10.83078/jal.2025.03141202042

Effects of Computerized Dynamic Assessment and Computerized Formative Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning and Academic Buoyancy

Show Details XML PDF
  • Hassan Alizadehmahmoudalilo1,
  1. Department of English, Ta.C., Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

Published in Issue 2025-09-09

How to Cite

Alizadehmahmoudalilo, H. (2025). Effects of Computerized Dynamic Assessment and Computerized Formative Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Learning and Academic Buoyancy. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.83078/jal.2025.03141202042
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 12

Abstract

Given that technology-enhanced assessment has transformed language education by providing adaptive and interactive evaluation methods, the current research aimed to examine the comparative effects of Computerized Dynamic Assessment (CDA) and Computerized Formative Assessment (CFA) on vocabulary learning and academic buoyancy among Iranian EFL learners. Employing a quasi-experimental, non-equivalent groups pre-test-post-test-control group design, the study involved 60 intermediate male EFL learners aged 15–24 recruited from two language institutes in Tabriz, Iran. The participants were assigned to CDA, CFA, and control groups. The Oxford Placement Test examined the participants’ proficiency levels, while the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale and Academic Buoyancy Scale assessed their vocabulary learning and buoyancy, respectively. The CDA group engaged in dynamic, adaptive scaffolding through Adobe Captivate software, while the CFA group used Google Forms and Quizlet for formative feedback. The control group received traditional instruction. The results from ANOVA indicated that CDA and CFA significantly enhanced the experimental groups’ academic buoyancy, with no significant difference between them. However, CDA demonstrated superior vocabulary learning compared to CFA. These findings highlight CDA’s effectiveness in fostering vocabulary learning through tailored mediation and CFA’s role in promoting self-regulation and academic buoyancy. The study underscores the importance of integrating adaptive assessment models in EFL instruction to optimize cognitive and affective learning outcomes.

Keywords

  • academic buoyancy,
  • computerized dynamic assessment,
  • computerized formative assessment,
  • EFL learners,
  • vocabulary learning
PDF

References

  1. Ahmadi, H., Behnam, B., & Seifoori, Z. (2021). The reciprocal questioning as a formative assessment strategy: EFL learners’ reading comprehension and vocabulary learning. Teaching English Language, 15(2), 61–93. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2021.139843
  2. Black, P., & Jones, J. (2006). Formative assessment and the learning and teaching of MFL: Sharing the language learning road map with the learners. Language Learning Journal, 34(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730685200171
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
  4. Dave, A. (2004). Oxford placement test 2: Test pack. Oxford University Press.
  5. Davoudi, M., & Ataie-Tabar, M. (2015). The effect of computerized dynamic assessment of L2 writing on Iranian EFL learners’ writing development. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, 3(2), 176–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v3n2a16
  6. Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
  7. Ebadi, S., & Yari, V. (2017). Investigating the effects of using dynamic assessment procedures on the EFL learners’ vocabulary knowledge development. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 49–72.
  8. Ebadi, S., Karimi, E., & Vakili, S. (2023). An exploration into EFL learners’ perspectives on online computerized listening comprehension dynamic assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00221-9
  9. Estaji, M., & Mirzaii, M. (2018). Enhancing EFL learners’ vocabulary learning through formative assessment. Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1515/CERCLES-2018-0015
  10. Estaji, M., & Saeedian, A. (2020). Developing EFL learners’ reading comprehension through computerized dynamic assessment. Reading Psychology, 41(4), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1768981
  11. Estrada-Araoz, E. G., Sayed, B. T., Niyazova, G. G., & Lami, D. (2023). Comparing the effects of computerized formative assessment vs. computerized dynamic assessment on developing EFL learners’ reading motivation, reading self-concept, autonomy, and self-regulation. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00253-1
  12. Gallardo, C. (2020). Seeing formative assessments from a broad perspective. The Nebraska Educator, 5(2), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.32873/UNL.DC.NE010
  13. Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English Quick Placement Test. Research Notes, 12(3), 8–10.
  14. 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, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3
  15. Haghani Zadeh, H. (2018). The impact of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Annals of Language and Literature, 2(3), 1–7.
  16. Hanifi, S., Nasiri, M., & Aliasin, H. (2016). Dynamic assessment of incidental vocabularies: A case of Iranian ESP learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(2), 163–170.
  17. Heydarnejad, T., Ibrahim, K. A., Abdelrasheed, N. S., & Rezvani, E. (2022). The effect of academic emotion regulation on EFL learners’ core self-assessment and academic buoyancy. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00207-z
  18. Ismail, S. M., Rahul, D. R., Patra, I., & Rezvani, E. (2022). Formative vs. summative assessment: Impacts on academic motivation, attitude toward learning, test anxiety, and self-regulation skill. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00191-4
  19. Izadi, M., Izadi, M., & Heidari, F. (2023). The potential of an adaptive computerized dynamic assessment tutor in diagnosing and assessing learners’ listening comprehension. Educational Information Technologies, 29(1), 3637–3661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11871-w
  20. Jahedizadeh, S., Ghonsooly, B., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2019). Academic buoyancy in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2018-0067
  21. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733
  22. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
  23. Li, B., Yang, X., Ismail, S. M., & Gheisari, A. (2024). Demystifying anxiety and demotivation in online assessment. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01511-w
  24. Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of students’ everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002
  25. Nurjamin, A., Salazar-Espinoza, D., Saenko, N. R., & Bina, E. (2023). Learner-oriented assessment matters. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00247-z
  26. Pileh Roud, L. F., & Hidri, S. (2021). Toward a sociocultural approach to computerized dynamic assessment of the TOEFL iBT listening comprehension test. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4943–4968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10498-z
  27. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935
  28. Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2017). Computerized dynamic assessments for young language learners. In English language proficiency assessments for young learners (pp. 214–233). Routledge.
  29. Rajaeizadeh, Z., Biria, R., & Kheirzadeh, S. (2015). Instructional efficacy of dynamic assessment on English vocabulary learning of young Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(8), 155–168.
  30. Rea-Dickins, P., & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: Disentangling the construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17(2), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700206
  31. Ritonga, M., Farhangi, F., Ajanil, B., & Khafaga, A. F. (2022). Interventionist vs. interactionist models of dynamic assessment (DA) in the EFL classroom. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00195-0
  32. Ross, S. J. (2005). The impact of assessment method on foreign language proficiency growth. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/AMI011
  33. Saeidi, M., & Hosseinpour, A. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment as an instructional tool on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(10), 421–429.
  34. Shamshiri, F., Esfahani, F., & Hosseini, S. E. (2023). Models of assessment in the classroom. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00259-9
  35. Sherkuziyeva, N., Gabidullina, F. I., Ibrahim, A.-A., & Bayat, S. (2023). The comparative effect of computerized dynamic assessment and rater-mediated assessment on EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00227-3
  36. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in Education, 7(2), 129–138.
  37. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  38. Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.53.1.13
  39. Yarahmadzehi, N., & Goodarzi, M. (2020). Investigating the role of formative mobile-based assessment in vocabulary learning of pre-intermediate EFL learners in comparison with paper-based assessment. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.690390