A Comparative Study of the Effects of two Types of Dynamic Assessment (Interventionist vs. Interactionist) on Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy

Ajideh, Parviz; Oghbatalab, Rougia

doi:10.22034/ijpie.2025.530005.1110

A Comparative Study of the Effects of two Types of Dynamic Assessment (Interventionist vs. Interactionist) on Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Accuracy

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Parviz Ajideh ¹

Rougia Oghbatalab ²

¹ faculty of literature and foreign languages, Tabriz university, Tabriz, Iran

² University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

10.22034/ijpie.2025.530005.1110

Abstract

Extensive research and compelling scholarly debates have highlighted widespread dissatisfaction with conventional assessment methodologies, thereby underscoring the necessity for alternative approaches such as dynamic assessment. The primary objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of two distinct forms of dynamic assessment namely, interactive and interactional assessment implemented through classroom-based writing tasks, in facilitating improvements in participants’ grammatical precision in writing. A total of thirty-eight EFL (English as a foreign language) learners, enrolled in two intact classes at Paymeh-noor University (Tabriz-Iran) and participating in a English course, served as the subjects of this investigation. Their initial homogeneity was established based on scores obtained from the Preliminary English Test (PET). Participants were randomly assigned to two experimental groups: one receiving interactional dynamic assessment and the other receiving interventionist dynamic assessment. The intervention spanned ten sessions, during which all groups experienced identical instructional procedures and received the same instructional materials. In one group, the interactional dynamic assessment was implemented, whereas the other group received interventionist assessment. Upon completion of the course, all participants completed a post test. Analysis of the pretest and post test results indicated that learners subjected to interactional dynamic assessment demonstrated significantly greater improvements in grammatical accuracy in writing compared to their interventionist counterparts. These findings hold important practical implications for language educators.

Keywords

Dynamic assessment

Interactional dynamic assessment

Interventionist dynamic assessment

Subjects

Testing

Ahmadi Safa, M. & Beheshti, S. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 37-57.

Ahmadi Safa, M., Donyaie, S., & Malek Mohammadi, R. (2015). An investigation into the effect of interactionist versus interventionist models of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking skill proficiency. Teaching English Language, 9(2), 146–166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22132/ tel. 2015. 53728.

Ajideh, P. & Nourdad, N. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading comprehension in different proficiency levels. Language Testing in Asia, 2(4) 101-122. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-2-4-101

Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.a2084808

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), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2017.1419796

Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2015). The effects of computerized dynamic assessment on promoting at-risk advanced Iranian EFL students’ reading skills. Issues in Language Teaching, 4(2), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.the.2023.1288

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/ 10627 197.2019. 15781 69.

Fattah, Z. (2024). The effect of portfolio assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability. International Journal of Practical and Pedagogical Issues in English Education, 2(2), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4106882

Fulcher, G. (2010). Practical language testing. Hodder Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210394641

Gharekhani, S., & Seyyed Rezaei, S. H. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on vocabulary learning and retention of EFL learners. A Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 4(2), 174-186.

Gutierrez, V. F. (2000). Dynamic assessment: An approach to assessing children’s language learning potential. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21(3), 214-223. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-13195

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.

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), 81–100.

Irons, A. (2007). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934333

Kashef, S. H., & Ashrafi, R. (2023). Investigating the Relationship between Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Language Anxiety and Their Reading Ability. International Journal of Practical and Pedagogical Issues in English Education, 1(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijetst/v3i06.15

Kazemi, A., Bagheri, M. S., & Rassaei, E. (2020). Dynamic assessment in English classrooms: Fostering learners’ reading comprehension and motivation. Cogent Psychology, 7(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 908. 2020. 17889 12.

Khorramifard, S. & Derakhshi, Z. (2019). The role of dynamic assessment on promotion of writing linguistic accuracy among EFL learners: An interventionist model. International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(2), 14-28. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijree.4.2.14

Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107, 1028-1052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom (CALPER Professional Development Document CPDD-0411). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, CALPER.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (Eds.) (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. Equinox Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009189422

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15 (1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328

Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4 (3), 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701481127

Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic Assessment of the evolving cognitive functions inchildren. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Gs. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 96-116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840975.007

Malmir, A. (2020). The effect of interactionist vs. interventionist model of dynamic assessment on L2 learners' pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed. Issues in Language Teaching, 9 (1), 279-320.

Orikasa, M. (2010). Interactionist dynamic assessment in L2 learning: A case study of tutoring L2 English oral communication [Master's thesis, University of Hawaii at Mānoa]. ScholarSpace. https://hdl.handle.net/10125/20258

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P (2013). Bringing the ZPD in to the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935

Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2015). Mediated development as inter-psychological activity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.v2i2.26982

Rashidi, N. & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation to the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners 'process writing development. SAGE Open,10 (4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018784643

Safdari, M., & Fathi, J. (2020). Investigating the role of dynamic assessment on speaking accuracy and fluency of preintermediate EFL learners. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1-14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 86x. 2020. 18189 24.

Sarani, A., & Izadi, M. (2016). Diagnosing L2 receptive vocabulary development using dynamic assessment: A micro genetic study. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), 161–189.

Sharifi, M. & Abbasnasab Sardareh, S. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL students' L2 grammar learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3 (3), 102-120.

Sternberg, R. J., & Gregorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing

development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003

Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers (Vol. 88). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Zohrabi, M., & Khalili, A. (2025). The utility of tailor-made teacher education in Iranian EFL instructors’ attitudes towards dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 15(29), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-025-00366-9