Effect of Interventionist Computerized Dynamic Assessment on Learners’ Grammatical English Tenses: Analysis of Cake and Sandwich Formats

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of English, Bushehr Brannch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran

2 Department of English, Bushehr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran


The present mixed-method study sought to investigate the efficacy of using an interventionist dynamic assessment and specifically its formats namely the cake and the sandwich ones on learners’ grammatical English Tenses. In doing so, 45 advanced learners of English language at Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Shiraz, Iran were selected. They were randomly assigned to 3 groups, each including 15 participants. Two experimental groups namely the cake and the sandwich ones received the interventionist dynamic assessment test while the third group received a non-dynamic grammar test which was functioning as a control group. As the study utilized a sequential exploratory design (QUAN → qual) of mixed method approach (MMR), the quantitative part was carried out via a well-established grammar test and in the qualitative component, six informants (3 from the cake group and 3 from the sandwich group) were selected to be interviewed and their quotations were descriptively analyzed through a sociocultural perspective. The quantitative component of the study revealed the outperformance of the two experimental group over the control group. However, the two modes of delivering mediation in experimental groups had no statistically significant difference on the degree of the acquisition of grammatical English tenses by learners. The interview analysis of the negotiations also demonstrated positive viewpoints of learners about the two experimental groups. Merging the quantitative and qualitative analyses, the study found that interventionist dynamic assessment, in both modes, could have positive effects on learners’ ability to improve their acquisition of English tenses.


Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Ahmadi, A., & Barabadi, E. (2014). Examining Iranian EFL learners' knowledge of grammar through a computerized dynamic test. Issues in Language Teaching 2(3), 163-181.
Ajideh, P., & Nourdad, N. (2012). The immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment on EFL reading ability. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 141.
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, 465-483.
Anton, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.
Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
Barabadi, E (2010), Designing computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension of Iranian university students and its comparison with static test of L2 reading comprehension. Unpublished thesis. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kozulin, A., & and Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
Lantolf, J. (ed.), (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. (2006). Language competence: Implications for applied linguistics – A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27, 717-728.
Lantolf, J.P. (2009) Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368
Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment: Bringing the past into the future. Language Teaching, 42, 355-268.
Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (Eds.) (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. Equinox Publishing.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York, NY: Guilford.
Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: A Journal of Human Behaviour, 31(1), 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1961.tb02104.x.
Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of grammar with different age groups. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1707-1713.
Nazari, E. T. (2009). TOEFL sample tests (grammar.) Tehran: Rahnama Press.
Orikasa, M. (2010). Interactionist dynamic assessment in L2 learning: A case study of tutoring L2 English oral communication. Retrieved from http:// scholarspace .manoa.hawaii. edu/handle/10125/20258
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(1), 1-10.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471-491.
Poehner, M., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233–265.
Purpura, J. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L., (2001). All testing is dynamic testing. Issues in Education,7(2), 134.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Yule, G. (2006). Oxford Practice Grammar (Advanced). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Receive Date: 14 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 02 September 2020
  • Accept Date: 08 November 2020
  • First Publish Date: 01 December 2020