A Comparative Analysis of the Perceived Effects of Interactionist and Interventionist Dynamic Assessment Models in the Improvement of Speaking Subskills Among Iranian EFL Learners
Saeid Sarabi Asl
1
(
)
Mojgan Rashtchi
2
(
دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران شمال، ایران
)
Ghafour Rezaie
3
(
Department of English, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Dynamic assessment, speaking accuracy, fluency, complexity, qualitative, EFL,
ملخص المقالة :
Dynamic assessment offers a holistic approach to evaluation by embedding assessment within instruction. Despite evidence suggesting the effectiveness of DA in language classrooms, there remains a reluctance among teachers to adopt DA practices. This reluctance stems from a lack of understanding of how DA models impact specific learning outcomes, particularly in speaking skills. One main contributing factor is the dominance of quantitative DA studies, which do not contextualize the differences between DA models. With an inductive thematic analysis design, this study explored the perceived effects of interactionist and interventionist DA models on speaking accuracy, fluency, and complexity among Iranian EFL students. Thirty undergraduate intermediate EFL learners from Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, were recruited through purposive sampling. Each participant had received one hundred hours of speaking lessons with one of the DA models embedded before participating in a semi-structured interview. The analysis of participants' perceptions and reflections revealed that both DA models were well-received for improving speaking skills but had different effects on subskills. Learners perceived the interactionist model as an effective teaching method that improved their speaking accuracy and complexity but reduced fluency, while the interventionist model favored fluency at the expense of grammatical accuracy and complexity.
Bialystok, E. (2002). Cognitive processes of L2 users. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 145–166). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595851-008
Cheng, L. (2003). Looking at the impact of a public examination change on secondary classroom teaching: A Hong Kong case study. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 38(1), 1–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23874242
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190501000034
Dornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
Ebrahimi, E. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral production. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(3), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2015.982
Ebadi, S. (2016). Mediation and reciprocity in online L2 dynamic assessment. CALL-EJ, 17(2), 16–40. http://callej.org/journal/17-2/Ebadi2016.pdf
Ebadi, S., & Asakereh, A. (2017). Developing EFL learners’ speaking skills through dynamic assessment: A case of a beginner and an advanced learner. Cogent Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1419796
Estaji, M., & Farahanynia, M. (2019). The immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment approaches on EFL learners’ oral narrative performance and anxiety. Educational Assessment, 24(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1578169
Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review, 55(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910303253
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 40–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264512
Fahmy, M. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on adult learners of Arabic: A mixed-method study at the defense language institute foreign language center (No. 3611425). University of San Francisco ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://tinyurl.com/5xzanarr
Gilani, S. A., Ismail, N. F. B. M., Kassim, R. R. B. M., Yawen, J., & Dan, M. (2021). A Comprehensive analysis of research on dynamic Assessment in EFL speaking context. ojs.upsi.edu.my. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol9.1.6.2021
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607516
Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537–545. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27785036
Kao, Y. T. (2020). A comparison study of dynamic assessment and nondynamic assessment on EFL Chinese learners’ speaking performance: Transfer of learning. English Teaching &Amp; Learning, 44(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00042-1
Khoshsima, H., & Farokhipours, S. (2016). On the role of different models of dynamic assessment on promoting speaking. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2(4), 586–600. https://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/article/view/204/263
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(01), 67–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060037
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2007). Language proficiency or symbolic capability: A dialectical perspective. The Pennsylvania State University.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Dynamic assessment and L2 development. In Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide (1st ed., pp. 170–199). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Lazaraton, A. (2002). A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests. Cambridge University Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. The Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In B. Gindis, S. M. Miller, A. Kozulin, & V. S. Ageyev (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99–116). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.007
Linn, R. L. (2010). A new era of Test-Based educational accountability. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspective, 8(2–3), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2010.508692
Orikasa, M. (2010). Interactionist dynamic assessment in L2 learning: A case study of tutoring L2 English oral communication.
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/20258
Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. In J. C. Richards & W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (Cambridge Professional Learning, pp. 124–132). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190.018
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.012
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (educational linguistics book 9) (2008th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Rashtchi, M., & Khoshnevisan, B. (2008). Audiotaped dialogue journal: A technique to improve speaking skill of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 1(3), 164-176.
Safdari, M., & Fathi, J. (2020). Investigating the role of dynamic assessment on speaking accuracy and fluency of pre-intermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1818924. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1818924
Sarabi Asl, S., Rashtchi, M., & Rezaie, G. (2024). The effects of interactionist versus interventionist dynamic assessment models on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking sub-skills: a mixed-method study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00237-x
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp047
Thouësny, S. (2010). Assessing second language learners’ written texts: An interventionist and interactionist approach to dynamic assessment. In J. Herrington & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3517-3522). Toronto, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 25, 2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/34803/.
Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385–435. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009032414088
Tzuriel, D., & Haywood, H. C. (1992). The development of interactive dynamic approaches to assessment of learning potential. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive assessment (pp. 3–37). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4392-2_1
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (2nd ed., pp. 29–36). W .H. Freeman and Company.
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communication classes. System, 42, 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.012
Zoghi, M., & Malmeer, E. (2014). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ intrinsic motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 584. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.3.584-591
