1- PhD Student, English Department, Bu. C., Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran.
2- Department of English Language Teaching, Ahv. C., Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran ,goodarzshakibaei@iau.ac.ir
3- Department of English Language Teaching, Ahv. C., Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
2- Department of English Language Teaching, Ahv. C., Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran ,
3- Department of English Language Teaching, Ahv. C., Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract: (3 Views)
Objective: This study investigated the effects of interventionist dynamic assessment (DA), interactionist dynamic assessment, and conventional non-dynamic assessment instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic listening comprehension and writing performance in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF).
Methods: A total of 162 intermediate-level Iranian EFL learners (aged 21–32 years) were selected from an initial pool of 370 participants and homogenized using the Oxford Quick Placement Test (Version 2). Participants completed a pragmatic listening comprehension test and a writing task assessing CAF as pretests and posttests. They were randomly assigned to three equal groups: an interventionist DA group, an interactionist DA group, and a control group receiving conventional non-DA instruction. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc tests.
Results: Both interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment significantly improved learners’ pragmatic listening comprehension and writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency compared with conventional instruction. No significant difference was found between the two DA approaches in pragmatic comprehension. However, the interactionist DA group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in writing CAF than the interventionist DA group.
Conclusions: Dynamic assessment is more effective than conventional instruction in enhancing pragmatic comprehension and writing performance among Iranian EFL learners. Although both DA approaches produced comparable gains in pragmatic comprehension, interactionist dynamic assessment yielded superior outcomes in writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency, highlighting the value of dialogic and interactive mediation in second language writing development.
Methods: A total of 162 intermediate-level Iranian EFL learners (aged 21–32 years) were selected from an initial pool of 370 participants and homogenized using the Oxford Quick Placement Test (Version 2). Participants completed a pragmatic listening comprehension test and a writing task assessing CAF as pretests and posttests. They were randomly assigned to three equal groups: an interventionist DA group, an interactionist DA group, and a control group receiving conventional non-DA instruction. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc tests.
Results: Both interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment significantly improved learners’ pragmatic listening comprehension and writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency compared with conventional instruction. No significant difference was found between the two DA approaches in pragmatic comprehension. However, the interactionist DA group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in writing CAF than the interventionist DA group.
Conclusions: Dynamic assessment is more effective than conventional instruction in enhancing pragmatic comprehension and writing performance among Iranian EFL learners. Although both DA approaches produced comparable gains in pragmatic comprehension, interactionist dynamic assessment yielded superior outcomes in writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency, highlighting the value of dialogic and interactive mediation in second language writing development.
Keywords: Dynamic Assessment, Interventionist DA, Interactionist DA, Pragmatic Comprehension, Writing CAF, Iranian EFL Learners
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International. |
