Iranian TOEFL iBT and the IELTS Teachers’ Views on the Structure of the TOEFL iBT and IELTS Receptive and Productive Sections in terms of Dynamic and Static Assessment

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Arezoo Daneshvar ¹ , Mohammad Bagheri ² , فیروز صدیقی ³ , Lotfollah Yarmohammadi ⁴ , Mortaza Yamini ⁵

1 - Ph.D. candidate, Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 - دپارتمان زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی (وتحد شیراز) ، شیراز، ایران
4 - Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
5 - Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English Language, Zand Institute of Higher Education, Shiraz, Iran

Received: 2021-01-13 Accepted : 2021-01-13 Published : 2020-10-01

Keywords: Dynamic Assessment, Receptive Skills, IELTS teachers, Productive skills, Static assessment TOEFL iBT,

Abstract :

This mixed-methods design study investigated Iranian TOEFL iBT and IELTS teachers’ views on thestructure of the TOEFL iBT and IELTS receptive and productive sections from the yardsticks of dynamicand static assessment. It also examined the conformity level of the receptive and productive sections ofTOEFL iBT and IELTS to dynamic assessment and static assessment standards. To achieve the objectivesof the study, 100 information-rich TOEFL iBT and IELTS teachers selected based on purposive andsnowball sampling completed two 8-item researcher-made questionnaires on the underlying features ofthese exams. To cross-validate the quantitative results, we performed semi-structured interviews with 10informed teachers selected through purposive sampling from among the questionnaire respondents. Thesemi-structured data were content analyzed using a researcher-made framework categorizing thedistinctive dynamic assessment and static assessment features. The results of the qualitative phasecorroborated those of the quantitative part revealing that these exams mainly conform to static assessmenttenets and that they enjoy only a few dynamic assessment features. The pedagogical implications of thefindings are also explicated.

References:

Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading comprehension in different proficiency levels. Language Testing in Asia,, 4(3), 101.

Bingham, W. V. D., & Moore, B. V. (1959). How to interview. New York: Harper & Row.

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI.

Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 1(124), 75-111.

Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. (2006). Dynamic assessment in practice. Clinical and educational applications. . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Khoshsima, H., & Izadi, M. (2014). Dynamic vs. standard assessment to evaluate EFL

learners’ listening comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2(6), 1-26.

Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 1(23), 112-127.

Morrison, T. (2001). Actionable learning: A handbook for capacity building through case-based learning. Tokyo. Asian Development Bank Institute.

Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity of organizational behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior,, 1(2), 3-43.

Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York. Kluwer Academic, Plenum Publishers.

Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P. S. (1987). Assessing the young child: Children’s analogical thinking modifiability. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential, 268-287.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. In R. W. Rieber (Eds.). . The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Child psychology, 187-205.