ghanbari, N. (2021). Enhancing learning potential score in EFL listening comprehension and self-regulation through self-regulated dynamic assessment procedures. Language Testing in Asia, 11(1), 10. doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00126-5
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning.
Afshari, H., Amirian, Z., & Tavakoli, M. (2020). Applying group dynamic assessment procedures to support EFL writing development: Learner achievement, learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 445-476. doi:10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.02.
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Rozati, F. (2017). The impact of scaffolding and non-scaffolding strategies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(5), 447-456. doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1118004.
Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading ability. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 141-151. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n12p141.
Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational assessment, 19(1), 1-16.
doi:10.1080/10627197.2014.869446.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. doi:10.2307/328585.
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x.
Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Implementing peer-dynamic assessment to cultivate Iranian EFL learners' interlanguage pragmatic competence: A mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Language Testing, 13(1), 18-43.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Teaching writing to second language learners: Insights from theory and research. TESL Reporter, 40(1), 35-48.
Bermejo Boixareu, C., Ojeda-Thies, C., Guijarro Valtueña, A., Cedeño Veloz, B. A., Gonzalo Lázaro, M., Navarro Castellanos, L., ... & Sáez-López, P. (2023). Clinical and demographic characteristics of centenarians versus other age groups over 75 years with hip fractures. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2(3), 441-451.
Birjandi, P., Estaji, M., & Deyhim, T. (2013). The impact of dynamic assessment on reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Iranian high school learners. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 3(2), 60-77.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.
Briner, M. (1999). What is constructivism? University of Colorado at Denver. School of Education & Human Development.
https://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/psparks/theorists/501const.htm
Budoff, M. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173–195). The Guilford Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-98593-006.
Daneshfar, S., & Moharami, M. (2018). Dynamic assessment in Vygotsky's sociocultural theory: Origins and main concepts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), 600-607.
Daneshvar, A., Bagheri, M. S., Sadighi, F., Yarmohammadi, L., & Yamini, M. (2021). A probe into iranian learners’ performance on IELTS academic writing task 2: Operationalizing two models of dynamic assessment versus static assessment. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(2), 25-58. doi:10.30479/jmrels.2020.13075.1617.
Es-hagi Sardrood, S. J. (2011). Dynamic Assessment in Iranian EFL Classrooms: A Post-method Enquiry. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 4(9), 47-63.
Etemadi, S. H., & Abbasian, G.-R. (2023). Dynamic assessment and EFL learners’ writing
journey: Focus on DA modalities and writing revision types. Teaching English Language, 17(1), 53-79.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (And what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005.
Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical Language Testing (1st ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/980203767399.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. Routledge.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001.
Heidari, F. (2019). The effect of dynamic assessment of Toulmin model through teacher-and collective-scaffolding on argument structure and argumentative writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 11(2), 115-140. https://sid.ir/paper/681252/en.
Irwin, D., & Liu, N. (2019). Encoding, decoding, packing and unpacking via agnation: Reformulating general knowledge into disciplinary concepts for teaching English academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 100782. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100782.
Kang, S., & Lee, J. H. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61-72.
Kashef, L., Ghafoori, N., Valizadeh Oghani, A., & Mehrpouyan, A. (2024). The effect of interactionist vs. interventionist dynamic assessment on writing accuracy of young vs. adult IELTS candidates. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 1-16. doi: 10.22034/ijlt.2023.390643.1240
Kheradmand Saadi, Z., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2017). Interactionist dynamic assessment in academic persuasive writing: A case of two EFL learners. Indonesian EFL Journal: Journal of ELT, Linguistics and Literature, 3(1), 40-60.
Khorami Fard, S., & Derakhshi, Z. (2019). On the role of dynamic assessment on promotion of writing linguistic accuracy among EFL learners: interventionist model, International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(2), 14-28
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic Assessment of EFL Text Comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112-127.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of literacy: English as a third language. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 65-77. doi:10.1007/BF03173237.
Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107, 102800. doi:10.1558/lst.37685.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49-72. doi:10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (Eds) (2008).Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp.57-86). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and Dynamic Assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 141–157. doi:10.1080/13803611.2013.767616.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press, 2006. http://hdl.handle.net/11162/64896
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(3), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/021)
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, 465–477. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6.
Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257-278. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.009.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment and the preschool child. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2(30, 59-72. doi: 10.1177/073428298300100106
Luria, A.R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. A Journal of Human Behavior, 31, 1-16.
Malmir, A. (2020). The effect of interactionist vs. interventionist models of dynamic assessment on L2 learners’ pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed. Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 9(1), 279-320. doi:10.22054/ilt.2020.53398.515.
Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of grammar with different age groups. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1707-1713. https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol04/08/tpls0408.pdf.
Miao, T., & Mian, L. (2013). Dynamic assessment in ESL writing classroom. International Conference on Education Technology and Management Science, (ICETMS), 676–679. doi:10.2991/icetms.2013.1.
Minakova, V. (2019). Dynamic assessment of IELTS speaking: A learning-oriented approach to test preparation. Language Sociocultural Theory, 6, 184–212.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 116–140). The Guilford Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-98593-004.
Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Bavarsad, P. S. (2017). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): Concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1–24. doi:10.32601/ejal.461025.
Nasiri, M., & Khorshidi, S. (2015). Dynamic assessment of formulaic sequences in Iranian EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 26-32.
Negretti, R., & Mežek, Š. (2019). Participatory appropriation as a pathway to self-regulation in academic writing: The case of three BA essay writers in literature. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 1-40. doi:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.01.
Orozco, R. A. Z., & Shin, S. Y. (2019). Developing and validating an English proficiency test. MEXTESOL Journal, 43(3), 1-11.
https://mextesol.net/journal/public/files/30a3622e4ec5f5b5079ec0d94c41f8e6.pdf
Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 73-95. http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-79-en.html
Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. The Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/6627
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media.
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x.
Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2015). Mediated development: Inter-psychological activity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 161-183. doi:10.1558/lst.v2i2.26982.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr166oa.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 312-330.
Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (2021). Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language Teaching, 54(4), 472-490.
Rahimi, M., Kushki, A. & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208. doi:10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956.
Ramazanpour, G., Nourdad, N., & Nouri, N. (2016). gender differences in the effect of dynamic assessment on grammatical accuracy of writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,6(1), 90-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0601.12
Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ process writing development.
Saeidi, M., & Hosseinpour, A. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment as an instructional tool on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of basic and applied scientific research, 3(10), 421-429.
Sang, Y. (2017). A conceptual review of age effect on L2 acquisition. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 1-4. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1139050.pdf.
Sardarianpour, S., & Kolahi, S. (2021). The comparative effect of dynamic and negotiated assessment on EFL learners’ writing complexity and fluency. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 12(2), 1-12. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.2.p.1.
Shafipoor, M., & Latif, F. (2020). A mixed method study of interventionist DA: A case of introvert vs. extrovert EFL learners’ academic essay writing. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 13(26), 118-139.
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003.
Shi, Y., Matos, F, & Kuhn, D. (2019). Dialog as a bridge to argumentative writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(1), 107-129. doi:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.01.04.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.
Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, M., & Sarkeshikian, A. (2018). The effect of interventionist and cumulative group dynamic assessments on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 1-13. doi:10.14744/alrj.2018.36854.
Torras, M. R., & Celaya, M. L. (2001). Age - related differences in the development of written production. An empirical study of EFL school learners. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 103-126. https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/48211
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x.
Valero, A. L., Fernandez, E. E., Iseni, A. & Clarkson, C. P. (2008). Teachers’ attitudes towards correcting students’ written errors and mistakes. Porta Lingua, 10, 21-30.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman, Eds., 14th ed.). Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5. Child Psychology (pp. 27-39). Plenum.
Zafarani, Z. & Maftoon, P. (2018). Impact of dynamic assessment on the writing performance of English as foreign language learners in asynchronous Web 2.0 and face-to-face environments. Journal of Language and Translation, 8(2), 39 – 55.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
doi:10.2307/3586773.
Zohoor, S., R Eslami, Z., & Tabatabaei, O. (2021). Impact of dynamic assessment principles on learning and retention of conditional sentences among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Jostarhay-e zabani, 12(5), 551-577.
