Volume 3, Issue 4 (December 2024)
IJER 2024, 3(4): 405-424 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khanifar M, Rahimi Esfahani F, Riahipour P. (2024). Effects of Dynamic Assessment (DA) Models (Interventionist and Interactionist) on EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension and Reading Motivation. IJER. 3(4), 405-424. doi:10.22034/3.4.405
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-294-en.html
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-294-en.html
1- English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2- English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran ,rahimi_fariba@yahoo.com
2- English Department, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran ,
Abstract: (371 Views)
Objective: The effects of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment (DA) on reading motivation (RM) and Reading comprehension (RC) of Iranian EFL learners were inspected in this study.
Methods: Ninety-nine volunteers were originally chosen for the study, and they were then divided into three equal groups of thirty students each—two experimental groups (EGs) and one control group (CG). Second, each of the three groups' participants received an administration of the RC and RM pre-tests. Third, one EG was taught 10 reading passages via interventionist DA. The interventionist DA method was used to evaluate this group. Interactionist DA was used to treat the second EG. Interactionist DA processes were used to assess the group's respondents and provide the necessary assistance. In this class, assistance and intervention were provided through student-assessor interactions. Without any DA, a traditional instruction was used to teach the CG. Following the instruction of all texts to all groups, the aforementioned post-tests were given to them in order to assess how the treatment affected their performance.
Results: There were substantial differences between the EGs' and the CG's post-test performances, with the EGs doing better, according to the findings of the one-way ANOVA test and the Post-hoc Scheffe test.
Conclusions: Overall, the results showed that both DA models improved the RC and RM of Iranian EFL learners in an equivalent way. Lastly, an explanation of the study's implications and results was given.
Methods: Ninety-nine volunteers were originally chosen for the study, and they were then divided into three equal groups of thirty students each—two experimental groups (EGs) and one control group (CG). Second, each of the three groups' participants received an administration of the RC and RM pre-tests. Third, one EG was taught 10 reading passages via interventionist DA. The interventionist DA method was used to evaluate this group. Interactionist DA was used to treat the second EG. Interactionist DA processes were used to assess the group's respondents and provide the necessary assistance. In this class, assistance and intervention were provided through student-assessor interactions. Without any DA, a traditional instruction was used to teach the CG. Following the instruction of all texts to all groups, the aforementioned post-tests were given to them in order to assess how the treatment affected their performance.
Results: There were substantial differences between the EGs' and the CG's post-test performances, with the EGs doing better, according to the findings of the one-way ANOVA test and the Post-hoc Scheffe test.
Conclusions: Overall, the results showed that both DA models improved the RC and RM of Iranian EFL learners in an equivalent way. Lastly, an explanation of the study's implications and results was given.
Keywords: Dynamic Assessment, Interactionist Model, Interventionist Model, Reading Comprehension, Reading Motivation
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Studies
Received: 2024/02/7 | Accepted: 2024/08/14 | Published: 2024/12/1
Received: 2024/02/7 | Accepted: 2024/08/14 | Published: 2024/12/1
References
1. Ahmadi Safa, M., & Beheshti, Sh. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 37-56.
2. Ahmadi, M. R., & Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2012). Reciprocal teaching strategies and their impacts on English reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2053-2060. [DOI:10.4304/tpls.2.10.2053-2060]
3. Alhamdu. (2015). Interest and reading motivation. PSIKIS-JurnalPsikologiIslami, 1(1), 1-10. [DOI:10.19109/psikis.v1i1.552]
4. Amiri, G., Faghani, B., & Naderi Beni, Z. (2021). The effect of interventionist DA versus interactionist DA on Iranian EFL learners' autonomy and strategy use in reading class. 5th International Conference on Advanced Research in Education, Teachining, and Learning.
5. Antón, 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]
6. Broadfoot, P. (2005). Becoming a nation of readers. The National Academy of Education and the Center for the Study of Reading.
7. Brown, A., & Ferrara, R.A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Cain, K. J., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31]
9. Fahmi, F., Pratolo, B. W., & Zahruni, N. A. (2020). Dynamic assessment effect on speaking performance of Indonesian EFL learners. International Journal of Evaluation in Education (IJERE), 9(3), 778-790. [DOI:10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20466]
10. Feng, H. Y., Fan, J., & Yang, H. Z. (2013). The relationship of learning motivation and achievement in EFL: Gender as an intermediated variable. Educational and International Research, 2(2), 50-58.
11. Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein R. S. (2001). Is dynamic assessment compatible with the psychometric model? In A. S. Kaufman, & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 218-246). New York: CUP. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511526794.008]
12. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading. (Vol. III, pp. 403-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Gutierrez, F. (2000). Dynamic assessment: An approach to assessing children's language learning potential. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21(3), 214-223.
14. Hairul, N. I., Ahmadi, M. R., & Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2012). The role of reciprocal teaching strategy as an important factor of improving reading motivation. Elixir Edu. Tec, 53(3) 11836-11841.
15. Hamavandi, M., Rezai, M. J., & Mazdayasna, G. (2017). Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness in the EFL context. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-14. [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2017.1324254]
16. Harding, L., Alderson, J. C., & Brunfaut, T. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing, 32(3), 317-336. [DOI:10.1177/0265532214564505]
17. Janes, J. L. (2008). Families, motivation, and reading: pre-adolescent students and their reading motivation and family reading habits (Master Thesis). Iowa State University, USA.
18. Jeriffe, D. (2013). Improving the reading comprehension and motivation level of struggling adolescent readers (Master Thesis). Massey University, New Zealand.
19. Kasper, G., & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-334). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.
20. Kazemi A., Bagheri, M., & Rassaei, E. (2020). Dynamic assessment in English classrooms: fostering learners' reading comprehension and motivation. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1788912, [DOI:10.1080/23311908.2020.1788912]
21. Komiyama, R. (2013). Factor underlying second language reading motivation of adult EAP students. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 149-169.
22. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127. [DOI:10.1177/0143034302023001733]
23. Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, 207-226.
24. Lantolf, J.P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second and foreign language learning: An overview of sociocultural theory. In K. van Esch and O.st. John (eds.). New insights into foreign language learning and teaching. Frankfurtam Main: Peter Lang.
25. Lin, D., Wong, K. K., & McBride-Chang, C. (2012). Reading motivation and reading comprehension in Chinese and English among bilingual students. Reading and Writing, 25(3), 717-737. [DOI:10.1007/s11145-011-9297-8]
26. Lockley, T. (2013). Exploring self-pereading communication competence in foreign language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 187-212. [DOI:10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.2.3]
27. Long, C., Ming, Z., & Chen, L. (2013). The study of student motivation on English learning in junior middle school: A case study of No.5 middle school in Gejiu. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 136-145. [DOI:10.5539/elt.v6n9p136]
28. MacNamara, T. (1997). Interaction in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446-466. [DOI:10.1093/applin/18.4.446]
29. Mahadi, T.S.T., & Jafari, S.M. (2012). Motivation, its types, and its impacts in language learning. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(24), 230-235.
30. Noels, K., Lascano, D., & Saumure, K. (2019). The development of self-determination across the language course. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(4), 1-31. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263118000189]
31. Nuttall, J. (2016). Relationship between motivation, attribution and performance expectancy in children's reading. The Plymouth Student Scientist, 9(1), 214-228. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/14122
32. Olmez, F. (2015). An investigation into the relationship between L2 reading motivation and reading achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 199. GlobELT: An International Conference on Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language, Antalya - Turkey. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.561]
33. Pileh, F., & Hidri, S. (2021). Toward a sociocultural approach to computerized dynamic assessment of the TOEFL iBT listening comprehension test. Educ Inf Technol, 26(4), 4943-4968. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-021-10498-z]
34. Poehner, M, E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Press, PA.
35. Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic Assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323-340. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x]
36. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. USA: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9]
37. 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]
38. Poehner, M. E. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development trough L2 dynamic assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 63-244. [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00277.x]
39. 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. [DOI:10.1080/10749030903338509]
40. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17, 323-342. [DOI:10.1177/1362168813482935]
41. Poehner, M.E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox.
42. Pourhosein Gilakjani, A., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). How can students improve their reading comprehension skill? Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2), 229-240. [DOI:10.5296/jse.v6i2.9201]
43. Rahmaty, H., & Zarei, A.A. (2021). The effects of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment on L2 students' perfectionism, foreign language anxiety and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Language Testing, 11(2), 13-33.
44. Ritonga, M., Farhangi, F., Ajanil, B., & Khafaga, A. (2022). Interventionist vs. interactionist models of dynamic assessment (DA) in the EFL classroom: impacts on speaking accuracy and fluency (SAF), foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA), and foreign language learning motivation (FLLM). Language Testing in Asia, 12(43), 1-22. [DOI:10.1186/s40468-022-00195-0]
45. Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oilman, P. K. (2001). The Reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels (TOEFL Monograph Series, No. 21). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
46. Saeheng, P. (2017). A study of e-learning, blended learning, and traditional teaching methods to motivate autonomous learning in English reading comprehension of Thai learners. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 1-20. [DOI:10.21093/ijeltal.v2i1.36]
47. Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275-302. [DOI:10.1177/026553220101800302]
48. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313-338. [DOI:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00061.x]
50. Taylor, L., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts. Language Testing, 26(3), 325-339. [DOI:10.1177/0265532209104665]
51. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
52. Wang, P. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on the listening skills of lower-intermediate EFL learners in Chinese technical college: A pilot study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6, 1269-1279. [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0606.14]
53. Wang, T. H. (2008). The effects of modified collaborative strategic reading on EFL learners' reading comprehension. Unpublished MA Dissertation, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
54. Yang, G., Badri, M., Rashedi, A. A., & Almazroui, K. (2018). The role of reading motivation, self-elcacy, and home influence in students' Literacy achievement: A preliminary examination of fourth graders in Abu Dhabi. Large-scale Assess in Education, 6(10), 2-19. [DOI:10.1186/s40536-018-0063-0]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International. |
