Interactionist Dynamic Assessment in Academic Persuasive Writing: A Case of Two EFL Learners

  • Zahra kheradmand Saadi Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
  • Seyyed Ayatollah Razmjoo Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran
Keywords: dynamic assessment, Iranian EFL learners, mediation, persuasive writing, zone of proximal development


This study investigated the effects of interactionist dynamic assessment on improving academic persuasive writing of two Iranian EFL learners majoring in English Language and Literature. Qualitative analysis of the interactions between the mediator and learners and the drafts written by the learners indicated that using different types of mediation were effective in developing learners’ persuasive writing. In addition to the factors such as individual, time, and language feature which were shown to be integral in determining mediation, assessment of the two cases showed that factors such as mediator’s role, learners’ responsiveness to mediation, and agency were important in specifying mediation.


Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57–86). London: Equinox.

Ahmadi, G. (2013). The role of tutor mediation in understanding and developing Iranian EFL learners' reading strategies. Procedia, 83, 867 – 872.

Alavi, M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic Assessment of Writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment, 19 (1), 1-16.

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.

Anton, M. (2009).Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42 (3), 576-598.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language skills: Writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (p. 205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crowhurst, M. (1988). Research review: Patterns of development in writing persuasive/argumentative discourse. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia, Department of Language Education.

Dorfler, T., Golke, S., & Artelt, C. (2009).Dynamic assessment and its potentials for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 77-82.

Gao, X. S. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gillam, R., Pena, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse. Topics in Language Disorders, 20 (1), 33-47.

Gleason, M. M., (1999). The role of evidence in argumentative writing. Reading& Writing Quarterly, 15 (1), 81-106.

Haywood, H.C. & Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice. Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 537-545.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-192.

Katz, A. (2014). Assessment in second language classrooms. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 320-337). Boston: National Geographic Learning.

Kroll, B. (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–74.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 15 (11), 11-33.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Lantolf, J.P. & Thorne, S.L. (2006).Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lidz, C. S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. NY: Guilford Press.

Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guildford.

McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18 (4), 333–351.

Moss, P. A. (2003). Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 22 (4), 13-25.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.

Olshtain, E. (2001). Functional tasks for mastering the mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 207-217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Panahi, P., Birjandi, P., & Azabdaftari, B. (2013). Toward a sociocultural approach to feedback provision in L2 writing classrooms: the alignment of dynamic assessment and teacher error feedback. Language Testing in Asia, 3 (13), 1-10.

Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Poehner, M.E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic Assessment and the transcendence of medi¬ated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323–340.

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233-265.

Ramos, K. (2014). Teaching Adolescent ELs to Write Academic- Style Persuasive Essays. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (8), 655-665.

Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21, 249-258.

Schneer, D. (2014). Rethinking the argumentative essay. TESOL Journal, 5 (4), 619-653.

Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55–70.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.

Tajeddin, Z. & Tayebipour, F. (2012).The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners' acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) (Previously Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities), 4(2), 87-118.

Van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In James P. Lantolf & Matthew E. Poehner, Sociocultural theory and teaching of second languages (pp. 163-186). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 24–40.
How to Cite
kheradmand Saadi, Z., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2017). Interactionist Dynamic Assessment in Academic Persuasive Writing: A Case of Two EFL Learners. Indonesian EFL Journal: Journal of ELT, Linguistics, and Literature, 3(1), 40-60. Retrieved from