Impacts of Interventionist and Interactionist Dynamic Assessment Models on EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate
محورهای موضوعی : TeachingMehdi Khanifar 1 , Fariba Rahimi Esfahani 2 , Parisa Riahipour 3
1 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
3 - Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
کلید واژه: dynamic assessment, interventionist model, interactionist model, willingness to communicate, Iranian intermediate learners,
چکیده مقاله :
In recent years, the importance of willingness to communicate (WTC) in second language acquisition has gained considerable attention, as it is a crucial factor influencing learners' language use and overall communicative competence. Understanding how various instructional methods can enhance WTC is vital for improving EFL education. This study investigated the comparative impacts of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment models on the WTC among 75 Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Participants were divided into two experimental groups (EG1 and EG2) and one control group (CG), with a total of 16 treatment sessions delivered over a semester. Both experimental groups received dynamic assessment interventions, with EG1 utilizing the interventionist model and EG2 employing the interactionist model. The results revealed that both EGs significantly outperformed the CG in enhancing WTC; however, no statistically significant differences were found between the two experimental groups. This study contributes to the understanding of how different dynamic assessment approaches can effectively foster learners' WTC in English. The findings suggest that educators can adopt either dynamic assessment model to improve WTC among EFL learners, emphasizing the need for ongoing research into optimal assessment strategies in language education.
In recent years, the importance of willingness to communicate (WTC) in second language acquisition has gained considerable attention, as it is a crucial factor influencing learners' language use and overall communicative competence. Understanding how various instructional methods can enhance WTC is vital for improving EFL education. This study investigated the comparative impacts of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment models on the WTC among 75 Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Participants were divided into two experimental groups (EG1 and EG2) and one control group (CG), with a total of 16 treatment sessions delivered over a semester. Both experimental groups received dynamic assessment interventions, with EG1 utilizing the interventionist model and EG2 employing the interactionist model. The results revealed that both EGs significantly outperformed the CG in enhancing WTC; however, no statistically significant differences were found between the two experimental groups. This study contributes to the understanding of how different dynamic assessment approaches can effectively foster learners' WTC in English. The findings suggest that educators can adopt either dynamic assessment model to improve WTC among EFL learners, emphasizing the need for ongoing research into optimal assessment strategies in language education.
Alavi, S., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2012). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly, 3(4), 27–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22099/ jtls. 2011. 370
Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic Assessment of Advanced Second Language Learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
Asl, S. 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
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480-493
Estaji, M., & Ameri, A. F. (2020). Dynamic assessment and its impact on pre-intermediate and high-intermediate EFL learners’ grammar achievement. Cogent Education. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 86x. 2020. 17400 40
Farangi, M. R., & Kheradmand Saadi, Z. (2017). Dynamic assessment or schema theory: The case of listening comprehension. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 86x. 2017. 13120 78
Jafary, M. R., Nordin, N., & Mohajeri, R. (2012). The effect of dynamic versus static assessment on syntactic development of Iranian college preparatory EFL learners. English Language Teaching. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5539/ elt. v5n7p 149
Kao, Y. T. (2020). A comparison study of dynamic assessment and nondynamic assessment on EFL Chinese learners’ speaking performance: Transfer of learning. English Teaching & Learning, 44(3), 255–275. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42321- 019- 00042-1
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom. CALPER Working Papers, 1, 1-16.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 49-72.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide. Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. Guilford Press.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic Assessment of Oral Proficiency among Advanced L2 Learners of French. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 323-348.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Springer.
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group Dynamic Assessment: Mediation for the L2 Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.
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/ 23311 86x. 2020. 18189 24
Shabani, K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ reading comprehension processes: A Vygotskian perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321–328. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2012. 01. 047
Shafiee, S., Talakoob, F., & Fatahi, M. (2018). Effects of dynamic assessment on the acquisition of the rhythm of English: The case of EFL learners’ attitudes. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(5), 181–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5539/ ijel. v8n5p 181
Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic Assessment of Young Children. Plenum/Kluwer Publishers.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.
Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2017). Assessing English reading comprehension by Chinese EFL learners in computerized dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s40468- 017- 0042-3
