Investigating the role of dynamic assessment on speaking accuracy and fluency of pre-intermediate EFL learners

Abstract

The current study set out to investigate the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) on the speaking accuracy and fluency of pre-intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners. In contrast to static assessment, DA is conceptualized as an interactive approach towards assessment which combines teaching and testing in a unitary instructional intervention. To address the objectives of the present study, initially Preliminary English Test (PET) was given to 93 learners and 62 learners whose scores fell within ± one standard deviation from the mean were selected. The 62 selected learners were divided into an experimental and a control group. Prior to the administration of the treatment, both groups were given a speaking pretest and their fluency and accuracy scores were calculated. Following that, the dynamic assessment group received treatment for grammar and vocabulary in line with an established framework in the literature in which a stepwise mediation from the most implicit to the most explicit feedback shapes the foundation of DA. As for the control group, the participants received the same content in terms of vocabulary and grammar but there was no step-wise mediation. At the end of the treatment, both groups were given a speaking posttest and the scores were used to address the research questions. Moreover, five of the participants in the ABOUT THE AUTHORS Maryam Safdari holds a master's degree in Applied Linguistics from

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)

“…Multiple researches have reported the effectiveness of the DA models for enhancing L2 proficiency and its components including reading comprehension (e.g., Ajideh & Nourdad, 2012;Ebadi & Saeedian, 2019;Kozulin & Garb, 2002;Mardani & Tavakoli, 2011), writing (Davoudi & Ataie Tabar, 2015;Heidari, 2019;Shabani, 2018;Xiaoxiao & Yan, 2010), speaking (Ahmadi Safa et al, 2015;Ebadi & Asakereh, 2017;Fahmi & Zahruni, 2020;Hill & Sabet, 2009;Safdari & Fathi, 2020), grammar (e.g., Ahmadi & Barabadi, 2014;Lantolf &Poehner, 2011), andvocabulary (e.g., Gharekhani et al, 2015;Sarani & Izadi, 2016). Most of these studies have used the general framework of DA, GDA, or interactionist vs. interventionist models; nonetheless, fewer researches have examined the effect of C-DA on L2 components such as reading and listening comprehension (e.g., Lantolf & Poehner, 2011).…”

Developing Students’ Speaking Skills through Flipped Classroom Model

“…Speaking skills have several important elements which can be measured and considered as a successful speaking such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and fluency. Hence, it is important for the students to be able to speak accurately and fluently (Safdari & Fathi, 2020).…”

Impromptu Speaking Skills of Pre-service Teachers

“…This result of the current study is similar to the result of Kiymaz and Doyumgac (2020) stating that pre-service teachers included unnecessary repetitions in their impromptu speeches. In their study, Safdari and Fathi (2020) revealed that university students reduced their mistakes in speech and developed a more fluent speech as a result of a dynamic evaluation. In this respect, it can be said that an effective evaluation method can reduce the problems in speaking.…”

“…When studies on impromptu speech of university students were examined (Browne & Fulcher, 2017;Hwang et al, 2016;Litman et al, 2018;Safdari & Fathi, 2020;Zou, 2013), it was determined that they largely focused on speaking skills of university students receiving foreign language education and on the development of their skill of speaking in public. There are also technology-assisted impromptu speech studies (Butler, 2017;Hung & Huang, 2016;Lohmander et al, 2021) and studies investigating university students' state of anxiety about speaking in public while addressing the language learning processes (Hunter et al, 2014;LeFebvre et al, 2018LeFebvre et al, , 2020Nash et al, 2016).…”