Abstract
This study investigates the relative effectiveness of online dynamic assessment (DA) compared to the teacher’s explicit feedback in the acquisition of requests in an online learning environment. Thirty-four intermediate-level English as a foreign language (EFL) learners were randomly assigned to three groups: expert peer DA (PDA), teacher DA (TDA), and teacher’s explicit feedback (TEF). Following the metapragmatic instruction, the participants were provided with 15 discourse completion tests (three treatment sessions, five items for each session) to complete. Discourse completion tests depicted request scenarios and required the participants to write what they would say in those situations. The participants worked independently, and when the DA groups created poorly constructed requests, they were given online pre-established mediational hints. These hints were arranged from the most implicit to the most explicit, and were provided by either an expert peer (for the PDA group) or the teacher (for the TDA group). The TEF group, on the other hand, received the teacher’s explicit feedback on any pragmatic deviations. The analysis of the pretest and post-test scores by series of t-tests and an ANCOVA showed that the best performance belonged to the PDA group, followed by TDA and TEF groups. The findings underscore the pedagogical value of DA and the superiority of expert peers’ mediation over teacher mediation in the development of L2 pragmatic competence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
References
Abassy, D. S., & Mashhadi, H. D. (2020). Computerized group dynamic assessment and listening comprehension ability: does self-efficacy matter? Journal of Language and Education, 6(1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.9834
Ahmadi Safa, M. (2011). A study on the effects of explicit versus implicit expert peers’ and co-equals’ scaffolding within the male/female EFL learners’ coconstructed ZPD on the development of the speech acts of complaint, request, and apology. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Allame Tabatabei University, Tehran, Iran].
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Rozati, F. (2017). The impact of scaffolding and non-scaffolding strategies on EFL learners' listening comprehension development. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(5), 447–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2015.1118004
Alavi, S. M., Shahsavar, M., & Norouzi, M. H. (2020). Diagnosing EFL learners’ development of pragmatic competence implementing computerized dynamic assessment. Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 117–149. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.42653.400
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
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 576–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01030.x
Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Implementing peer-dynamic assessment to cultivate Iranian EFL learners’ inter-language pragmatic competence: A mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Language Testing, 13(1), 18–43. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijlt.2022.345372.1171
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(S1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2002). A summary of research exploring hard and soft scaffolding for teachers and students using a multimedia supported learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning., 1(2), 1–12.
Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482934
Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12012
Di Fabio, A. (2015). Beyond fluid intelligence and personality traits in social support: the role of ability based emotional intelligence. Frontiers in psychology, 8(6), 395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00395
Ebadi, S., & Bashir, S. (2021). An exploration into EFL learners’ writing skills via mobile-based dynamic assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1995–2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10348-4
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362
Eslami, Z., Mirzaei, A., & Dini, S. (2015). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.008
Fakher Ajabshir, Z., & Panahifar, F. (2020). The effect of teachers’ scaffolding and peers’ collaborative dialogue on speech act production in symmetrical and asymmetrical groups. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.30466/IJLTR.2020.120807
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am: Helping “retarded” people to excel. Plenum Press.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221193.
Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK. Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(1), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.05.003
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019
Kasper, G. (2009). Locating politeness in interaction. Studies in Pragmatics, 11, 21–41.
Kaveh, A., & Rassaei, E. (2022). Mobile-mediated versus face-to-face dynamic assessment, EFL learners’ writing fluency and strategy awareness: A sociocultural perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 19(1), 34–68. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.20288
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2016). Learner-learner interaction during collaborative pragmatic tasks: The role of cognitive and pragmatic task demands. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12180
Kolganov, S. V., Vadivel, B., Treve, M., Kalandarova, D., & Fedorova, N. V. (2022). COVID-19 and two sides of the coin of religiosity. HTS Teologiese Studies/theological Studies, 78(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v78i4.7681
Kozulin, A. (2010). Same cognitive performance, different learning potential: Dynamic assessment of young adults with identical cognitive performance. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.9.3.273
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005569
Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
Lantolf, J. P., Xi, J., & Minakova, V. (2021). Sociocultural theory and concept-based language instruction. Language Teaching, 54(3), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144820000348
Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31(1), 1–16.
Malmir, A. (2020). The effect of interactionist vs interventionist models of dynamic assessment on L2 learners’ pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed. Issues in Language Teaching, 9(1), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2020.53398.515
Mehri Kamrood, A., Davoudi, M., Ghaniabadi, S., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2021). Diagnosing L2 learners’ development through online computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(7), 868–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1645181
Moore-Brown, B., Huerta, M., Uranga-Hernandez, Y., & Peña, E. D. (2006). Using dynamic assessment to evaluate children with suspected learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512060410040301
Moradian, M., Asadi, A., & Azadbakht, A. (2019). Effects of concurrent group dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: A case of requests and refusals. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistic, 10(2), 106–135. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2019.14720
Nicholas, A. (2020). Dynamic assessment and requesting: Assessing the development of Japanese EFL learners’ oral requesting performance interactively. Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(5), 545–575. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2020-5002
Nie, J., Yuan, Y., Chao, X., Li, Y., & Lv, L. (2023). In smart classroom: Investigating the relationship between human–computer interaction, cognitive load and academic emotion. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2190257
Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System, 33(3), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr1
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241–250.
Qin, T., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2021). Computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension in L2 Chinese. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.17.2.198
Rassaei, E. (2020). The separate and combined effects of recasts and textual enhancement as two focus on form techniques on L2 development. System, 89, 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102193
Rassaei, E. (2021). Effects of dynamic and non-dynamic corrective feedback on EFL writing accuracy during dyadic and small group interactions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(2), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-0044
Rassaei, E. (2023). Implementing mobile-mediated dynamic assessment for teaching request forms to EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(3), 257–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912105
Rezai, A. (2023). Cultivating interlanguage pragmatic comprehension through concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment: A mixed-methods study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00179-w
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). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1818924
Situmorang, K. (2022). Request strategies used by international students in English as a lingua franca context. IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching), 6(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.24071/ijiet.v6i1.3698
Spatola, N., Chevalère, J., & Lazarides, R. (2021). Human vs computer: What effect does the source of information have on cognitive performance and achievement goal orientation? Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 12(1), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjbr-2021-0012
Spinner, P., & Gass, S. (2019). Using judgments in second language acquisition research. Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing. Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2011). Pragmatic development as a dynamic, complex process: General patterns and case histories. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 605–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01246.x
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Taylor & Francis.
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ acquisition of request and apology. Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 4(2674), 87–118.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 171–199). Cambridge University Press.
Takimoto, M. (2020). Investigating the effects of cognitive linguistic approach in developing EFL learners’ pragmatic proficiency. System, 89, 102213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102213
van Compernolle, R. A., & Kinginger, C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482917
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Xie, X., & Guo, J. (2023). Influence of teacher-and-peer support on positive academic emotions in EFL learning: The mediating role of mindfulness. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(4), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00665-2
Xu, Y., Gelfer, J., & Perkins, P. (2005). Using peer tutoring to increase social interactions in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588453
Yang, Y. F., Yeh, H. C., & Wong, W. K. (2010). The influence of social interaction on meaning construction in a virtual community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00934.x
Yang, Y., & Qian, D. D. (2019). Promoting L2 English learners’ reading proficiency through computerized dynamic assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1585882.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161
Zangoei, A., Zareian, G., Adel, S. M. R., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). The impact of computerized dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Modern Research in Language Studies, 6(4), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.11536.1433
Zhao, H. (2018). New insights into the process of peer review for EFL writing: A process-oriented socio-cultural perspective. Learning and Instruction, 58, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.010
Zheng, Q., & Xu, Y. (2019). “I will not put this request at the very beginning”: Chinese EFL students’ perception of pragmatic (in)felicity in English e-mail requests. East Asian Pragmatics, 4(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.00
Zhu, W. (2012). Polite requestive strategies in Emails: An investigation of pragmatic competence of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 43(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882124499369
Funding
This work was supported by the University of Bonab, East Azarbaijan, Iran (grant number:140230).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ajabshir, Z.F. Online peer mediation versus teacher mediation in dynamic second language pragmatics assessment. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12680-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12680-5