10.57647/jntell.2026.0501.02

A Microgenetic Mixed Methods Study of the Effects of Different Types of Interactionist Dynamic Assessment on EFL Learners’ Speaking Ability

PDF
  • Ehsan Zolfaghari Younesi1,
  • Roya Khoii*2,
  • Masoud Zoghi3,
  1. Department of English Language, NT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  2. Department of Teaching English, NT. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  3. Department of English Language Teaching, Ah.C., Islamic Azad University, Ahar, Iran

Received: 2025-09-30

Revised: 2025-12-02

Accepted: 2025-12-25

Published in Issue 2026-03-31

Published Online: 2025-12-30

Copyright (c) 2026 Ehsan Zolfaghari Younesi, Roya Khoii, Masoud Zoghi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Zolfaghari Younesi, E., Khoii, R., & Zoghi, M. (2026). A Microgenetic Mixed Methods Study of the Effects of Different Types of Interactionist Dynamic Assessment on EFL Learners’ Speaking Ability. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 5(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jntell.2026.0501.02
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 88

Abstract

Within the context of EFL/ESL education, there has been growing interest in how Dynamic Assessment (DA) can shape the development of speaking ability through interactive, scaffolded mediation. The present mixed-methods study set out to examine the microgenetic effects of three types of interactionist DA, individual, peer, and concurrent group, on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking ability. Forty-six participants engaged in the DA sessions where the mediations were delivered according to a graduated regulatory scale, progressing from implicit to explicit prompts as required during the used communicative speaking tasks.  The microgenetic analysis of classroom interactions focused on Language-Related Episodes (LREs) and captured the moment-to-moment developmental trajectories of the learners. The results demonstrated that both individual and group DA fostered more substantial shifts from other-regulation to self-regulation in speaking performance, particularly in the refinement of grammatical accuracy and discourse management, whereas peer mediation yielded more incremental progress. The observed fluctuations across the sessions reflected the dynamic and non-linear nature of L2 oral development in the course of DA interventions. The findings underscore the value of detailed microgenetic examination of LREs in understanding and supporting oral proficiency and point to the importance of responsive, dialogic mediation in EFL speaking pedagogy.

Keywords

  • EFL Speaking Ability,
  • Graduated Mediation,
  • Interactionist Dynamic Assessment,
  • Microgenetic Analysis,
  • Sociocultural Theory,
  • ZPD
PDF

References

  1. Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.
  2. Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. P. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2011.555330
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/328585
  4. Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x
  5. Bell, J., & Thomas, A. (2016). Gold First (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
  6. Camilleri, B., & Law, J. (2013). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills of pre-school children with primary language impairment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(5), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2013.847497
  7. Compernolle, R. A. (2022). Microgenetic approaches to L2 classroom interaction: Language-related episodes and beyond. Language Teaching, 55(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000319
  8. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
  9. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Routledge.
  10. Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E., & Swain, M. (2018). The development of L2 abilities through mediated interaction. In A. G. Benati & A. Malakoff (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 150–164). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747-12
  11. Li, S. (2020). Computerized dynamic assessment of L2 speaking. Language Testing, 37(4), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219898389
  12. Petersen, D. B., Chanthongthip, H., Ukrainetz, T. A., Spencer, T. D., & Steeve, R. W. (2017). Dynamic assessment of narratives: Efficient, accurate identification of language impairment in bilingual students. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(4), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0426
  13. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Springer.
  14. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x
  15. Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2022). Group dynamic assessment: From principles to practice. Language Teaching Research, 26(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859913
  16. Poehner, M. E., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Toward a critical dynamic assessment: Expanding L2 classroom practice. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(3), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0100
  17. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2023). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom: Past, present, and future directions. Language Teaching Research, 27(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211034567
  18. Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ process writing development. SAGE Open, 8(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018784643
  19. Salehi, H., Khoii, R., Rashtchi, M., & Arjmandnia, A. A. (2024). ADHD learners as victims or survivors in L2 learning contexts: A case of application of dynamic assessment to selective attention and reading comprehension ability. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00229-x
  20. Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
  21. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
  22. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
  23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  24. Zhang, L., & Liu, Y. (2023). Dynamic assessment and the development of EFL learners’ speaking abilities: An empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 27(2), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2267627