Document Type : Research article


1 Ph.D. candidate of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

3 Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.


Based on Vygotsky's concept of Zone of Proximal Development, dynamic assessment (DA) has at its core the integration of assessment and instruction through mediation. DA is practiced either individually or collectively. In group-dynamic assessment (G-DA), as Poehner (2009) introduced, learners are simultaneously exposed to mediation.  The problem which has been ignored in G-DA is the homogeneity and heterogeneity of EFL leaners while being mediated. This study tried to investigate the effect of group-dynamic assessment on homogeneous and heterogeneous EFL learners' ability in listening comprehension. It also intended to find out if expert-novice and peer-to-peer mediation types in G-DA differed in their effects on homogeneous and heterogeneous EFL learners' command of listening comprehension. To this end, eighty intermediate EFL learners were chosen to be the participants. According to their language proficiency, they were assigned to two groups of forty homogeneous and forty heterogeneous learners. Then, each group was divided into two experimental groups. The participants in all groups attended three listening sessions. For the mediation, the participants were assisted through novice-expert and peer-to-peer mediation types. To find out the main and interaction effect of group type and mediation type in G-DA, the post-test scores were analysed through running a two-way ANOVA.  The results indicated that both group type and mediation type had significant main and interaction effect on learners' listening comprehension. A post hoc test was also utilized to compare the mean differences between the groups.


  1. Ableeva, R. (2010).  Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
  2. Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2012). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening.  Teaching Language Skills، 30 (4)27-58            Listening,
  3. Alber, R. (2011). Six scaffolding strategies to use with your students. Teacher Leadership, 30(45), 5.
  4. Ausubel, D. P. (1978). In Defense of Advance Organizers: A Reply to the Critics. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 251–257.
  5. Bornstein, M. H., & Bruner, J. S. (Eds.). (1989). Crosscurrents in contemporary psychology: Interaction in human development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  6. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Apple (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning research (pp. 33-56). Albex.
  7. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1998). Don't accept me as I am: Helping the retarded performers excel.  Plenum.
  8. Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, R.S. (2011). Is dynamic assessment compatible with psychometric model? In A.S Kaufman & N.L. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 218-246).  Cambridge University Press.
  9. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Hidri, S. (2014).  Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in EFL context. Language Testing in Asia.4/4/. pp.2-19. doi:10.1186/2229-0443-4-4
  11. Kaufman, R., & R. Burden. (2004). Peer tutoring between young adults with severe and example learning difficulties: The effects of mediation training with Feuerstein’s instrumental enrichment programme. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 107–117. DOI: 10.1007/BF03173239
  12. Kaur, H. (2010). Mixed ability teaching. VSRD International Journal of Technical and Non-Technical Research, I (1), 47-51.
  13. Knestrick, J. (2013). Early learning: Teacher and administrator benefits of teaching in the zone. Retrieved from
  14. Kozulin, A., Garb, E. Dynamic assessment of literacy: English as a third language. Eur J Psychol Educ 19, 65 (2004).
  15. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (Vol. 78, No. 4). Oxford university press.
  16. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124. DOI:
  17. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy, & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. (pp.273-284). Springer Science.
  18. Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(03), 355-368. doi:
  19. 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.
  20. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  21. Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. Guilford.
  22. Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
  23. Lussier, C. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2005). Dynamic assessment: A selective synthesis of the experimental literature. In G. M. van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M. Resing & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.), Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (pp. 65-87).  Elsevier.
  24. McNamara, T. (2004). Language testing. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.). The handbook of Applied Linguistic (pp.763-783).  Blackwell.
  25. Mehri, E., & Amerian, M. (2015). Group dynamic assessment (G-DA): The case for the development of control over the past tense. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4/5.  doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.5 p.11
  26. Naeni, J., & Duall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English learners' reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2),22-41.
  27. Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. doi: 10.1191/1362168805lr1660a
  28. Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323-340.
  29.  Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development.  Springer.
  30. Poehner, M. (2009). Group Dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. doi: 10.1002 /j1545-7249.2009.tb002245.x
  31. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 312-330.
  32. Prabhu, N. S. (1992). The dynamics of the language lesson. Tesol Quarterly, 26(2), 225-241.   
  33. Rogoff, B. , & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). (1984). Children's learning in the zone of proximal development. New Directions for Child Development.  Jossey-Bass
  34. Shabani, K. (2018). Group dynamic assessment of L2 learners' writing abilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 129-149. https:// doi.10.30466/ijltr.2018.20494
  35. Sternberg, R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: Teaching, learning, and assessment in the classroom.  Open University Press.
  36. Slavin, R. E. (1993). Students Differ: So What? Educational Researcher, 22(9), 13–14.
  37. Tabatabaee, M., Alidoust, M., & Sarkeshikian, A.H. (2018). The Effect of Interventionist and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessments on EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1) 1-13.
  38. Tutty, J.I., & Klein, J.D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: a comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Education Tech Research Dev 56, 101–12.
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.  Harvard University Press.
  40. Wang, M. (1983). Development and consequences of students’ sense of personal control. In J.M.            
  41. Levine and M. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perception: Implications for learning. 56-87
  42. Wang, P. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment on the listening skills of Lower-intermediate EFL learners in Chinese technical college: A pilot study. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,6(6).
  43. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (2000). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructive approach. Cambridge University Press
  44. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.