Sarabi Asl et al.

Asian-Pacific Journal of Second

Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12
[Link] and Foreign Language Education

RESEARCH Open Access

The effects of interactionist

versus interventionist dynamic assessment
models on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking
sub‑skills: a mixed‑method study
Saeid Sarabi Asl1, Mojgan Rashtchi2* and Ghafour Rezaie3

*Correspondence:
[Link]@[Link] Abstract
1
Islamic Azad University, Science Dynamic assessment has been proven to effectively promote EFL learners’ speaking
and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2
proficiency, but its implementation in teaching speaking skills has been limited. One
Islamic Azad University, North
Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
of the main reasons is that, thus far, very few studies have scrutinized the impacts of its
3
Islamic Azad University, two main models, interactionist and interventionist, on the speaking sub-skills of EFL
Garmsar Branch, Garmsar, Iran learners. Instead of examining speaking as a general skill, this research focused on four
speaking sub-skills, including grammatical range and accuracy, vocabulary, fluency,
and pronunciation, with a concurrent experimental mixed-method design. To this aim,
30 undergraduate students from the Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch,
were recruited through convenience sampling and participated in both phases. The
quantitative data were collected from participants’ pre-and post-test scores in the IELTS
speaking module, and qualitative data consisted of the transcribed recordings
of the intervention sessions. The integration of the quantitative and qualitative results
revealed that while both models positively affected EFL learners’ speaking proficiency,
they differed in the extent and mechanisms of their impacts. The interactionist DA
effectively improved grammatical range and accuracy, pronunciation, and vocabulary
depth, and the interventionist DA enhanced fluency and vocabulary breadth more
efficiently. The findings dissect the differential effects of DA models in one-to-one
speaking lessons, offering practical insights for ELT practitioners and stakeholders.
Keywords: Dynamic assessment, Speaking accuracy, Speaking fluency, Speaking
vocabulary, Pronunciation, Mixed-method

Introduction
As one of the significant areas in education, assessment has always been at the center
of the attention of ELT practitioners. Syllabus designers and material developers try to
make their products more attractive by adjusting them to standardized tests. Teachers
find themselves involved in learning about assessment theories to become vigilant evalu-
ators of their learners and help them succeed in their tests. Therefore, there has been
an increased focus on formal and standardized assessments among English language

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
[Link]/licenses/by/4.0/.
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 2 of 25

instructors (Volante, 2004). While such assessments might be essential in some contexts,
mere focus on the content and requirements of formal standardized tests has given
birth to undesirable practices such as teaching to the test. These practices are criticized
because they only aim to increase the test scores, not develop the learners’ performances
and realize their potential (Bennett, 2011). Cheng (2003) asserts that when teaching to
the test replaces teaching the learners, the scores do not represent the learners’ com-
petencies but show to what extent test training instructions have been helpful. Poehner
(2008) claims that the social values gained from higher standardized test scores can hin-
der language learning. Lidz and Gindis (2003) also note that standardized assessment
forms fail to help educators recognize an individual’s abilities and potential, so students
rarely receive proper guidance from their instructors. One of the attempts to address the
shortcomings of formal assessments has been the promotion of "assessment for learn-
ing instead of assessment of learning" (William, 2017, p. 984). According to William,
assessment for learning focuses on providing feedback and support to students during
the learning process rather than solely evaluating their final performance. Harlen (2002)
argues that this approach enhances students’ understanding of their learning progress
and enables them to take ownership of their learning. However, formative assessments
have been unable to eliminate teaching-to-the-test issues and have limitations in provid-
ing detailed diagnosis and targeted support.
Cheng and Curtis (2004) argue that instead of being a separate or post-teaching activ-
ity, assessment should be merged with teaching to form a unified action, providing vari-
ous forms of support for learners to make real progress. To address such considerations,
scholars in assessment have proposed alternative assessment frameworks. One of the
most prominent ones, Dynamic Assessment (DA), was inspired by Vygotsky’s (1978)
Sociocultural Theory (SCT). SCT proponents argue that responses to learners’ needs
are best addressed when the critical role of social interactions and cultural constructs
in the learning process is thoughtfully considered (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). This form
of assessment, embedded in instruction, attempts to gauge and improve the learning
capacities of learners at the same time. Feuerstein (2000) believes that bonding assess-
ment and instruction helps learners perform beyond their current ability level, mean-
ing that implementing DA can move learners to higher levels of development. Poehner
(2009) further argues that the core emphasis of DA, which is the co-creation of dialogi-
cal interaction between teacher/examiner and students, merging instruction and assess-
ment, enables a mediator to help learners more purposefully.
While some models and categorizations of DA have emerged in the last two decades,
Lantolf and Poehner’s (2004) interventionist and interactionist labels for categorizing
the DA approaches seem to be the most proper, as other distinctions and versions fall
under one of these models. Generally, what differentiates the two approaches is their
way of providing mediation. According to Lantolf and Poehner (2007), interactionist DA
has close links with what Vygotsky regarded as dialoguing cooperatively, and mediations
materialize due to interaction between the teacher/assessor and the learner. The main
focus of the interactionist DA approach is enhancing learners’ skills without considering
such issues as the amount of effort and time. Moreover, the interactionist model does
not define a clear point of achievement.
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 3 of 25

On the other hand, Lantolf and Poehner (2011) point out that interventionist DA is
closer to the psychometric origins of NDA. It utilizes systematic assistance practices to
develop quantifiable results for between and within-group comparisons. Unlike interac-
tionist DA, this model regards the pre-planned mediations as an indicator of the pace of
learning to estimate the needed amount of effort and time to reach a certain final point.
In interventionist DA instruction, mediation moves from the most implicit to the most
explicit for accurate responses; if learners fail to accomplish a task, the instructor pro-
vides them with needed prompts.
DA can be a viable alternative to the current teaching and assessing frameworks
with its solid theoretical basis and the advantages of its main models in ELT. However,
according to Haywood and Lidz (2007), DA has not drawn considerable attention among
English language teachers, especially in speaking lessons. One of the main reasons for
teachers’ reluctance to implement DA might be because they do not clearly understand
the distinct differences between the DA models in speaking sub-skills. Therefore, they
might not be sure which model to employ based on their lesson objectives.
Conducting mixed-method research studies on the impacts of DA models on specific
speaking subskills seems necessary for two main reasons. First, speaking sub-skills differ
in rate and improvement route, and DA studies considering speaking a single-dimen-
sional construct do not provide a precise picture (Dincer, 2017). Second, according to
Riazi and Farsani (2023) while MMR designs have been receiving more attention from
ELT scholars in the past decade, they have not been utlizied in strands proportionally
euqlly. That is, the body of mixed-method research studies on such areas as testing and
assessment has remained limited. Therefore, focusing on speaking sub-skills and the
dominance of quantitative studies in this area stimulated the incentives for the present
study. The insights provided by the present study provide ELT researcher and practition-
ers with more profound familiarity with the DA models differences in developing EFL
learners’ speaking sub-skills, helping them choose and implement the DA model that
better aligns with their lesson outcomes.

Literature review
DA has its roots in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural theory. SCT states that "higher forms of
consciousness, such as voluntary control of memory, perception, and attention, occur
through a process of internalization whereby these functions initially occur as an inter-
action between human beings but are then transformed into cognitive abilities" (Poehner
et al., 2018, p. 5). The most well-known component of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of mind
that has influenced psychology and education is the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD), which refers to the gap between a person’s level of ability to function with and
without mediation. Vygotsky asserts that the ZPD serves as the basis for development-
oriented pedagogies. His argument that emergent abilities are most amenable to instruc-
tional intervention encouraged scholars in education and assessment fields to focus on
practical applications of the ZPD later, such as DA (Poehner, 2008; Tzuriel, 2012).
One of the distinguishing elements of DA is the provision of mediation during assess-
ment practices, which is also referred to as scaffolding. Scaffolding is deemed a tenet
of DA, one of the means of actualizing learners’ ZPD. Through scaffolding, the contri-
bution of the more expert partner is lowered. At the same time, the learner becomes
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 4 of 25

increasingly skilled, meaning that scaffolding becomes less and finally removed until the
learner can perform alone (Lantolf, 2006). Through scaffolding, teachers ease students
into comprehension and mastery of new skills by incrementally reducing the teacher’s
guidance. Rashtchi (2019) states that scaffolding is a crucial factor in developing the pro-
ductive skills of ESL learners as it can provide students with meta-cognitive strategies
and thought-provoking opportunities. As students grapple with tasks outside their cur-
rent competency—often called the ZPD, they are driven to analyze, synthesize, and eval-
uate information. As such, scaffolding helps expand the learners’ ZPD by allowing them
to test and develop their language skills in supportive and stimulating environments.
Meta-cognitive strategies may involve learners planning how they will approach a task,
monitoring their comprehension as they carry out the task, and evaluating the effective-
ness of their approach afterward. The scaffolding mediations in DA assist L2 learners in
performing better on tests and going above and beyond their existing abilities (Lantolf
& Poehner, 2011; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Poehner, 2008). According to Lantolf (2006),
DA is based on obtaining a more accurate view of L2 learners’ abilities, meaning that
assessments should be supplied with incremental, consistent mediations. Thus, DA is an
interactive assessment in which L2 learners are given gradational, congruent mediations
to help them progress beyond their current capacities (Haywood & Tzuriel, 2002; Lan-
tolf & Poehner, 2004).
Dynamic Assessment has proven to impact EFL learners’ affective and linguistic
development effectively. Studies suggest that implementing DA can help with second
language learners’ affective factors, such as promoting their intrinsic motivation (Azizi
& Khafaga, 2023; Malmeer & Zoghi, 2014), lowering debilitative anxiety (Pishghadam
et al., 2011; Sherkuziyeva et al., 2023) and developing facilitative anxiety. As for language
skills, studies have found DA advantageous in developing language skills such as writing
(Ebadi & Rahimi, 2019; Farrokh & Rahmani, 2017), reading (Naeini & Duvall, 2012; Yang
& Qian, 2017), listening (Ebadi et al., 2023; Hidri, 2014), and speaking skills (Riswanto
et al., 2023; Ritonga et al., 2022).

DA main models
Different interpretations of the ZPD have given birth to various DA practices and
manifestations. Those DA researchers who consider the ZPD a cognitive development
tool tend to adjust DA within the larger framework of standardized assessment types
through standardized procedures. Such interpretation in the discourse of DA is known
as the interventionist model. According to Poehner (2008) in the interventionist model,
"mediators are not free to respond to learners’ needs as these become apparent during
the procedure but must instead follow a highly scripted approach to mediation in which
all prompts, hints, and leading questions have been arranged hierarchically" (pp. 44–45).
The motivation behind interventionist approaches is addressing the test’s objectivity,
making them comparable to mainstream assessments.
Through the interventionist DA model, learners receive tasks; if needed, standard-
ized mediations are offered to finish a given task successfully. When learners gain the
competence to solve problems without mediation, examiners seek to determine to what
extent the test takers can transfer their skills to a new problem independently. To this
end, examiners give learners some "novel examples" of the initial problem, including
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 5 of 25

"near transfer" problems, which require the learners to apply the same principles to the
original task in an alternative combination. Next, assessors present "far transfer" prob-
lems to the learners, which demand the use of more advanced but related principles, and
finally, "very far transfer" problems, which are more complicated than the original prob-
lem (Campione et al., 1984, p. 81). In the Graduated Prompt Approach, the researcher
can create learners’ profiles based on their performance throughout the procedure. The
learners’ profiles measure how quickly learners internalize new principles and how far
they can extend the new knowledge to new problems (Ferrara et al., 1986). The types
of mediation and the amount of interaction based on this interpretation of the ZPD are
pre-planned. This interpretation of the ZPD, while bringing about the comfort of better
generalizability and large-scale administration, deprives learners and instructors of co-
creating a ZPD, just as Vygotsky had described.
On the other hand, some DA researchers maintain that DA is a critical tool for intel-
lectual development, which can be achieved through flexible interaction between the
mediator and the learner. This interpretation of SCT is regarded as interactionist DA.
According to Feuerstein et al. (2006), interactionist DA highlights "how stimuli expe-
rienced in the environment are transformed by a mediating agent, usually a parent,
teacher, sibling, or another intentioned person in the life of the learners" (p. 25). Inter-
actionist DA centers on cooperative dialogue as recommended by Vygotsky and is sensi-
tive to the ZPD of the learners. Lantolf and Poehner (2004) maintain that interactionist
DA approaches prioritize instruction and learning to the speed and efficiency of devel-
opment. That is why interactionist DA does not regard time and effort as measurement
tools and, therefore, has no predetermined endpoint. This feature makes interaction-
ist DA models more in line with the Vygotskian assessment perspective. Additionally,
interactionist DA does not require mediators to follow specific rules and hierarchies
to respond to the learners’ needs during DA procedures. The DA sessions are mainly
shaped by tasks or problems that mediators and learners cooperatively try to complete
and are highly individualized and interactive, and interventions emerge as needed.

Related studies
Several studies have investigated the impact of these dynamic assessment approaches on
EFL learners’ speaking subskills. As for pronunciation, Yang and Qian (2017) conducted
an experimental mixed-method investigation on the effects of DA on Chinese English
learners’ pronunciation proficiency. The study included 36 college students majoring in
English who had difficulty improving their pronunciation. In addition, the study utilized
two questionnaires to gauge the participants’ attitudes, motivation, and anxiety in a pro-
nunciation class. Yang adopted an interventionist DA model and provided oral medi-
cation to the participants in the experimental group in the form of hints, suggestions,
explanations, or demonstrations. The findings showed that the implementation of DA
significantly impacted the pronunciation proficiency of the experimental group since
it gave learners a more positive attitude, higher motivation, and lower anxiety. Shafiee
et al. (2018) studied the effect of interactionist DA teaching English rhythm to 30 Ira-
nian EFL learners in a mixed-experimental design. The results revealed that the experi-
mental group outperformed the control group in the post-test, mainly due to their more
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 6 of 25

positive attitude in the presence of DA implementation. The results of the experiment-

ers’ questionaries provided quantifiable verification of the claim.
Regarding fluency, Kao (2020) reported the results of her exploration of the influ-
ence of the interactionist DA on Chinese EFL learners’ oral fluency in two levels of
proficiency: elementary and advanced. She researched at a Taiwanese university with
119 first-year students, and her finding suggests that interactionist DA does not bene-
fit learners’ pronunciation at the lower level of proficiency since the teacher’s constant
intervention stops the progress of learners’ content development. Safdari and Fathi
(2020) investigated the effect of DA on the speaking fluency of Iranian EFL learners in
an experimental study. They found that implementing DA did not significantly impact
the participants’ fluency.
The effectiveness of interactionist and interventionist DA in improving the gram-
matical knowledge of EFL learners has been studied by several researchers. Jafary
et al. (2012) found that applying interactionist DA improved the grammatical knowl-
edge of Iranian male pre-university students. Estaji and Ameri (2020) conducted a
study on pre-intermediate and upper-intermediate EFL learners. They found that
interventionist DA was significantly more effective in developing the participants of
the experimental groups, with lower-level participants’ post-test scores higher than
high-intermediate ones. The learners in the experimental groups had a more posi-
tive attitude toward grammar learning and preferred DA techniques over conven-
tional ones. The findings of the study are in line with similar studies conducted by
Alavi et al. (2012), Farangi and Kheradmand Saadi (2017), and Shabani (2012), which
indicated that the success of DA could be attributed to teachers’ accurate diagnostic
feedback, learners’ involvement in DA interactions, and the possibility of discussing
grammar issues with their teachers.
Researchers have explored the use of DA in vocabulary learning and retention of
English learners in various settings, especially with direct links to speaking skills.
Hessamy and Ghaderi’s (2014) quasi-experimental study on the role of DA in the
vocabulary learning of 50 male adult learners in Iran revealed that the learners who
received interventions outperformed the control group members. The study con-
ducted by Mirzaei et al. (2017) investigated the effect of interactionist Cumulative
Group Assessment (CGA) on the depth of vocabulary knowledge in 60 female Iranian
junior high school students. The results showed that the GDA group outperformed
the control group in vocabulary depth of speaking in immediate and delayed post-
tests. The study suggests that implementing the interactionist cumulative GDA can
help learners gain confidence, a positive attitude towards vocabulary learning, reten-
tion, and use, and a higher motivation to keep developing their vocabulary knowledge.
Despite all positive support from studies for the effectiveness of DA on speaking skills,
two significant issues appear to be under-explored and, thus, call for further investiga-
tions. First, more empirical studies must compare the effectiveness of interactionist and
interventionist DA approaches in terms of specific speaking sub-skills. The existing stud-
ies, such as Ebrahimi (2015) and Safdari and Fathi (2020), face generalizability challenges
and do not include pronunciation and vocabulary sub-skills. Second, most investiga-
tions comparing DA models’ impact are predominantly quantitative; hence, they could
not capture how ZPD-sensitive feedback exchanges aid in developing speaking subskills
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 7 of 25

in learners. To provide a more in-depth comparison of DA models, the present study

aimed to investigate the following mixed-method research question:
In what ways and to what extent do the interactionist and interventionist DA differ in
their impact on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking skills components, namely accuracy, flu-
ency, pronunciation, and vocabulary?
The mixed-method research question was broken into quantitative and qualitative
questions to facilitate finding the answers.

1. Do interactionist and interventionist DA have different effects on the speaking com-

ponents, including grammatical accuracy and complexity, fluency, pronunciation,
and vocabulary of intermediate Iranian EFL learners?
2. How do interactionist and interventionist DA differ concerning their effects on the
intermediate Iranian EFL learners’ speaking accuracy, fluency, pronunciation, and
vocabulary?

Method
This study utilized a concurrent mixed-method experimental design to answer the main
research question. According to Riazi (2016), this design is a procedure where research-
ers collect both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously and then integrate the
two forms of data to interpret the overall results to provide a more comprehensive pic-
ture of the research problem than a standalone method. The quantitative phase of the
study’s design was a two-group-pre-test-post in which the main participants were ran-
domly assigned to two experimental groups through the block randomization method,
which divides participants into similar-sized groups (Suresh, 2011). In this study, the two
experimental groups, namely the interactionist and interventionist groups, each had 15
participants. The quantitative data were the participants’ scores in the IELTS speaking
test’s pre-and post-test administration.
Regarding the qualitative phase, the data was collected from all participants during
the treatment stage of the quantitative phase. All the instructional sessions for all par-
ticipants were recorded, transcribed, and served as the raw data for qualitative analy-
sis. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to analyze the dataset. In line with Braun
and Clarke’s (2006) framework, the researchers familiarized themselves with the data
by reading and re-reading the transcripts to search for meaning, potential patterns, and
initial ideas. The researchers separated the data into consistent units that could stand
alone and independently within the text. Then, the transcripts were uploaded to Delve
software and coded line-by-line. In this process, such instances as learners’ linguistic
errors, misunderstandings, self-corrections, and indications of learning strategies were
examples of meaningful units and subject to investigation. The transcriptions of the
interactions during the sessions were broken into excerpts. The researchers grouped the
excerpts into 82 codes, which were thoroughly analyzed to identify the potential con-
cepts or indicators of the differences between the impacts of the two treatments. Next,
the researchers constantly compared and contrasted the initial codes and regrouped
them to establish more focused codes. The result included 33 focused codes, which were
regrouped around the most predominant codes. The codes were selected based on the
researchers’ interpretation and helped them to reach theoretical conceptualizations. It
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 8 of 25

is worth mentioning that the focused codes were of two types; some were only present
in one of the experimental groups, and some were common but manifested themselves
differently. The researchers grouped the codes into categories and themes. The themes
were reviewed and refined repeatedly, which included merging the overlapping themes
and breaking down the overgeneralized ones until the refinements did not lead to any
substantial changes.
A connection was drawn between the two datasets after completing the separate anal-
yses of the quantitative results (derived from pre-test and post-test scores) and quali-
tative results (gathered from thematic analysis of learners and instructor interactions).
The emergent themes from the qualitative data and the trends from the quantitative data
were juxtaposed, which allowed the researchers to link the observations with statistical
results for a comprehensive understanding. Specifically, the qualitative findings provided
an in-depth explanation and context to the quantitatively measured effects of the differ-
ent treatments on the participants’ speaking subskills.

Participants
The researchers drew the sample from a population of adult Iranian EFL learners. Con-
venience sampling was used to recruit the participants from the existing network of
students in the English department of Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch.
Fifty-one Iranian undergraduate students majoring in Teaching English as a Foreign
Language (TEFL), aged between 21 and 35, with intermediate English proficiency, par-
ticipated in the study. All of them were residing in Tehran during the experiment period,
were native speakers of Persian, and had already experienced learning English via the
Google Meet platform. To ensure the homogeneity of the learners in terms of general
English language proficiency, the participants took the B1 Preliminary test. Thirty learn-
ers (including 19 female and 11 male students) whose scores were between 135 and 152
(M = 142, SD = 8.18) in the B1 Preliminary test were selected as the legitimate partici-
pants of the study.
In line with the ethical research protocol, all participants were informed of the pur-
pose and the detailed procedure of the study. In addition, they were reminded that they
could leave the study at any point if they did not feel comfortable. The participants pro-
vided their written informed consent to the researchers at the beginning of the study and
indicated their voluntary participation. They were ensured that their personal identities
would not be revealed to any other individuals, and their responses would be handled
carefully to ensure confidentiality. Moreover, the intervention sessions were scheduled
according to the participants’ availability and preferences to ensure their comfort.

Instruments
B1 preliminary test
A sample of past papers of B1 Preliminary (paper version) was used to select the most
homogeneous group of participants regarding language proficiency. The B1 Preliminary
test is an intermediate-level assessment of English language proficiency for adult learn-
ers, consisting of three papers: Reading and Writing (90 min), Listening (30 min), and
Speaking (12 min). The B1 Preliminary test is a valid instrument of general language
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 9 of 25

proficiency for L2 learners and is scored from 120 to 170, with scores between 153 and
159 corresponding to CEFR’s B1 level of proficiency. As for reliability, the B1 Preliminary
has been shown to enjoy indices of 0.92 (Cambridge Assessment English, n.d.) and 0.86
in the current study.

IELTS speaking test

As four speaking sub-skills, namely speaking accuracy and complexity, fluency, pronun-
ciation, and lexical resources, were the dependent variables of the current research, the
IELTS Speaking test was used as a pre-and post-test to measure the variables objectively.
Using the IELTS speaking test for pre-and post-test stages required the test to have the
face and construct validities. O’Loughlin (2001) maintains that the speaking component
of the IELTS test is administered directly, and a direct speaking assessment provides the
most salient evidence for face validity. The IELTS speaking construct is generally defined
as oral competency; however, from an examiner’s perspective, this speaking construct
is further defined by the rating criteria, which is an operationalized format of the pri-
mary characteristics described in detail. Thus, the IELTS speaking test reduces oral
proficiency to four overarching variables: fluency and coherence, lexical resource, gram-
matical range and accuracy, and pronunciation. While it is true that the speaking sub-
skills are not limited to the present study’s variables, the IELTS speaking test’s rubrics
and components are the best match for objectively measuring them in the quantitative
phase of the study.
The IELTS speaking module consists of three sections of a recorded oral interview
between a candidate and an examiner, and the entire test takes about 15 min. The speak-
ing module consists of three sections of a recorded oral interview between a candidate
and an examiner. Candidates answer broad questions about themselves and their lives in
part one, and then in section two, the examiner gives them a card about a specific topic
about which they must speak for one to two minutes. In this part, candidates have one
minute to prepare and take notes if they want. Part two ends with the examiner asking
one or two rounding-off questions. In the last section, the examiner prompts candidates
to discuss more abstract topics, which are thematically related to the topic in part two.
Candidates receive a band score between 1 and 9 for each criterion (speaking subs-kills).
The overall speaking band score is the average of the scores obtained in these four cri-
teria. In this study, the members of both groups took the IELTS speaking as the pre-
test to ensure the equality of the participants in subskills of speaking proficiency such
as fluency, accuracy, pronunciation, and lexical resources. After the treatment stage,
the participants were given the IELTS speaking test as a post-test for statistical analysis
purposes. One of the researchers administered the pre-and post-tests through one-to-
one online interviews. The test was recorded so that another research team member,
as the second rater (with a Ph.D. in TEFL and 35 years of experience), could do the sec-
ond round of scoring. The final score of the participants was determined by averaging
the scores given by each rater. Both raters independently assessed the candidate’s per-
formance using the IELTS public version speaking rubrics. The individual scores were
added and divided by two to calculate the average score. This process ensured fairness
and consistency in scoring. The inter-rater reliability between the scorers was calculated,
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 10 of 25

resulting in a coefficient of 0.82 for the pre-test and 0.79 for the post-test, which indi-
cated an appropriate level of agreement in their assessments.

Instructional materials
The instructional instruments used in this study were authentic materials and aimed at
eliciting oral responses from participants. The type of material and speaking tasks were
the same for all participants in both groups. However, the topics varied based on the
negotiation between the researchers and each participant before the treatment phase.
That is, the topics were not selected in advance but were selected based on each partici-
pant’s interests and background information. Therefore, the topics varied between the
experimental groups and within the groups. Each instrument was used two times in two
separate sessions so the learners could transfer and use the mediations they received in
the first session. The instruments’ list and corresponding tasks were as follows: News
stories: Each participant could select a recent news story based on their choice of topic
(such as a discovery) from the BBC News website. They narrated the news in their own
words and explained why they learned from them. Ted-Ed videos: Learners could choose
one of Ted-Ed’s educational videos aligned with their choice of topic. After watching the
clip, they summarized it and shared their thoughts. Book/Movie Reviews: The partici-
pants could choose a movie or a novel they liked, do some online research about it (e.g.,
IMDB, Wikipedia), and discuss the plot, the characters, the moral of the story, and their
opinions. All materials and task instructions were given to the students in advance so
that they had sufficient preparation time.

Procedure
The treatment stage of the present experiment took ten sessions for each individual,
meaning there were 300 hundred sessions. The sessions were held one-on-one via
Google Meet, and the instructor (the first author) was the same in both groups. Each
instructional session lasted for 60 min and was conducted one-on-one. All sessions were
recorded with the participants’ written consent for the qualitative phase of the experi-
ment. Each session began with small talks and the news task. Then, participants had to
deliver the planned task of the session. As mentioned earlier, the materials were given
to the learners in advance. Depending on the task and mediation type, the participants
had to repeat the task twice or three times until no mediation was required. According
to Poehner and Lantolf (2005), meaningful progress toward the learner’s ZPD should
be evident in tasks other than the original tasks; transfer tasks should be incorporated
into the DA programs to determine how far learners’ knowledge and abilities can be
extended beyond the assessment environment and how much assistance they need. In
the present study, the second assignment of the tasks (e.g., story narration) served as the
transfer tasks. Although the task types were the same in both groups, the mediations
offered by the instructor differed. The following sub-sections provide explanations and
samples of mediation.
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 11 of 25

Mediations in the interventionist group

The mediation provided in the interventionist group was carried out in the most implicit
to the most explicit order and concluded with an accurate response. To this end, Lantolf
and Poehner’s (2011) mediation scale was employed based on each student’s responses.
The instructor’s mediations focused on all four components of speaking: grammatical
range and accuracy, vocabulary, fluency, and pronunciation. If the student’s response
was correct, mediation was unnecessary. However, when the student’s response was
incorrect, the instructor chose one of the eight possible responses from the scale in the
following forms:

1. The instructor paused.

2. The instructor questioned the syllabus, the entire word, or the phrase.
3. The instructor repeated only the incorrect part of the utterance.
4. The instructor posed a question: What is wrong with this sentence?
5. The instructor pointed out the inaccuracy.
6. The instructor posed either/or questions.
7. The instructor clarified the correct answer.
8. The instructor explained why the participant’s response was inaccurate.

The list progressed from the most implicit to the most straightforward way of delivering
mediation to the interventionist group participants. The instructor maintained his medi-
ation systematically, thanks to the mediation inventory. The following excerpt, which is
part of a conversation between the instructor (I) and Participant F, is an example of how
the mediation helped the participant pronounce a word correctly.

F: "I disagree with the presenter because luck [lɒk] is not the most important thing in
success."
I: (Paused, signaling something was wrong in the utterance)
F did not notice anything wrong in their utterance and thought the instructor was
surprised by their opinion. Therefore, the instructor moved to the second level of
mediation; he repeated the part of the sentence, which entailed the pronunciation
error with rising intonation.
I: "lock is not the most important thing"?
F noticed the error in the second half of their response but failed to identify its type
and repeated the word incorrectly.
Moving to the next level of mediation, the instructor explicitly mentioned the wrong
pronunciation of the word:
I: "Lock."
F:" Oh…… luck [lʌk] is not the most important thing in success."

Mediations in the interactionist group

The interactionist mediations were not constructed in advance but were developed due
to a rigorous analysis of the mediator’s cooperative discussions with each learner dur-
ing each session. The mediations were constructed like Aljaafreh and Lantolf ’s (1994)
Regulatory Scale. The regulatory scale’s key principle is contingency, which means that
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 12 of 25

assistance is offered contingent on learners’ needs and is progressively adjusted depend-

ing on their responses. The main goal is to gradually reduce teacher intervention as
learners become more capable of independent function. However, since the interac-
tionist DA’s distinguishing characteristics establish flexible grounds for effective learner
development, the instructor did not consider the Regulatory Scale as specific and pre-
scriptive rules or standards. The interactionist interventions served two purposes: first,
to address the learners’ difficulties, and second, to determine whether the participants
found the mediations beneficial. The following excerpt, part of the conversation between
the instructor and Participant M, demonstrates how interactionist mediation was offered
for a participant in the interactionist group. This participant was particularly weak at
using appropriate English tenses in speaking. Their responses indicated that there were
many instances of L1 transfer.

I: "Oh, that’s a great one! I’ve seen that movie three times. Can you tell me about a
movie you’ve seen more than once?".
M: "I saw the Gladiator two times!".
Instructor: "Well done in communicating your idea, but your sentence had a gram-
matical error, do you know what it was?".
M: "[puases], I guess I shouldn’t use ’the’ before the name of movies."
I: That’s true in some cases, but for this movie, you used ’the’ correctly. Try to find
the error based on our previous session’s discussion.
M: "You mean simple past?
I: "You’re getting there!".
M: "I suppose the correct sentence is: I have seen the movie two times!".
I: "Yes, you got it! Now can you remember why we use the present perfect instead of
the simple past?".
M: "I’m sorry, I just don’t remember the rule!".
I: "It’s ok! In English, we usually use the present perfect tense to talk about a non-
specific time in the past. So, you should say ’I’ve seen the Gladiator two times’. Can
you give me other examples?".
M: "Like, I’ve been to Europe two times, … or I’ve visited the Golestan Palace three
times."
I: Perfect! Do you think you’ll remember the rule?
M: "I think I have a better understanding now."
I: "What do you think you can do to avoid such errors?".
M: "I took notes about what you say, but I guess I mustn’t think in Farsi [Persian]
words."

Data analysis
Quantitative results
As Table 1 shows, the mean values for all variables were similar between the groups,
and there was no notable difference in pronunciation, fluency, coherence, gram-
matical range, accuracy, or lexical resources. To examine the difference between the
variables in the two experimental groups at the pre-test stage, a one-way MANOVA
was employed. Before running the test, the assumptions of multivariate normality,
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 13 of 25

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of pre-test scores

Group N Mean Std. deviation Skewness
Statistics Std. Error Ratio

Interactionist
Pronunciation 15 4.40 .94 − .32 .58 − .55
Fluency and coherence 15 4.16 .95 .36 .58 .62
Grammatical range 15 4.40 .89 − .00 .58 − .00
Lexical resources 15 4.40 1.02 − .15 .58 − .25
Interventionist
Pronunciation 15 4.56 1.04 − .04 .58 − .06
Fluency and coherence 15 4.70 .79 .33 .58 .56
Grammatical range 15 4.40 .89 − .00 .58 − .00
Lexical resources 15 4.16 .93 .33 .58 .56

Table 2 Results of one-way MANOVA for pre-test scores

Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig Partial Eta Observed
Squared ­powerb

Group
Pillai’s trace .226 1.401a 5.000 24.000 .259 .226 .407
Wilks’ lambda .774 1.401a 5.000 24.000 .259 .226 .407
Hotelling’s trace .292 1.401a 5.000 24.000 .259 .226 .407
Roy’s largest root .292 1.401a 5.000 24.000 .259 .226 .407
a
Exact statistic
b
Computed using alpha = .05

outliers, linearity, multicollinearity, and homogeneity of covariance matrices were

examined in both groups of participants. In the first stage, univariate outliers and
normality were checked using boxplots and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Results indi-
cated that all variables were normally distributed in interactionist and intervention-
ist groups, with no significant departure from normality for all dependent variables
in groups (p values > 0.05). Mahalanobis’s distances were calculated. All values were
less than the critical value of 13.68, supporting the multivariate normality of the dis-
tributions and indicating no multivariate outliers.
In the second stage, linearity, multicollinearity, and homogeneity of covariance
matrices were examined. Scatterplot matrices indicated that both groups’ dependent
variables were approximately linearly related. The multicollinearity assumption was
investigated using the tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) indices. Results
showed no multicollinearity issues, with Tolerance indices not lower than 0.1 and
VIF values not exceeding five. Finally, the homogeneity of covariance matrices was
examined using Box’s M test, which showed a value of 10.86 associated with a non-
significant p-value of 0.919, supporting the equality of covariance matrices between
the interactionist and interventionist groups.
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 14 of 25

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of post-test scores

Group N Mean Std. deviation Skewness
Statistics Std. error Ratio

Interactionist
Pronunciation 15 5.70 .84 − .21 .58 − .36
Fluency and coherence 15 4.19 .75 .78 .58 1.34
Grammatical range 15 5.80 .92 − .546 .58 − .96
Lexical resources 15 5.03 .91 .61 .58 1.05
Interventionist
Pronunciation 15 4.43 1.09 .00 .58 .00
Fluency and coherence 15 6.38 .74 − .72 .58 − 1.24
Grammatical Range 15 5.00 .96 − .20 .58 − .34
Lexical resources 15 4.96 .61 .14 .58 .24

Table 4 Results of on-way MONVA for post-test results

Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig Partial eta Noncent. Observed
squared parameter ­powerb

Pillai’s trace .857 28.742a 5.000 24.000 < .001 .857 143.712 1.000
Wilks’ lambda .143 28.742a 5.000 24.000 < .001 .857 143.712 1.000
Hotelling’s trace 5.988 28.742a 5.000 24.000 < .001 .857 143.712 1.000
Roy’s largest root 5.988 28.742a 5.000 24.000 < .001 .857 143.712 1.000
a
Exact statistic
b
Computed using alpha = .05

After verifying the assumptions, a one-way MANOVA was conducted to compare

the pre-test results. As presented in Table 2, the outcomes revealed no significant
MANOVA effect, F(5, 24) = 1.401, p = 0.259, Wilk’s λ = 0.774. The findings indicated
that there was no significant difference in speaking skills, including accuracy, flu-
ency, vocabulary, and pronunciation, between the participants of the interactionist
and interventionist groups prior to the treatments.

Post‑test results
Table 3 shows that the interactionist group had a higher mean score for pronunciation,
while the interventionist group had higher mean scores for fluency and coherence. In
terms of grammatical range and accuracy, and lexical resources, the interactionist group
had slightly higher mean scores than the interventionist group.
A one-way MANOVA was used to test the research hypothesis, and prior to running
the MANOVA, the test assumptions, similar to the pre-test stage, were checked. The
univariate outliers and normality were checked using boxplots and the Shapiro–Wilk
test, indicating that all variables were normally distributed in interactionist and inter-
ventionist groups (p values > 0.5). The Mahalanobis’s distances were calculated, and the
results did not suggest any multivariate outliers. Scatterplot matrices showed that each
group’s variables were roughly linearly related. The Tolerance and VIF values were cal-
culated, and the results indicated no multicollinearity issues in the distributions. The
Box’s M value of 29.027, associated with a p-value of 0.078, supported the equality of
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 15 of 25

covariances matrices between the groups. Then, a one-way MANOVA was run to find
out if there were any significant MANOVA factors in all variables. Table 4 shows the
results.
As Table 4 demonstrates, the Multivariate test results indicated a significant
MANOVA effect, F (5, 24) = 1.401, p < 0.001, Wilk’s λ = 28.742, ηp2 = 0.857, suggesting
difference(s) between the interactionist and interventionist groups in the mean values.
The partial eta squared (ηp2) value of 0.857 suggests a very high effect size, indicating
that the dynamic assessment models (interactionist and interventionist) account for
approximately 85.7% of the variance in our dependent variable, the speaking subskills of
EFL learners.
Leven’s Test was run before investigating the Between-Subject Effects and testing
each of the study’s hypotheses. Based on a series of the F test results, the homogene-
ity assumption of variances was satisfied and assumed equal. Table 5 demonstrates the
results of the Test of Between-Subject Effects.

Results for speaking accuracy and complexity

The researchers used a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha of 0.025 to reduce the chances of false-
positive results. The results showed a significant effect on the grammatical range and
accuracy scores, F (1, 28) = 4.88, p = 0.024, ηp2 = 0.310, with scores higher in the inter-
actionist group (M = 5.8, SD = 0.92) compared to the interventionist group (M = 5.00,
SD = 0.96). The result suggest that interactionist DA is moderately more effective in
developing Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical range and accuracy in speaking.

Results for speaking fluency

The results indicated a significant effect on the Fluency and Coherence scores, F
(1,28) = 35.81, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.692, with scores higher in the interventionist group
(M = 6.38, SD = 0.74) in comparison to the interactionist group (M = 4.59, SD = 0.75).
The results suggest that the interventionist DA is significantly more effective in develop-
ing Iranian EFL learners’ speaking fluency than the interactionist DA.

Table 5 Results of the between-subjects effects

Source Dependent Sum of df Mean F Sig Partial Noncent. Observed
variable squares square eta parameter ­powera
squared

Grouping Pronuncia- 12.033 1 12.033 12.557 .001 .310 12.557 .873

tion
Fluency and 35.861 1 35.861 63.338 < .001 .693 63.338 1.000
Coherence
Grammatical 4.880 1 4.880 5.682 .024 .169 5.682 .514
Range and
Accuracy
Lexical .033 1 .033 .055 .816 .002 .055 .029
Resources
a
Computed using alpha = .025
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 16 of 25

Results for pronunciation

There was a significant effect on the pronunciation variable, F (1,28) = 12.033, p = 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.31, with the interactionist group’s score (M = 5.70. SD = 0.84) higher than the
interventionist group’s (M = 4.43 SD = 1.09). The evidence suggests that the interaction-
ist DA is moderatly more effective in improving the EFL learners’ pronunciation skills.

Results for vocabulary

For the fourth hypothesis of the investigation, the results did not indicate a significant
effect on the lexical resources variable, F (1,28) = 0.033, p = 0.816, between the interac-
tionist group (M = 5.03, SD = 0.91) and the interventionist group (M = 4.43, SD = 1.09).
The evidence supported the lack of significant differences between the impacts of
interactionist and interventionist DA models on the Iranian EFL learners’ speaking
vocabulary.

Qualitative findings
The analysis of the qualitative data revealed that the DA models differed in their impacts
on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking subskills due to the following items: (a) the degree of
negotiated mediations, (b) enhancing different communicative strategies, (c) developing
different learning strategies, and (d) promoting different preparation orientations.

The degree of negotiated mediations

The degree and quality of collaborative interactions between the instructor and the indi-
vidual learners were among the main factors affecting the impact of the interactionist
and interventionist treatments. Since the researcher did not have to follow standardized
feedback and prompts in the interactionist approach, there were more meaningful col-
laborative interactions than in the interventionist approach. Therefore, the instructor
and the learners could negotiate mediation, providing ample opportunities for deeper
learning.
Thanks to the negotiated mediation, the length and depth of mediation went beyond
the task level enabling the instructor to identify the source(s) of the learners’ difficulties
and address them effectively. For instance, when the instructor realized a learner’s utter-
ance contained fossilized errors in grammar and pronunciation, he did not stop when
the learner produced an error-free utterance but introduced the fossilization concept
and some standard techniques to tackle the fossilized errors. Then the teacher and the
learner engaged in a collaborative conversation to choose a technique that fitted the stu-
dent’s style and preferences. As a result of the learner’s active contribution to the learn-
ing process, they were more willing to employ the techniques to spot their fossilized
errors and rectify them autonomously.
In the case of interlingual errors, especially in pronunciation and grammar, in the
interventionist DA, the most explicit mediation went far only to explain why the learn-
er’s response was erroneous. Nevertheless, in the interactionist approach, the mediator
not only helped the learner with the task at hand but had the opportunity to provide
a simple contrastive analysis and draw the learners’ attention to the linguistic or cul-
tural differences between the L1 and L2 and elicit more instances from the learner. Thus,
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 17 of 25

familiarizing the learners with the negative transfer concept resulted in fewer interlin-
gual errors in the subsequent sessions.
Another benefit of the negotiated mediation in the interactionist group was the oppor-
tunity the learners had to internalize some critical yet often neglected aspects of English
pronunciation, such as the rhythm. While the suprasegmental aspects of English pro-
nunciation were also addressed in the interventionist group, the mediation’s length and
depth did not allow the instructor to familiarize all the participants with the underlying
concepts and the governing rules. However, in the interactionist approach, the instruc-
tor’s mediation included guided discovery techniques or detailed explanations to help
learners find out the rules and patterns concerning the rhythm of pronunciation when
speaking in English.

Enhancing different communicative strategies

The second emerging theme regarding the differences between the interventionist and
interactionist DA models was their impact on promoting different communicative strat-
egies. The data suggests that the scope and flexibility of the interactionist mediations
were more effective in helping the learners develop achievement strategies. However, the
structured interventionist mediations contributed to enhancing the reduction strategies.
Færch and Kasper (1983) assert that accomplishment communication techniques incor-
porate hypothesis and the communicator’s practical assertion and can facilitate language
learning. Conversely, when reduction communication tactics are utilized, the original
objective is altered and may result in less language learning.
Such features of the interventionist DA as standardized and systematic evaluation and
feedback provision required explicit endpoints where the learners could achieve the task
requirements without the mediator’s help. The existence of predetermined endpoints
in this approach reinforced the participants to use reduction strategies such as uncom-
plicated (or simplified versions of ) words, expressions, and structures to avoid errors,
minimize the frequency and explicitness of the mediations, and increase their fluency.
Nonetheless, implementing the reduction strategies impeded the learners from expand-
ing their range of grammatical structures and lexical resources.
On the other hand, the participants in the interactionist group utilized achievement
strategies more often. For instance, the learners employed appealing strategies at the
onset of their responses to ensure the appropriateness of their choice of vocabulary,
grammatical structures, or content organization. In addition, they resorted to this strat-
egy, accompanied by code-switching, to ensure their understanding of newly learned
grammatical, lexical, and phonological items.

Developing different learning strategies

The third difference regarding the impacts of the interventionist and interactionist DA
models on speaking subskills was rooted in developing different learning strategies.
According to Oxford (2002), the learning strategies can be categorized based on the
mental processing of the target language or providing support for language learning.
Those strategies that directly include the target language, such as memory, cognitive,
and compensation strategies, are the direct ones. Indirect strategies, on the other hand,
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 18 of 25

help learners through focusing, planning, and self-evaluation and include metacognitive,
affective, and social strategies.
Based on the data analyses, the interventionist mediations provided more opportuni-
ties for learners to boost direct learning strategies, but the interactionist model contrib-
uted more to the indirect strategies. As stated before, since the interventionist group
participants tried to reduce the explicitness of the instructor’s interventions, they were
more exposed to implicit mediations that demanded more elicitations and, conse-
quently, more adoption of guessing strategies.
The promotion of guessing as a subset of compensation strategies helped the partici-
pants in the interventionist group bypass their fluency obstacles by guessing less com-
plicated linguistic items in terms of morphology and pronunciation when responding
to follow-up questions for which they had to improvise. Furthermore, the interactions
and the researchers’ memos analyses indicated that most learners in the interventionist
group successfully minimized the repetition of some phonological or lexical errors for
which they had received explicit mediations. Thus, the evidence suggests that the learn-
ers adopted memory strategies for storing and retrieving the correct forms of linguistic
items and cognitive strategies for practicing them before each session.
The interactionist approach promoted metacognitive and affective strategies as sub-
sets of indirect learning strategies more than the interventionist model. In the interac-
tionist group, the instructor had more opportunities to encourage the learners to reflect
on their speaking performance after finishing the tasks. The learners were prompted to
explain how they could have done the task better. As a result, the learners benefitted
from discussing their problematic areas, even those which did not necessarily stem from
linguistic incompetency, especially regarding cohesion and coherence, grammar, and
lexical resources.
For instance, some learners mentioned that their anxiety negatively affected their per-
formance. The instructor and the learner focused on the possible roots of the learner’s
anxiety. During the discussions, some participants mentioned that they had perfection-
ism attitudes toward English learning and were obsessed with delivering error-free per-
formance. The instructor provided why committing errors is necessary for learning a
language as a skill and discussed the solutions to alter their perfectionist mindset, which
promoted their affective learning strategies.
Some other participants believed that their performances were not satisfactory since
they felt vulnerable when doing a speaking task in front of the instructor, a competent
language user. The subsequent conversation between the instructor and the participant
focused on self-esteem and how to boost it by any means they found more aligned with
their style. The analyses indicate that these learners were more willing to take risks and
provide more complex grammatical structure and vocabulary responses as the sessions
progressed.
Moreover, regarding metacognitive strategies, the instructor’s mediations based on the
learners’ ZPD included the introduction of learning resources such as the collocation
dictionary and thesaurus for lexical resources and text-to-speech tools for pronuncia-
tion, to name a few. The participants of the interactionist group had to find out how to
take advantage of the resources on their own and discuss the outcome with the instruc-
tor. As a result of the personalization of the efficient use of the out-of-class learning
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 19 of 25

tools, the interactionist group participants managed to navigate their learning process
in certain areas and conduct a more accurate evaluation of their progress. An excellent
example of this was evident in the development of lexical resources of the participants.
The personalized use of resources helped the participants expand and deepen their
vocabulary knowledge by learning the words’ connotations, collocations, and some mor-
phological features through self-study and attempting to use them in class. For another,
the external resources provided the learners with opportunities to evaluate their pro-
gress, evident in their satisfaction with their improved collocations and segmental and
suprasegmental pronunciation elements.

Promoting different preparation orientations

The fourth emerging difference between the two models of the DA sheds light on the plan-
ning and preparation of the participants’ orientations. The analyses of the participants’
responses and interactions with the instructor showed that the interventionist group par-
ticipants appeared more prepared with in-advance planning for each session. The frequent
use of notes, sentence stems, and prefabricated expressions by the learners supported the
idea that the learners’ preparations were more focused and organized for successful task
achievement purposes.
Unlike the interventionist group, the interactionist group had a different orientation
toward planning and preparation, resulting from integrating teaching and assessment. The
apparent frequent attempts to use uncommon vocabulary and more advanced grammatical
structures indicated that the learners’ preparations were more targeted at making progress
than satisfactory task accomplishment. Thus, according to the data, the interventionist
group participants had a product-oriented preparation, which helped them be more confi-
dent and fluent during the post-test compared to the interactionist group participants, who
had developed a process-oriented mindset. While the process-oriented mindset contrib-
uted to the learner’s intrinsic motivation to learn more items, it negatively affected their
fluency. Their responses in the post-test entailed more hesitations, delays, and clarification
requests.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative phases

Combining quantitative and qualitative findings revealed that interactionist and interven-
tionist DA models favor different aspects of speaking subskills. The quantitative results
did not demonstrate the interactionist DA’s significant superiority regarding grammatical
range and accuracy. However, the qualitative findings revealed that the degree of negotiated
mediations allowed for more profound learning and error correction. The interactionist
DA encouraged in-depth negotiations, which assisted students in identifying and correct-
ing fossilized and interlingual errors. As evidenced by the high scores for this aspect, such
interactions resulted in effective grammar implementation improvement. The quantitative
data, on the other hand, supports the interventionist DA model for speaking fluency. When
combined with qualitative data, it is clear that systematic feedback and standardization
in the interventionist method promote fluency by encouraging learners to use reduction
strategies, which might limit their lexical and grammatical range. As for pronunciation, the
interactionist DA was practically more beneficial because of its flexible discourse, allow-
ing a reflective focus on fossilized errors and an understanding of phonological rules and
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 20 of 25

patterns. Finally, while there was no statistically significant difference in vocabulary devel-
opment across both models, qualitative findings revealed more. The interventionist model
emphasizes procedural preparation, promoting pre-planned lesson strategies based on
existing words and patterns. However, the interactionist model encourages a discovery-ori-
ented approach, expanding learners’ lexical resources by exploring unfamiliar vocabulary
and their collocations. The findings show that both assessment models have strengths that
target different aspects of EFL speaking skills. The choice of interactionist or interventionist
DA models is determined by the specific learning outcomes desired for students’ language
development.

Discussion
The findings of the present investigation revealed that the two DA models differed in
their impacts on speaking sub-skills. As for the grammatical range and accuracy, the
integrated results of the present investigation were in line with those of previous stud-
ies comparing the effects of the two DA models like Ebrahimi (2015), who conducted a
study to explore the influence of the interactionist and interventionist DA on the stu-
dents’ complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) of oral production. Her results indicated
that the interactionist group outperformed the interventionist group regarding com-
plexity and accuracy components. Khoshsima and Farokhipours (2016) reported simi-
lar results, which revealed that the grammatical accuracy and complexity scores of the
interactionist group were noticeably higher than those of the interventionist group. In
addition, the results of the present study accorded with Safdari and Fathi (2020) and
Malmeer and Zoghi (2014) concerning the positive impact of interactionist DA on EFL
learners’ grammatical competence. The flexibility of the interactionist model allows the
participants to be more actively involved in the learning process and engage in media-
tion negotiation. The learners’ involvement helps the instructor identify and address the
learners’ problematic areas in grammar, such as fossilized errors, negative L1 transfers,
and inappropriate attitudes toward language learning. Thus, the instructor had ample
opportunities to provide the learners with tailor-made tackling strategies (Lantolf &
Poehner, 2011).
In terms of fluency, the findings of the present investigation revealed that the inter-
actionist DA was more effective than the interventionist model. The interventionist DA
participants gained higher scores in fluency by avoiding complicated linguistic items and
utilizing the simplified versions of words and structures in their answers. This finding
aligned with Nakatani’s (2005) conclusion that strategies that align with the task objec-
tives help learners maintain their fluency. In addition, the learners’ orientation to their
preparations and exercises before the class was more product-oriented, aiming at suc-
cessful task achievement, with minimum errors and mediations, rather than improving
their speaking skills. Such orientation not only boosted the student’s speaking confi-
dence but lowered their anxiety by receiving less corrective feedback (especially explicit
ones) from the instructor. Since anxiety is a critical factor that negatively affects learners’
speaking fluency (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), it could be argued that the interventionist DA
positively promoted learners’ fluency by reducing their anxiety. This explanation finds
support from Zhang and Rahimi (2014) and Estaji and Farahanynia (2019), who reported
that interventionist DA effectively lowered the learners’ anxiety. However, the results
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 21 of 25

were inconsistent with Ebrahimi’s (2015) and Safdari and Fathi’s (2020), who reported
that DA models did not significantly impact the speaking fluency of Iranian EFL learn-
ers. However, the results of this study were in line with Ghahderijani et al. (2021). They
compared the effect of group-dynamic assessment (G-DA) and computerized-dynamic
assessment (C-DA) on upper-intermediate Iranian EFL learners’ speaking performance.
For pronunciation, the present study revealed that the interactionist DA mediations
enabled the instructor not only to assist the learners with the correct pronunciation of
the words but also to help them internalize the essential features of English pronuncia-
tion through personalized and explicit instructions, which has shown to be practically
effective in improving the EFL learners’ pronunciation skill (Elliott, 1997; Lee & Lys-
ter, 2015; Saito, 2011). Such evidence supports Shafiee et al. (2018), who indicated that
implementing interactionist DA was significantly effective in acquiring rhythm among
Iranian EFL learners. Thus, the participants’ internalized awareness of the English
pronunciation governing rules and features was one reason for the interactionist DA’s
higher efficiency than the interventionist model.
Concerning lexical resources, while there were no significant differences in the effects
of DA models, qualitatively speaking, the findings revealed that the interactionist and
interventionist models impact the vocabulary component of speaking skills differently.
The vocabulary knowledge categorization, according to Read (2000), consists of vocabu-
lary breadth (the number of words in learners’ repertoire) and vocabulary depth (the
degree to which learners know about the words). The present study findings suggested
that interactionist DA contributed to promoting the vocabulary depth of the learners,
which is in line with Mirzaei et al. (2017) findings. As for the effect of interventionist
DA on the learners’ vocabulary breadth, the present study showed that the participants
in the interventionist group tended to use memory strategies, which helped them not
to repeat their recurring errors in the vocabulary component. Additionally, adopting
the memory strategy facilitated the retrieval of the new and advanced vocabulary items
they had prepared to use in their task responses. This finding was in accord with Pérez
and Alvira (2017), who investigated vocabulary acquisition through memory strategies;
their results indicated that all participants benefitted considerably from memory strat-
egy, allowing them to acquire, memorize, and retrieve the meaning of new words. The
results are comparable to those of Hessamy and Ghaderi (2014) and Marzban and Nafar-
zadehnafari (2018), who investigated the effectiveness of the interventionist DA on EFL
learners’ vocabulary learning. They reported that the experimental group participants
who received DA-based mediations outperformed the control group who received non-
DA corrections. For the interactionist DA, Gibbons’ (2003) case study demonstrated
that applying ZPD-based mediations improved the learners’ understanding and contex-
tualization of new vocabulary items. Ebadi et al. (2018) conducted a study to shed light
on the vocabulary acquisition process and the promotion of vocabulary knowledge for
novice EFL learners. In addition to the abovementioned investigations, the current study
accorded with Hamavandi et al. (2017). Their studies supported the positive impact of
DA on enhancing the vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners.
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 22 of 25

Conclusion and implications

The study found that both DA models positively impacted speaking proficiency. How-
ever, the interactionist DA model was more effective in improving speaking grammar
and pronunciation, while the interventionist DA model was more effective in promoting
fluency. The study also found that the learners’ prioritization choices and task features
influenced their fluency. The interventionist DA model led learners to use simplification
and reduction strategies to achieve good fluency at the expense of grammar and pronun-
ciation complexity. The study further revealed that vocabulary use in speaking did not
significantly differ between the two models. However, the learners’ orientations toward
course preparations influenced their vocabulary knowledge progress differently.
The comparative findings of this study could assist language educators in choosing the
DA model for their online classes that suits their course objectives. Therefore, depending
on the speaking lesson’s objectives, teachers can implement the according DA model. If
the lesson aims to provide learners with opportunities to develop the complexity of their
grammatical, phonological, and lexical knowledge, they can adopt the interactionist model.
However, the interventionist DA model can be more advantageous for courses such as free
discussion and topic-based conversations, where speaking fluency is a higher priority. In
addition, interventionist DA can be used in speaking exam preparation courses to increase
the test-taker’s confidence and help them develop appropriate preparation approaches.

Limitations and suggestions for further research

Concerning the limitations and delimitations of the study, some suggestions are recom-
mended for further research studies. First, to enhance the generalizability of the findings,
in addition to having a bigger sample size, future investigations can benefit from a control
group, which enhances the accuracy and generalizability of the quantitative results. The
experiment was conducted on the Google Meet platform and in a one-to-one teaching
context. Similar studies can be conducted in face-to-face, private, or group classes. Fourth,
future investigations can enrich the literature by diversifying the participants. The main
participants of the current study were all at the intermediate level of proficiency; further
studies need to be carried out with participants in lower or upper levels of proficiency. In
addition, the present study benefitted from the IELTS speaking test and its rubrics. Future
studies can utilize other measurement instruments to provide comparison opportunities
or instruments that include the components or subcomponents not included in the IELTS
rubrics. Finally, the quantitative data analyses revealed no significant differences between
interactionist and interventionist DA. Further research studies can be conducted with
longer and more treatment sessions to examine DA models’ impacts more accurately on
vocabulary resources.

Abbreviations
DA Dynamic assessment
EFL English as a foreign language
ELT English language teaching
ZPD Zone of proximal development
TEFL Teaching English as a foreign language
L2 Second language
CEFR Common European framework of references for languages
MMR Mixed-methods research
AL Applied linguistics
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 23 of 25

IELTS International English language testing system

TED-Ed Technology, entertainment, design, education
VIF Variance inflection factor

Author contributions
The authors had equal contribution in the process of the paper. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding
This study received no funding.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
The study adhered to ethical principles, ensuring participant confidentiality and privacy throughout the research pro-
cess, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 21 May 2023 Accepted: 15 November 2023

References
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. [Link]
370
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal
development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. [Link]
Azizi, Z., & Khafaga, A. (2023). Scaffolding via group-dynamic assessment to positively affect motivation, learning anxiety,
and willingness to communicate: A case study of high school students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10936-​023-​09935-6
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1),
5–25.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
[Link]
Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., & Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for
individual differences and learning. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1984(23), 77–91. [Link]
org/​10.​1002/​cd.​23219​842308
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.
Cheng, L., & Curtis, A. (2004). Washback in language testing. In L. Cheng, Y. Watanabe, & A. Curtis (Eds.), Washback in
language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 3–19). Taylor & Francis.
Dincer, A. (2017). EFL learners’ beliefs about speaking English and being a good speaker: A metaphor analysis. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 5(1), 104–112.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited (1st ed.). Routledge. [Link]
97813​15779​553
Ebadi, S., Karimi, E., & Vakili, S. (2023). An exploration into EFL learners’ perspectives on online computerized listening
comprehension dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia. [Link]
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google
Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 527–555. [Link]
Ebadi, S., Weisi, H., Monkaresi, H., & Bahramlou, K. (2018). Exploring lexical inferencing as a vocabulary acquisition strategy
through computerized dynamic assessment and static assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7),
790–817. [Link]
Ebrahimi, E. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on complexity, accuracy, and fluency in EFL learners’ oral produc-
tion. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(3), 107–123. [Link]
982
Elliott, A. R. (1997). On the teaching and acquisition of pronunciation within a communicative approach. Hispania, 80(1),
95–108. [Link]
Estaji, M., & Ameri, A. F. (2020). Dynamic assessment and its impact on pre-intermediate and high-intermediate EFL learn-
ers’ grammar achievement. Cogent Education. [Link]
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. [Link]
2019.​15781​69
Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.),
Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). Longman.
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 24 of 25

Farangi, M. R., & Kheradmand Saadi, Z. (2017). Dynamic assessment or schema theory: The case of listening comprehen-
sion. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–13. [Link]
Farrokh, P., & Rahmani, A. (2017). Dynamic assessment of writing ability in transcendence tasks based on Vygotskian per-
spective. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. [Link]
Ferrara, R. A., Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Children’s learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of
proximal development. Child Development, 57(5), 1087–1099. [Link]
Feuerstein, R. S. (2000). Dynamic cognitive assessment and the instrumental enrichment program: Origins and develop-
ment. In A. Kozulin & Y. Rand (Eds.), Experience of mediated learning: An impact of Feuerstein’s theory in education and
psychology (pp. 147–165). Pergamon Press.
Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2006). Creating and enhancing cognitive modifiability: The Feuerstein
Instrumental Enrichment Program, Part 1 Theoretical and conceptual foundations, Part 2, Practical applications of the
Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment Program. ICELP Publications.
Ghahderijani, B. H., Namaziandost, E., Tavakoli, M., Kumar, T., & Magizov, R. (2021). The comparative effect of group
dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL
learners’ speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Language Testing in Asia. [Link]
s40468-​021-​00144-3
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. [Link]
Hamavandi, M., Rezai, M. J., & Mazdayasna, G. (2017). Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness in the EFL con-
text. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1–14. [Link]
Harlen, W. (2002). A Systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning.
[Link]
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge
University Press. [Link]
Haywood, H. C., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education,
77(2), 40–63. [Link]
Hessamy, G., & Ghaderi, E. (2014). The role of dynamic assessment in the vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 645–652. [Link]
Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Lan-
guage Testing in Asia, 4, 4. [Link]
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. [Link]
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. [Link]
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.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(01), 67–109.
[Link]
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49–72. [Link]
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 devel-
opment. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. [Link]
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University
Press.
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2015). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 38(1), 35–64. [Link]
Leong, L. M., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2017). An analysis of factors influencing learners’ English speaking skill. International Journal
of Research in English Education, 2, 34–41.
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. [Link]
Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of grammar with different age groups. Theory and Practice in Lan-
guage Studies, 4(8), 1707–1713. [Link]
Marzban, A., & Nafarzadehnafari, F. (2018). The effect of interventionist classroom vs MALL dynamic assessment on EFL
learners’ vocabulary learning. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(3), 58–66. [Link]
36844
Mirzaei, A., Shakibei, L., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2017). ZPD-based dynamic assessment and collaborative L2 vocabulary learn-
ing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(1), 114–129. [Link]
Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English language learners’ reading comprehension
performance. Language Testing in Asia. [Link]
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language
Journal, 89(1), 76–91. [Link]
O’Loughlin, K. J. (2001). The equivalence of direct and Semi-Direct speaking tests (studies in language testing) (1st ed.). Cam-
bridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. In J. Richards & W. Renandya
(Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 124–132). Cambridge University Press.
[Link]
Sarabi Asl et al. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2024) 9:12 Page 25 of 25

Pérez, L. M., & Alvira, R. (2017). The acquisition of vocabulary through three memory strategies. Colombian Applied Linguis-
tics Journal, 19(1), 103–116. [Link]
Pishghadam, R., Barabadi, E., & Kamrood, A. M. (2011). The differing effect of computerized dynamic assessment of L2
reading comprehension on high and low achievers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), 1353. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​4304/​jltr.2.​6.​1353-​1358
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (educa-
tional linguistics book 9) (2008th ed.). Springer. [Link]
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471–491.
[Link]
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3),
233–265. [Link]
Poehner, M. E., van Compernolle, R. A., Esteve, O., & Lantolf, J. P. (2018). A Vygotskian developmental approach to second
language education. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(3), 238–259. [Link]
8959.​17.3.​238
Rashtchi, M. (2019). Scaffolding argumentative essay writing via reader-response approach: a case study. Asian-Pacific
Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. [Link]
Read, J. (2000). Research on vocabulary acquisition and use. In: Assessing Vocabulary (Cambridge Language Assessment,
pp. 38–73). Cambridge University Press. [Link]
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. In Routledge eBooks. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97813​15656​762
Riazi, A. M., & Farsani, M. A. (2023). Mixed-methods research in applied linguistics: Charting the progress through the
second decade of the twenty-first century. Language Teaching. [Link]
Riswanto, N., Teferi, H., & Ibrahim, K. A. (2023). Cultivating EFL learners’ productive skills by employing dynamic and non-
dynamic assessments: attitude in focus. Language Testing in Asia. [Link]
Ritonga, M., Farhangi, F., & Ajanil, B. (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). Lang Testing in Asia, 12, 43. [Link]
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. [Link]
Saito, K. (2011). Examining the role of explicit phonetic instruction in native-like and comprehensible pronunciation
development: An instructed SLA approach to L2 phonology. Language Awareness, 20(1), 45–59. [Link]
1080/​09658​416.​2010.​540326
Shabani, K. (2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ reading comprehension processes: A Vygotskian perspective.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321–328. [Link]
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. [Link]
v8n5p​181
Sherkuziyeva, N., Gabidullina, F. I., Ibrahim, K. A. A., & Bayat, S. (2023). The comparative effect of computerized dynamic
assessment and rater mediated assessment on EFL learners’ oral proficiency, writing performance, and test anxiety.
Language Testing in Asia, 13, 1. [Link]
Suresh, K. (2011). An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research.
Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 4(1), 8–11. [Link]
Tzuriel, D. (2012). Dynamic Assessment of Learning Potential. In Springer eBooks (pp. 235–255). [Link]
978-​94-​007-​4507-0_​13
Volante, L. (2004, September 25). Teaching to the Test: What every Educator and Policy-Maker should know. [Link]
gov/?​id=​EJ848​235
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Sou-
berman (Eds.), Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Harvard University Press.
[Link]
Williams, P. (2017). Assessing collaborative learning: Big data, analytics and university futures. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 42(6), 978–989. [Link]
Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2017). Assessing English reading comprehension by Chinese EFL learners in computerized dynamic
assessment. Language Testing in Asia. [Link]
Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback in oral communica-
tion classes. System, 42, 429–439. [Link]

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.