Document Type : Research article


1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of English, Tonekabon Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tonekabon, Iran


Framed in Vygotskian sociocultural theory, this study intends to examine whether computerized group dynamic assessment (GDA) through software has affected Iranian male and female learners’ listening comprehension ability. Data were collected through administration of listening comprehension pre- and post-tests among 140 participants divided into male and female learners in the experimental and control groups. There were 35 male and 35 female learners in each group of the study. Participants in the experimental groups were exposed to GDA in order to interactively work on the selected tasks of listening comprehension, and the teacher provided the necessary support as well. Quantitative analysis of the pre- and post-tests of listening comprehension among male and female groups was conducted through two-way analysis of variance and covariance. Results revealed that both male and female learners in the experimental groups significantly outperformed the learners in the control groups. However, there were not any significant differences between the gender groups’ listening comprehension ability in the experimental groups. Findings contributed to the effective employment of GDA through software in order to improve the learners’ listening comprehension ability, denoting that teachers are recommended to be aware of technological devices in paving an interactive way for learners to develop their language skills and sub-skills.


  1. Abdolrezapour, P. (2019). Applying computer-mediated active learning intervention to improve L2 listening comprehension. Applied Research on English Language, 8(4), 511-530.
  2. Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Socio-cultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57-86). Equinox Press.
  3. Ahmadi Safa, M., & Beheshti, S. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 37-56.
  4. Alderson, J. C., & Bachman, L. F. (2003). Series editors preface. In G. Buck, Assessing listening (pp. x-xi). Cambridge University Press.
  5. Alshenqeeti, H., & Grami, G. M. A. (2019). Dynamic assessment in the EFL classroom: The case of listening comprehension. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 5(4) 1-11.
  6. Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
  7. Archer, J. C. (2010). State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Medical Education, 44, 101-108.
  8. Ashraf, H., Motallebzadeh, K., & Ghazizadeh, F. (2016). The impact of electronic-based dynamic assessment on the listening skill of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Testing, 6(1), 24-32.
  9. Baxter, J.  (2003). Positioning gender in discourse. Palgrave.
  10. Borchelt, N. (2007). Cognitive computer tools in the teaching and learning of undergraduate calculus. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1-17.
  11. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). Feedback that fits Educational Leadership, 65(4), 54-59.
  12. Cameron, D. (2005). Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new direction. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 482-502.
  13. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-299.
  14. Douglas, D. (2010). Understanding language testing. Hodder Education.
  15. Elfi, E. (2019). CALL: The use of Winnerclass Professionals V. 3.0 software in teaching listening. PROCEEDING IAIN Batusangkar, 3(1), 105-110.
  16. Ghahremani, D. (2013). The effects of implementing summative assessment, formative assessment and dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ listening ability and listening strategy use. Journal of Language and Translation, 3(1), 59-68.
  17. Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies autonomous language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 4-11.
  18. Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 281-299.
  19. Harlen, W. (2006). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 61-80). Sage.
  20. Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press.
  21. Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Language Testing in Asia, 4(1), 1-19.
  22. James, M. (2008). Assessment and learning. In S. Swaffield (Ed.), Unlocking assessment: Understanding for reflection and application (pp. 20-35). Routledge.
  23. Jones, M. G., & Brader-Araje, L. (2002). The impact of constructivism on education: Language, discourse, and meaning. American Communication Journal, 5(3), 1-10.
  24. Kennedy, K., Chan, J., Fok, P., & Yu, W. (2008). Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning: Conceptual and cultural issues. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(3), 197-207.
  25. Khoshsima, H., & Mozakka, Z. (2017). The effect of computer-assisted language learning on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’ listening skill. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(2), 81-91.
  26. Lam, R., & Lee, I. (2010). Balancing the dual functions of portfolio assessment. ELT Journal, 64(1), 54-64.
  27. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 49-72.
  28. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. (2008). Dynamic assessment. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and education: Language testing and assessment (pp. 273-285). Cambridge University Press.
  29. Lebedeva, M. Y., Koltakova, E. V., Khaleeva, O. N., & Rusetskaya, M. N. (2016). Computer-assisted language learning for the development of listening skills: A case study of pre-university Russian as a foreign language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(1), 257-265.
  30. Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34-50.
  31. Mashhadi Heidar, D. (2016). ZPD-assisted introduction via web 2.0 and listening comprehension ability. English for Specific Purposes World, 49(17) 1-17.
  32. Mashhadi Heidar, D., & Afghari, A. (2015). The effect of dynamic assessment in synchronous computer-mediated communication on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension ability at upper-intermediate level. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 14-23.
  33. McKeough, A., & Lupart, J. L. (2013). Toward the practice of theory-based instruction: Current cognitive theories and their educational promise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  34. Nachoua, H. 2012. Computer-assisted language learning for improving students’ listening skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1150-1159.
  35. Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
  36. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491.
  37. 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.
  38. Park, K. (2014). Corpora and language assessment: The state of the art. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 27-44.
  39. Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208.
  40. Roohani, A., Jam, B., Yeganeh, S., & Domakani, M. R. (2018). The effect of dynamic assessment on L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature11(4), 59-70.
  41. Sehati, S., & Khodabandehlou, M. (2017). Effect of power point enhanced teaching (visual input) on Iranian Intermediate EFL learners' listening comprehension ability. Journal of Educational Issues, 3(2), 29-42.
  42. Shepard, L. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1066-1101). American Educational Research Association.
  43. Vahdat, S., & Eidipour, M. (2016). Adopting CALL to improve listening comprehension of Iranian junior high school students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(8), 1609-1617.
  44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 29-39.
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The problem of age. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (pp. 187-205). Plenum.
  46. Walsh, C. (2001). Gender and discourse: Language and power in politics, the church and organizations. Longman.
  47. Zeng, W., Huang, F., Yu, L., & Chen, S. (2018). Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning: A critical review of literature. Educational Assessment, Evalua­tion and Accountability, 30(3), 211-250.