Cultivating Interlanguage Pragmatic Comprehension through Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment: A Mixed-methods Study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1751795/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Cultivating Interlanguage Pragmatic Comprehension through Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment: A Mixed-methods Study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1751795/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 14 Feb, 2023

Read the published version in Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education →

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study explored the effects of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. To this end, a total of 97 pre-intermediate learners took the key English test (KET) test and 45 learners whose scores fell between − 1 and + 1 SD were selected and assigned randomly into three groups, namely concurrent G-DA (n = 15), cumulative G-DA (n = 15), and immediate feedback (IF) group (n = 15). Then, they went through pre-test, intervention (lasted one hour for fifteen sessions held three times a week), and post-test procedures, as well as the interactions among the teachers and learners were recorded. The data were analyzed through a one-way ANCOVA and a microgenetic development approach. Results revealed that the experimental groups outperformed the control group concerning the gains of the ILP comprehension. Additionally, the complementary microgenetic findings demonstrated how concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA approaches could lead to improving the learners’ ILP comprehension.

Sociocultural theory

Concurrent group dynamic assessment

Cumulative group dynamic assessment

Interlanguage pragmatic comprehension

Pragmatic competence (PC) has gained noticeable attention as an integral component of communicative competence (CC) (Backman, 1990). According to Senowarsito (2013), PC is defined as a second language learner’s (L2) ability to communicate effectively. To achieve successful communication, as Wilson (2017) notes, L2 learners should be equipped with knowledge beyond grammar and lexicon levels. Kasper (1997) considers PC as “not being extra or ornamental, like the icing on the cake” (p. 3). Instead, Kasper perceives it as the most fundamental component of CC. However, acquiring PC has been claimed to be very challenging for L2 learners, which makes them many pragmatic errors during communication with others (Taguchi, 2011, 2019). Such errors could be attributed to two major sources: first, pragmatic errors may not be perceived as salient as lexical, grammatical, and pronunciation errors, so they may go unnoticed by L2 teachers and L2 learners; second, pragmatic errors may be associated with the lack of a strong consensus on the best approach to teaching PC (Rose & Kasper, 2001). Although different components of CC are learned in different ways (Ellis, 2008, 2014; Lightbown & Spada, 2012), EFL/ESL practitioners have failed to achieve a conclusive decision on the optimum approach to teaching PC (González-Lloret, 2020; Ohta, 2005, Pourmousavi & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, 2020; Taguchi, 2019; van Compernolle, 2014a).

Despite this lack of an agreed-upon approach, some scholars have assumed that dynamic assessment (DA) could be of some help since it can assist teachers to fuse teaching and assessment (van Compernolle & Kinginger, 2013). Also, the previous studies have evidenced that DA could create some space within which learners could be provided with both explicit and implicit assistance depending on their current level of need and the responses they show (Ohta, 2005; Taguchi, 2011, 2019; van Compernolle, 2013b). As its proponents (e.g., Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, 2014; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; McNiel, 2016; van Compernolle, & Zhang, 2014) note, opposed to the traditional or non-Dynamic Assessment (N-DA) approaches, in DA, the primary aim is to gather information about the abilities that have not been fully internalized. In actual fact, as Haywood and Lidz (2007) stress, DA pushes forward gradually L2 learners from their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (present knowledge situation) to their Zone of Actual Development (ZAD) (the specified desired learning destination). Despite these robust theoretical underpinnings, EFL/ESL practitioners have complained that DA is not applicable in large classes (Do¨rfler, et al., 2009; Malmir & Mazloom, 2021; Miri et al., 2016; Poehner, 2009). They pinpointed that DA is only productive in tutorial sessions and it is not able to engage a whole class’ ZPD. To mitigate this limitation, Poehner (2009) referred to Vygotsky’s original conceptualization of ZPD and introduced G-DA. Of particular note is that DA and G-DA approaches are built on one principle: L2 learners should be provided with appropriate mediations to co-build a ZPD. However, they are different as G-DA takes a whole group’s ZPD into account and DA considers only one individual’s ZPD.

Given that interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) comprehension is of paramount importance for EFL learners and there is a long-lasting call for an effective approach to teaching and assessing PC at the same time (Ohta, 2005; Shauer, 2019, Taguchi, 2019), the researchers decided to explore the potentiality of G-DA in this regard. The review of the related literature also indicated that no study to date has compared the efficiency of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA in developing EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. Hence, this study attempted to explore the effects of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA on the development of Iranian EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. Additionally, through micro-analysis of the dialogues exchanged among the teachers and the learners, another attempt was made to document the processes through which the learners were supported to develop substantially their ILP comprehension.

Literature Review

Interlanguage Pragmatic Comprehension

ILP is not a new discipline but it is considered an underdeveloped one (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013a). ILP is defined as “the study of non-native speakers’ acquisition, comprehension and production of pragmatics” (Kasper & Rose, 2002, p. 27). As Taghuchi (2008a) notes, ILP is “the ability to perform language functions in a context” (p. 34). For Taguchi (2011), PC falls into two categories: ‘pragmalinguistic’ competence and ‘sociopragmatic’ competence. Pragmalinguistic competence includes the linguistic resources a language offers for assigning communicative acts and interpersonal meaning, such as pragmatic strategies (González-Lloret, 2020; Taguchi, 2011; Taguchi, & Roever, 2017). Sociopragmatic competence, however, is the social perception and consists of the set of rules underlying the language users’ interpretations and performance of communicative acts (Taguchi, 2011, 2019; van Compernolle, 2013b).

ILP competence includes comprehension and production abilities. Gacrcia (2004) defines ILP comprehension as L2 learners’ abilities to comprehend an utterance with the help of contextual clues. In other words, ILP comprehension is using contextual clues to make correct interpretations about an interlocutor’s utterance. To achieve correct interpretations, L2 learners need to use external factors (e.g., the context) and internal factors (e.g., background knowledge). In this way, ILP comprehension is L2 learners’ ability to extract the intended meanings by decoding both pragmaliguistic and sociopragmatic clues (Taguchi, 2008a, 2019). From another perspective, ILP comprehension entails cognitive, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic aspects. It occurs when the connections between contextual macro-level factors and sociocultural macro-level factors are made successfully in L2 learners’ brains (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013a). As Taguchi (2015) notes, ILP comprehension is the integral binary part of ILP production which develops concurrently. However, according to Perez (2017), vis-à-vis ILP production, the development of ILP comprehension seems to be easier for L2 learners. As Taguchi (2013a) confirms, the literature has not reached a strong conclusion if explicit or implicit instruction is more fruitful to cultivate L2 learners’ ILP comprehension. The underlying reason for this lack of consensus is that the new instructional approaches such as G-DA have not been used to boost L2 learners’ ILP comprehension. Therefore, as Taguchi (2017) stresses, ILP research and teaching are in an urgent need of novel approaches to improve L2 learners’ ILP comprehension. This is the point where G-DA, as a new approach, may serve to fill in the gap.

Group-Dynamic Assessment

One of the unique features of DA is offering mediations during assessment practices. These mediations help L2 learners perform better on tests and go beyond their current abilities (Lantolf & Pohner, 2014; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Poehner, 2008; van Compernolle, 2014a). As Lantolf (2009) notes, DA is built on the assumption that to get a more realistic picture of L2 learners’ abilities, they should be provided with gradual, congruent mediations than leaving them alone with tests. In Poehner’s (2009) exact words, “the more familiar assessment model in which teachers observe student performance is replaced by one in which teachers and students jointly carry out activities, with teachers intervening as necessary to help learners stretch beyond their current capabilities” (p. 471). In this respect, DA is considered a subset of interactive assessment where L2 learners receive gradual, congruent mediations to go beyond their current abilities (Haywood & Tzuriel, 2002). Under this premise, it is argued that if an instruction is going to be effective, it must entail assessment, and, simultaneously, fair assessment practices are not attainable without considering instruction (Lantolf, 2009; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005; van Compernolle, 2018).

However, as noted above, one of the often-cited criticisms levelled at DA is its applicability in large classes (Do¨rfler, et al., 2009; Mauludin, 2018; Miri et al., 2016). In particular, it has been pinpointed that DA procedures are just applicable and helpful in tutorial sessions or “what is dubbed ‘rickshaw model” (Poehner, 2009, p. 478) wherein the teacher/mediator is just able to scaffold one learner at a time. Poenher (2009) tried to mitigate this limitation by introducing G-DA. For him, DA and G-DA procedures are not too much different, as they both stick to the same general principle: Offering students appropriate mediations to assist them to co-construct a ZPD. Poehner (2009) stresses that G-DA entails “understating the group to be not merely as a context for individual performance, but a social system in its own right that might be supported to function in ways that are beyond the present capabilities of any individual member” (p. 477-8). Thus, G-DA can engage group member in a task that no individual member can complete independently, but for which all group members need mediation, though at different levels and quantities. Two key concepts in G-DA paradigm are ‘primary’ and ‘secondary interactants’ (Poehner, 2009). In the classroom context, when a teacher offers mediation to a student to negotiate a point, as Poehner (2009) notes, the teacher and the student are regarded as primary interactants. However, the other students who are present in the classroom and may benefit from the exchange between the primary interactants are called secondary interactants. As such, the classroom setting allows all class attendants to benefit from the interactions. Considering this critical distinction between primary and secondary interactants, concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA are detailed below.

In concurrent G-DA, when an L2 learner fails to respond to the teacher’s feedback, the teacher directs the following prompt of a leading question to another student. That is, as an L2 learners’ comment, question, and struggle set the stage for another L2 learner’s contribution, interactions shift rapidly between primary and secondary interactants (Poehner, 2009). In contrast, in cumulative G-DA, when an L2 learner faces up a problem, the teacher runs through the full range of pre-determined mediating prompts with them before addressing another individual (Poehner, 2009). The teacher affords the first addressed students with the most implicit to most explicit prompts to let them find the problematic part and rectify it. This approach is called cumulative because it seeks to move the entire group forward in its ZPD through negotiations with individual learners in their respective ZPD. According to Poehner (2009), cumulative G-DA aims to move all members of a group forward through co-constructing ZPDs with individuals, but concurrent G-DA supports the development of each individual by working within the group’s ZPD.

A range of studies have investigated the effects of one-on-one DA, computerized DA, and G-DA on L2 learners’ ILP competence (e.g., Alavi et al., 2020; Farrokh & Rahmani, 2017; Malmir, 2020; Malmir & Mazloom, 2021; Moradian et al., 2019; Ohta, 2005; Qin, 2018; Tajedin & Taybipour, 2012; van Compernolle, 2011; Zangoei et al., 2019). Here, we review some of them critically to lay the groundwork for the present study. In an early attempt, Ohta (2005) examined how the notions of ZPD and mediation can be used to teach and learn ILP competence. He reviewed critically three studies done by Takahashi (2001), Samuda (2001), and Yoshimi (2001). Ohta concludes that the ZPD-sensitive mediations could lead to a significant improvement in L2 learners’ ILP competence. Additionally, more recently, Moradian et al. (2019) explored the effects of concurrent G-DA on EFL learners’ pragmatic knowledge for the cases of request and refusal speech acts. Their results documented that the G-DA group outperformed the control group on the immediate post-test. Similarly, Malmir (2020) investigated the impacts of interactionist DA and interventionist DA on the development of Iranian advanced EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension in terms of accuracy and speed. His findings disclosed that the experimental groups receiving instructions based on the interactionist DA and interventionist DA procedures performed better than the control group. Moreover, Alavi et al. (2020) designed a computerized DA tool to foster Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of apology and request speech acts. Their findings documented a significant improvement in the participants’ knowledge of requests and apologies at the end of the instruction. Finally, Malmir and Mazloom (2021) examined the effects of conventional G-DA and computerized DA on the cultivation of upper-intermediate EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension. Their findings evidenced that the pragmatic comprehension of both groups outweighed the non-DA group on the post-test.

There were some limitations with the above-alluded studies which were staple impetus to conduct the present study. First, they have failed to compare concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA approaches to boosting ILP comprehension in a single study. Second, their research designs were mostly quantitative; thus, they could not capture how ZPD-sensitive exchanges of feedback help learners develop their ILP comprehension. To eliminate these limitations, the present study purported to explore the following questions:

Do concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-D procedures improve Iranian EFL learners’ ILP comprehension?
How does concurrent G-DA improve Iranian EFL learners’ ILP comprehension?
How does cumulative G-D improve Iranian EF L learners’ ILP comprehension?

Research Design

The present study used an explanatory mixed-methods design to meet the intended objectives. That is, along with a quantitative method, including a quasi-experimental design, a qualitative method, including a micorgenentic development approach was used. The underlying reason for using the mixed-methods design was to reach triangulation. It assisted the researchers to further the breadth and depths of their perceptions of the topic under research (Mackey & Gass, 2016). In sum, this explanatory mixed-methods design was adapted to disclose the potentials of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-D procedures to cultivate pre-intermediate ELF learners’ ILP comprehension in the Iranian EFL context.

Setting and Participants

Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Khorram Abad was selected as the setting in Summer, 2019. ILI is a non-profit L2 instruction center with lots of branches across the country. A total of 97 students took the key English test (KET) and 45 students whose scores were one standard deviation (SD) above the mean and one SD below the mean were selected. Then, they were randomly assigned into three groups, namely IF group (n = 15), concurrent G-DA group (n = 15), and cumulative G-DA group (n = 15). The participants aged from 14 to 20, were all females, and pre-intermediate EFL learners. Though the participants’ textbooks gave scattered attention to ILP comprehension, the researchers intentionally selected pre-intermediate EFL learners to ascertain that they did not have a good command of ILP proficiency before the study and, thus, the study’s findings could be attributed to the effects of given instructions. Of particular note is that the participants were willingly attending their ILI classes to develop a command of English as a communicative tool. The learners’ use of English was mainly restricted to their classrooms since they rarely had the opportunities to talk to native English speakers in person. The classes were held twice a week over a nine-week course; each session lasted 75 minutes, during which all four language skills were practiced. It is worth noting that the first researcher who was well-informed about the theoretical foundations and procedures of G-DA run the intervention part for the G-DA classes.

Instruments

The instruments used to collect the data entailed key English test (KET), two ILP comprehension tests, and a conversation pamphlet. While the education officials of the ILI approved that the participants were at pre-intermediate proficiency level, the homogeneity of the participants was verified using KET’s reading and writing samples. It should be noted that the listening and speaking parts were not administered due to logistical limitations. The KET’s reading part encompasses five parts with 40 multiple-choice items providing diverse written materials, such as signs, brochures, newspapers, and magazines. Its writing section gets test-takers to write a composition in 100 words in length about a number of daily life topics. The reliability and validity of the KET test were measured by piloting it on 20 students who had the same characteristics as the main study’ participants. The KET test’s reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha (0.70). Experts’ judgment was used to measure the validity of the instrument. In doing so, the researchers invited two well-experienced EFL teachers to examine its face and content validity. The EFL teachers confirmed that the instrument enjoyed an acceptable level of face and content validity.

The other instrument included two ILP comprehension tests developed and validated by Tajedin and Malmir (2014). The original ILP comprehension tests included 35 items divided into two tests, namely pre-test (n = 17) and post-test (n = 18) by the researchers. The ILP comprehension tests embedding the five most frequent speech acts of apologies, refusals, requests, compliments, and complaints. They covered situations ranging from very informal situations to extremely formal ones. Each test item encompassed a particular speech act situation followed by three choices. The participants were required to select the most appropriate choice in light of the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic/lexico-grammatical contextual factors. To construct the ILP comprehension test, Tajedin and Malmir (2014) meticulously searched a couple of conversation textbooks (e.g., Top Notch (Books 1, 2, 3, 4), New Interchange (Books 1, 2, 3, & 4), Passages (Books 1 & 2), and American Cutting Edge (Books 1, 2, 3, & 4)) and authentic websites. Then, they piled up 50 items. Next, after running two pilot studies to measure their reliability (α = 0.75) and validity, they reached 35 items. The final version of the ILP comprehension test included seven requests, nine apologies, eight refusals, seven compliment/compliment responses, and four complaint speech acts. Table 1 reports the speech acts, their sequence order, and the number of items for each part of the final version of the tests.

Table 1 Number and Sequence of Speech Acts in the ILP Comprehension Tests

Speech act	Pre-test (n = 17)	Post-test (n = 18)
Request	3	4
Apology	4	5
Refusal	4	4
Compliment/ Compliment Response	4	3
Complaint	2	2
Total	17	18

The final instrument was a conversation pamphlet. It was used as the main educational material to instruct the participants during the treatments. The reason to compile the conversion pamphlet was the lack of a textbook that solely deals with ILP competence in the market. It included a couple of conversations with one or more particular speech acts. For this purpose, the researchers went through meticulously some conversation books (e.g., American Cutting Edge (Books 1, 2, 3, & 4), New Interchange (Books 1, 2, 3, & 4), Top Notch (Books 1, 2, 3, 4), and Passages (Books 1 & 2)) and selected the conversations which included a special speech act. Then, they piled up them in a pamphlet, copied the pamphlet, and gave it out to all the participants in the three groups. Overall, 54 conversations were packed in the final version of the conversation pamphlet.

Data Collection Procedures

The researchers took some steps to run the present study. Prior to starting the main study, as pointed out above, the reliability and validity of the KET test were measured in a pilot study. Then, the study continued with the administration of the KET test to a total of 97 learners. Based on the KET test’s results, the learners whose score fell between 1 SD above and 1 SD below the mean were screened out and randomly assigned into three groups, namely concurrent G-DA (n = 15), cumulative G-DA (n = 15), and IF (n = 15). At the next stage, to measure the prior ILP competence of the participants, the ILP pre-test comprehension was administered. Then, depending on the group name, three different interventions were offered by the first researcher. For the concurrent G-DA class, first, the teacher explained the primary purposes of the lesson to the students. Then, he went through the conversations and provided the required information about the key words and chunks. Next, he directed the students’ attention to the speech acts embedded in the conversation. To follow the principles of the concurrent G-DA, he wrote a particular speech act on the whiteboard. Next, he continued asking one of the learners to tell the particular function of that speech act. If the students could not provide the required answer or use the speech act appropriately, the teacher offered mediations on a scale from implicit to explicit. The teacher, put it precisely, used Davin and Donato’s (2013) framework in an interactionist way (See Table 2); that is, “by providing contingent and graduated support, called mediation, in the form of questions, hints, or prompts” (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, as cited in Davin and Donato, 2013, p. 6) to assist the students. The teacher tried to “explore and promote the group’s ZPD while also supporting the development of individual learners” (Poehner, 2009, p. 471). In practice, whenever the addressed learner (primary interactant) was unable to respond to the feedback, the teacher directed the next prompt to another learner (secondary interactant). If the feedback failed to elicit the intended response, his mediation was attuned to the groups’ ZPD, and the teacher provided another learner with more explicit feedback. In other words, “the teacher’s interaction shifts rapidly between primary and secondary interactants as one learner’s question, struggle, or comment sets the stage for another’s contribution” (Poehner, 2009, p. 478). In this way, when one of the learners responded incorrectly, the interaction between the teacher and that student and other students shifted gradually so that the provided prompts could remove the problem. In the end, the teacher assured if the speech act has been entirely handled by asking the students to offer more similar examples.

For the cumulative G-DA class, during the intervention, after teaching the conversations, the teacher tried to draw the learners’ attention to a particular speech act by choosing and writing it on the whiteboard. He then asked one of the learners to read it out and tell the class its appropriate use based on the context. When the students’ response was not correct, or the students’ production was not pragmatically-accepted, the teacher run through the full range of pre-determined mediating prompts before addressing another secondary interactant (Poehner, 2009). The teacher afforded the first addressed student with the implicit to explicit prompts to let her find the problematic part and rectify it. In line with the procedures of cumulative G-DA, the teacher conducted a series of one-on-one DA interactions as the class worked toward mastery of the pragmatic features. That is, “individuals take turns engaging directly as primary interactants with the teacher, with the understanding that each subsequent one-on-one exchange will have the advantage of building on earlier interactions that the class witnessed” (Poehner, 2009, p. 478). The teacher aimed at pushing the entire class forward in its ZPD through detailed negotiations with individual students in their respective ZPDs.

Table 2 Mediations/Prompts Provided by the Teachers Adopted from Davin and Donato (2013, p. 6)

Level of Explicitness Mediation/Prompt

Prompt 1 Pause with skeptical look

Prompt 2 Repetition of entire phrase by teacher

Prompt 3 Repetition of the specific site of error

Prompt 4 Forced choice option (i.e., when or where?)

Prompt 5 Correct response and explanation provided

The instruction of the IF group was offered based on a non-G-DA approach. Corrective feedback was not accompanied by furnishing the learners with the kind of graduated mediation featuring G-DA. When one of the students produced an incorrect speech act, the teacher immediately provided the correct form along with a short explicit explanation. More specifically, upon making a pragmatic error, the teacher offered immediate corrective feedback without considering the students’ ZPD. It should be noted that the interventions for the three groups lasted one hour for fifteen sessions holding three times a week. Having completed the treatments, the participants’ gains of the different interventions were measured through the ILP comprehension post-test.

Data Analysis Procedures

To analyze the quantitative data, the researchers used SPSS version 22 and calculated both descriptive and inferential statistics. Along with measuring the central tendency and the variability for the given measures, a one-way ANCOVA was run to identify the differences between the three groups in terms of their gained scores across the two test administrations. For the qualitative part, after collecting and transcribing selected episodes taken from the interactions between the teacher and students, they were analyzed microgenetically. This analysis was of paramount importance because it could allow the researchers to document the students’ ILP development. The process of analysis aimed to reveal how concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA could help the students to handle the speech acts with the help of the given mediations. Thus, by drawing on the transcriptions of the selected episodes, the researchers tried to document how the exchanged mediations between the teacher and students led to the development of ILP comprehension in light of the group’s ZPD.

Quantitative Results

The first question investigated if current G-DA and cumulative G-D procedures improve Iranian EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. To this aim, along with controlling the effects of the pre-test (Covariate), a one-way ANCOVA was run. Prior to running it, the assumptions of normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), equality of variances (Leven’s test), and independence of observations were examined. Concerning the normality assumption, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test’s results showed that the sig values (0.200) of the post-test scores were larger than the critical value (0.05) (See Appendix). Therefore, the normality assumption was met. Second, the assumption of the equality of variances was examined through Levenes’ test. The findings indicated that this assumption was also met (F (2, 42) = 2.76, p 0.07 > 0.05). Finally, as no learner attended more than one class in the study, the assumption of the independence of the observations (or scores) was verified.

Having met the basic assumptions, a one-way ANCOVA was run. As presented in Table 3, there were differences among the three groups’ means (concurrent G-DA: M = 13.00, SD = 3.04; cumulative-G-DA: M = 12.60, SD = 3.06; IF: M = 7.67, SD = 3.39) on the post-test. Thus, to test if these differences were statistically significant and how much of these differences were due to the effects of the different instructions, a one-way ANCOVA was run.

Table 3 Results of Descriptive Statistics for Concurrent G-DA, Cumulative G-DA, and IF Groups on the ILP Comprehension Post-test

Groups	Mean	S.D.	N
IF group	7.67	3.395	15
Cuncurrent group	13.00	3.047	15
Cumulative group	12.60	3.066	15
Overall	11.09	3.953	45

Table 4 Results of Inferential Statistics for Comparing Concurrent G-DA, Cumulative G-DA, and IF Groups on the ILP Comprehension Post-test

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: post-test
Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Corrected Model	596.111^a	3	198.704	89.004	.000	.867
Intercept	360.595	1	360595	161.519	.000	.798
Pre-test	331.400	1	331.400	14.442	.000	.284
Instruction	231.101	2	115.550	51.758	.000	.716
Error	91.534	41	2.233
Total	6221.000	45
Corrected Total	687.644	44

As depicted in Table 4, concerning the Sig. values, there was a statistically significant difference between the post-test scores due to the effects of the different instructions, F (2, 44) = 51.75, P < .05, partial eta squared = 0.71. It means, around 71 percent of the differences between the groups was attributed to the effects of the interventions. However, the effects of difference in the pre-test scores on the post-test performance was also significant, F (2, 44) = 14.42, P < .05, partial eta squared = 0.28. That is, around 28 percent of the differences could be explained by the differences in the pre-test scores. Hence, Estimated Marginal Means were used to remove the effects of the covariate in the post-test scores.

Table 5 Results of Estimated Marginal Means

Groups	Mean	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval
Groups	Mean	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
IP group	7.903^a	.386	7.122	8.683
Concurrent G-DA group	13.018^a	.386	12.239	13.797
Cumulative G-DA group	12.346^a	.386	11.566	13.126

After adjusting for the pre-test scores, a significant difference between concurrent G-DA, cumulative G-DA, and IF groups, 0.51, in terms of gains in ILP comprehension was revealed, F (2, 44) = 51.75, P = .00, partial eta squared = 0.71. Thus, the conclusion was that due to the different instructions, the three groups performed differently on the post-test. Now that there existed a statistically significant difference among the adjusted means, the next step was to verify where the differences lie. The results of this question are reported in Table 6.

Table 6 Results of Pairwise Comparisons of Concurrent G-DA, Cumulative G-DA, and IF Groups on the ILP Comprehension Post-test

(I) Groups	(J) Groups	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.^b	95% Confidence Interval for Difference^b
(I) Groups	(J) Groups	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.^b	Lower Bound
control group	concurrent group	-5.116^*	.546	.000	-6.478
control group	cumulative group	-4.443^*	.547	.000	-5.809
concurrent group	control group	5.116^*	.546	.000	3.753
concurrent group	cumulative group	.672	.546	.676	− .691
cumulative group	control group	4.443^*	.547	.000	3.078
cumulative group	concurrent group	− .672	.546	.676	-2.035

By consulting the significance values, it is clear that there was not a statistically significant difference between the concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA groups in terms of their gains on the post-test. However, there was a statistically significant difference between cumulative G-DA and IF groups, as well as between concurrent G-DA and IF groups in terms of their performance on the post-test.

Qualitative Results

In light of the collaborative conversations among the teachers and students, the second and third research questions aimed at tracking changes in the learners’ ILP comprehension. Here four episodes are microgenetically analyzed to offer concrete evidence of how concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA lead to the improvement of the learners’ ILP comprehension. Four transcribed episodes of the interactions between the teachers (T) and students (S1, S2, S3, …) serve as the data for analysis. The first two episodes were taken from the concurrent G-DA group and the last two episodes were taken from the cumulative G-DA group. Episode 1 presents an example of a conversation in which a student made a pragmatic error to use a compliment.

Episode 1

T: Your new shirt is really nice, Maryam.
S1. It’s your eyes which see them nice.
T: (Pause with a questioning look). (Prompt 1)
S1: (Silence and thinking about the utterance).
T: * Is it correct to answer my compliment in such a way in English? (Prompt 2)
S2: Oh! I got it. We should say ‘Thank you. I like it too’ in English.
T: That’s it. Well done.
S3: So, instead of saying ‘It’s your eyes which see them nice’, we must say ‘I like it too. Thanks’.
T: Sure.

In the exchanges above, T compliments the new shirt of S1. In response to the compliment, S1 provides a sentence which, though appropriate in Persian, is not a proper answer in English. Thus, T offers the first prompt by pausing to indicate that S1’s utterance is not pragmatically correct to which S1 remains silent, looks, and thinks about the utterance. Next, T moves on to the second prompt by asking if it is correct to answer his compliment by using such an utterance. Upon receiving this more explicit prompt, S2 can produce the proper utterance. Next, the teacher confirms the correct utterance and appraises her attempt to solve the problem. In the succeeding turn, S3 can provide a much more explicit explanation about the pragmatic struture to show that they have internalized it. It is worth noting that the exchanges can clearly show that within an interaction, not only can primary interactants benefit from receiving mediations, but they also can be beneficial for secondary interactants (Poehner, 2009).

In the next episode, the conversation centers on the speech act of requesting in which a student asked for the teacher’s pen. The episode 2 is a tangible example of how the offered prompts were helpful for the student to present her request in a pragmatically well-formed way.

Episode 2

S1: ‘Teacher, lend me your pen’.
T: (Pause with a questioning look). (Prompt1)
S1: (Silence). Is it incorrect? Well, what should I say?
T: Looks at another student. ‘Lend me your pen?’ (Prompt2)
S2: We need to be more polite, I think. For example, ‘I wonder if I can borrow your pen.’
T: That’s right. But we can put it more politely and correctly. Who knows??? (Prompt 3)
S3: Aha. Understood. We should say ‘I wonder if it might be at all possible for you to lend me your pen for a couple of minutes’.
T: Bravo. That’s it. So? (Prompt 4)
S1: If we want to present our requests in a polite way, we need to use such well-formed structures in our utterances.
T: Yea, right.

In the episode 2, four prompts are offered to help the students present their requests more politely. In Turn 1, S1 offers her request inappropriately. To let S1 know that her utterance was not pragmatically appropriate, T offers the first prompt through a short pause with a questioning look. S1, then, remains silent and gives the signal to T that she is yet unaware of the error. She requires a more explicit mediation by asking whether her statement is incorrect. The teacher, then, turns to S2 and offers the second prompt by iterating the entire statement of S1 with a rising intonation. S2 replies that the utterance should have been expressed with more polite structures. She continues that the more appropriate request is something like ‘I wonder if I can borrow your pen.’ Next, along with the approval and applause of S2’s attempt, T calls for a more appropriate utterance. Upon receiving prompt 3, S3 can generate the intended utterance by saying ‘I wonder if it might be at all possible for you to lend me your pen for a couple of minutes’. Then, T approves and appraises S3’s attempt. In the succeeding turn, S1 shows that she has fully understood the point by giving an explicit explanation about the structure. It is worthy to note that to construct a collective ZPD, T offers graduated and contingent mediations and changes them appropriately among the three students.

In the third episode taken from the cumulative G-DA group, the teacher and a student make a joint endeavor to master how to present the apology speech act. Having explained in detail how English native-speakers apologize for a problem, the teacher is talking to the class when S1 interrupts him suddenly and makes the following conversation occur:

Episode 3

S1. I have something to say.
T. (Pause with a questioning look). (Prompt 1)
S1. (Silence and thinking about the problem). I cut your words???
T. So, when you interrupt a person’s talk, you should say what? (Prompt 2)
S2. Uhm. I should say ‘excuse me?’
T. You can just say ‘excuse me’? Nothing else?? (Prompt 3)
S1. Aha. Got it. I need to say ‘I’m sorry to stop you?’
T. That’s right. Bravo. Or for example, you can say ‘I do apologize to interrupt you.’(Prompt 4)
S1. Understood. Thank you. When we are to apologize in English, we should use structures like ‘I’m sorry ….’ and ‘I do apologize…’.
T. True. Perfect.

In the episode 3, to help S1 learn how to do the apology speech act, T provides four prompts. In Turn 1, when T is talking to the class, he is stopped by S1. With a pause and a questioning look, T sends this signal to S1 that there is a problem with her act. However, since the first prompt cannot help S1 generate the intended utterance, T offers the second prompt by asking for the appropriate structure. Upon receiving the second prompt, S1 generates a better utterance. As the utterance is not yet pragmatically acceptable, T gives the third prompt by asking if there are any more ways to convey such a meaning in English. In the next turn, S1 is capable of producing the required utterance. With the confirmation and appraise of S1’s attempt, T presents the following prompt by giving an alternative utterance to do the same speech act. Then, in an explicit illustration, S1 demonstrates that she has fully internalized the intended pragmatic feature.

In the final episode, the teacher tries to help a student learn how to do the speech act of complaining correctly. The dialog is concerned with a student’s complaint about one of her classmates who has been too distracting and noisy in the classroom.

Episode 4

S1: (Turns to her classmate and says to her) I got a headache because of your loud noise.
T: (Pause with a questioning look). (Prompt 1)
S1: (Silence and looking at the statement). So, is it not correct?
T: Do you think that it is correct to express our complaints in this way? (Prompt 2).
S1: Well, I should say ‘My complaint is about your loud noise?’
T: It’s not wrong. But we can say … .
S1: Aha. Got it. I need to say ‘I want to complain about ….’ or ‘I have a complain about ….’.
T: Well done. So, to express our complaints, we have to use particular structures. (Prompt 3)
S1: Well, now I know that expressing complaints in English is different from Persian.
T: (Smile) Way to go.

As can be observed in the exchanges between T and S1, a joint attempt was made to solve the problem. Since the sentence constructed by S1 is not pragmatically appropriate, T looks at S1 questionably to provide the first implicit prompt to indicate that the sentence should be modified. Owing to being silent and looking at T, S1 demonstrates that she requires more prompts and the problem is not within her ZPD yet. Consequently, T questions the correctness of the utterance to encourage S1 to change her original statement. In the succeeding turn, S1 generates a much more pragmatically acceptable sentence. Then, T gives the next prompt, making S1 produce the intended utterance. Accompanied by approval and applause of S1’s correct output, T offers the last prompt to shed light on the point. In this series of interactions, the teacher is to provide proper and sufficient mediation to S1 while simultaneously assessing the quality and quantity of the needed mediation. The above episodes are indicative of communicative contexts wherein a pragmatic challenge is offered while the required scaffolds are available to move up the students to higher grounds. As Ohta (2005) notes, the teachers’ hand was available to lead them upward as the students were not competent enough to reach.

The study’s findings indicated that both concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA could improve Iranian EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. The qualitative analysis of the ZPD-sensitive feedback also showcased that both types of G-DA could open up opportunities for not only primary but also secondary interactnts in the classroom context. They could co-construct group ZPD and benefit from the dialogic feedback exchanged among the teacher and the directly addressed students. These findings were in line with the results of the previous studies on individual DA (Aljaafrh & Lantolf, 1994; Nassaji & Swain, 2000), as well as the ones following G-DA procedures (Alavi et al., 2020; Malmir, 2020; Malmir & Mazloom, 2021; Miri et al., 2016; Moradian et al., 2019).

The findings might be explained by referring to the concept of primary and secondary interactants and how they might have benefited from the knowledge which was co-shaped on the social level (Pohner, 2009). It could be argued that the students might have been granted the chance to gain gradual and contingent feedback from the teachers which was in line with their ZPDs. In this way, within this optimal space, the learners were scaffolded and also prompted to put their resources and move beyond what their individual abilities. More specifically, the students were either directly addressed by the teacher and received graduated feedback or were exposed to the dialogic feedback in the context of the classroom as the secondary participants.

The results could also be partly explained by what van Compernolle and Williams (2013) referred to as ‘active non-verbal participation’. That is, the secondary interactants may have benefited from the interactions that occurred on the social level since they actively, yet non-verbally, participated in the dialogic feedback exchanges through their looks and gazes. This might have permitted them to take in what the primary interactants were co-building, and hence, were enabled to move beyond their existing ILP knowledge. In a much similar vein, along with Lantolf and Poehner (2000), it can be argued that the unaddressed students could benefit from the social interactions in their milieu as far as they engage themselves in the processes of communication. In contrast, the participants of the IF group were not exposed to graduated and dialogic feedback which could fit their ZPDs, so they were not given a strong impetus to realign their objectives and actively follow the language exchanges between the teacher and their peers. In this way, they might have been deprived of learning from their social environment.

To discuss the study’s findings more, the potentials of the concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA to help the learners handle the pragmatic features may be attributed to the dynamic nature of exchanging mediations compared to the more static nature of giving feedback in IF group. To be more specific, the participants in the G-DA groups were given the opportunity to play a more active role so as to repair the pragmatic problems while the non-G-DA mode of error correction opened up a window of opportunity for only one student at a time, which might have pushed other participants to tune out or get disengaged (Miri et al., 2016; Poehner, 2009). Consequently, it may be argued that further engagement which was provoked as a result of the tailoring the feedback according to the addressed learners’ responses enhanced the level of student engagement whilst the learners in the IF group’s responsiveness to the feedback was not taken into account which might have taken its toll on the students’ level of engagement, and hence learning. Additionally, the outperformance of the concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA groups may also be ascribed to the diagnostic function of G-DA instructions. As they might have provided the opportunities for the teachers to identify the underlying sources of the problems that their students had with the target pragmatic structures. With this noticeable advantage, the teachers might have offered appropriate feedback to repair the students’ ILP comprehension errors (Poehner, 2009). In contrast, as the non-G-DA might not have the teacher to first diagnose the root causes of the errors, he might not have offered the most useful feedback to amend the lacks in the students’ ILP comprehension. As, the learners in the IF group might have been deprived of opportunities to receive mediations tailored with their needs and lacks (Nassaji & Swain, 2000).

Moreover, to explain the present study’s findings, we can refer to Vygotsky’s (1978) position about the collaborative nature of learning. As Poehner (2009) notes, a shift from a one-on-one model of pedagogy to a group-focused one demands “an understanding of the relation between the development of individuals and development of the group” (p. 472), which both occur in a collaborative environment. This, in Vygotsky’s mindset, is a matter of how the individual’s ZPD is closely related to the group’s ZPD (Poehner, 2009). The optimal condition for having an optimal relationship between the individual’s ZPD and the groups’ ZPD can be decided upon in light of Petrovsky’s (1985) conceptualization of group. He lists three ways in which the notion of group has been implemented in psychology: group-as-context, group-as-cooperation, and group-as-collective, among which only the last two are concerned with establishing a link between an individual’s and group’s ZPDs. According to Poehner (2009), the main difference between the last two is the extent to which individuals identify themselves with the group. That is, Poehner adds, “in a group-as-cooperation model, each individual retains their goals while understanding their interrelation with the goals of other group members. In a group-as-collective model, all are united in working toward a common goal” (2009, p. 474). In alignment with this view toward collaborative learning, it may be argued while the learners might have been oriented toward overcoming their own problems, they may have started appreciating cooperating with others. Therefore, the role of others in the classroom might have played a facilitative function in the learners’ learning (Poehner, 2009) and might have been crucial to involve them in “joint intellectual activity, and the pooling of mental efforts to overcome difficulties” (Petrovsky, 1985, p. 183). Therefore, it may be argued that the enhanced depth of ILP comprehension of the G-DA groups might be explained with the help of collaborative learning.

To close, along with the study’s findings, it may be argued that G-DA approaches are very promising in large classes to cultivate ILP comprehension in the EFL contexts. The study’s results confirmed the recommendation of Ohta (2005) and van Compernolle (2018) to conduct more interventional studies from socially-oriented perspectives. They reasoned that if EFL/ESL practitioners are to further their understanding of cognitive processes involved in classroom activities, as well as to get a clear picture of the link between teaching and assessment practices, the findings of interventional studies like the present one can be very revealing.

The present study probed the potentials of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA to cultivate Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. The findings evidenced that concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA have the potentials to improve significantly EFL learners’ ILP comprehension. Based on the study’s findings, it can be concluded that if concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA be implemented properly, they are an alternative approach to teaching ILP comprehension in large classes.

In light of the study’s findings, some implications are suggested here. The first implication is that G-DA approach cannot and should not replace static assessment in the classroom. Instead, G-DA and static assessment should be perceived complementary to facilitate L2 learning. The next implication is that in the cases when a student cannot handle a particular task independently, they should not be frowned up by teachers in the sense that the student is not cognitively qualified. Instead, by offering tailored mediations for the student lacking the required competence, teaching turns out to be more conducive and promising (Ohta, 2005). The next implication is for the teachers running large classes including students with different ZPDs. In that case, according to the study’s findings, teachers can group learners with different ZPDs together to cooperate to co-build a joint ZPD. By doing so, students receive more fair feedback from their teachers and peers and, in turn, this leads to fairness in teaching and assessment practices (Murillo & Hidalgo, 2017). The succeeding implication is for teacher education programs where the attention of teacher educators can be drawn upon the increasing amount of empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of G-DA. They can incorporate G-DA principles and procedures into pre-service and in-service teacher training courses to improve the professional competence of their attendees. Given that L2 learners have to use the utterances pragmatically appropriate, another implication is for materials developers. They have to assign a particular space to teach the ILP features in the textbooks. Finally, the current study’s results may rich the existing literature on teaching and assessment of ILP competence, as the findings largely revealed how ILP comprehension can be taught and tested efficiently in large classes.

Whereas this study could somehow provide support to the potentials of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA approaches to raising ILP comprehension, there is a need for further qualitative studies to probe into the effectiveness of these approaches in the development of other CC components. For example, future studies are needed to investigate how G-DA approaches can foster EFL learners’ strategic competence. In addition, further research is needed to explore the impacts of concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA approaches on EFL learners’ performance with different levels of proficiency and ages in other contexts (e.g., public and private schools and universities). Likewise, future studies may examine if concurrent G-DA and cumulative G-DA can be implemented in pre-service and in-service teacher training courses to raise EFL teachers’ assessment literacy. Finally, based on the studies carried out and reported in the literature, ethnographies studies are needed to give a comprehensive conceptualization of DA and its alternatives and their overall efficiency in improving language skills and components.

ILP: Interlanguage pragmatic comprehension; G-DA: group-dynamic assessment

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals

Not Applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Availability of the Data and Materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

No funding received.

Competing Interests

On behalf of the author, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

The present study was planned and conducted by Dr. Rezai.

Acknowledgements

The author appreciates the kind cooperation which he received from the participants.

Alavi, S. M., Shasavar, 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. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/328585
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford university press
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013a). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
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
Do¨rfler, T., Golke, S., & Artelt, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2), 77–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.005
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2th ed.). Oxford University Press
Ellis, R. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition (2th ed.). Oxford University Press
Farrokh, P., & Rahmani, A. (2017). Dynamic assessment of writing ability in transcendence tasks based on Vygotskian perspective. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0033-z
González-Lloret, M. (2020). Pragmatic development in L2: An overview. In K. P. Schneider & E. Infantidou (Eds.), Developmental and clinical pragmatics (pp. 237–267). Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431056
Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge University Press
Haywood, H. C., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40–63. DOI: 10.1207/S15327930PJE7702_5
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Retrieved April 10, 2018, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell
Lantolf, J. P., & Peohner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 Education. Routledge
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (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., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press
Lantolf, M. E., & Poehner, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press
Lantolf, M. E., & Poehner, J. P. (2004). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. (CALPER professional Development Document CPDD- 0411). University park.PA: the Pennsylvania State University, Center of Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2012). How languages are learned? (4th ed.). Oxford University Press
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge
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
Malmir, A., & Mazloom, P. (2021). The impact of group dynamic assessment (GDA) vs. computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic comprehension. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances, 9(1), 67–94. doi:10.22049/jalda.2021.26985.1222. http://jalda.azaruniv.ac.ir/article_14211.html
Mauludin, L. A. (2018). Dynamic assessment to improve students’ summary writing skill in an ESP class. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 36(4), 355–364. DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2018.1548296
McNiel, L. (2016). Understanding and addressing the challenges of learning computer-mediated dynamic assessment: A teacher education study. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816668675
Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Salehpour Bavarsad, P. (2016). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): Concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1–24
Moradian, M., Asadi, M., & Azadbakht, Z. (2019). Effects of concurrent group dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: A case of requests and refusals. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 106–135. DOI: 10.22055/rals.2019.14720
Murillo, F. J., & Hidalgo, N. (2017). Students’ conceptions about a fair assessment of their learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 10–16. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.001
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(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
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
Perez, C. J. (2017). Pragmatic comprehension of English refusals by Spanish-English bilinguals. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. Retrieved December 21st from http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/4102
Petrovsky, A. V. (1985). Studies in psychology: The collective and the individual. Progress
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Springer Publishing
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in language classroom. Language teaching research, 9(3), 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Pourmousavi, Z., & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2020). A comparative study of the effect of teacher’s group and individual feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ learning of speech acts in apology letter writing. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00088-w
Qin, T. S. (2018). Computerized dynamic assessment of L2 Chinese implicature comprehension (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Rose, K. R., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 119–140). Longman
Senowarsito, I. (2013). Politeness strategies in teacher-student interaction. TEFLIN Journal, 24(1), 82–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v24i1/82-96
Shauer, G. R. (2019). Teaching and learning English in the primary school: Interlanguage pragmatics in the EFL context. Springer
Taguchi, N. (2008a). Cognition, language contact, and the development of pragmatic comprehension in a study-abroad context. Language Learning, 58(1), 33–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00434.x
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 289–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Taguchi, N. (2013a). Production of routines in L2 English: effect of proficiency and study-abroad experience. System, 41(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.003
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going in interlanguage pragmatics. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Taguchi, N. (2017). Interlanguage pragmatics. In A. Barron, P. Grundy, & G. Yueguo (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153–167). Routledge
Taguchi, N. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. Routledge
Taguchi, N., & Kim, Y. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatics-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37, 416–437. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amu039
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford University Press
Tajedin, Z., & Malmir, A. (2014). Knowledge of L2 speech acts: Impact of gender and language learning experience. English Language Teaching (ELT), 1(2), 1–21
Tajedin, Z., & Taybipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(2), 87–118. DOI: 10.22099/jtls.2012.499
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171–199). Cambridge University Press
van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3267–3283. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.009
van Compernolle, R. A. (2013b). Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of L2 pragmatic abilities. In S. Ross, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 327–353). Palgrave/Macmillan
van Compernolle, R. A. (2014a). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters
van Compernolle, R. A. (2018). Focus on meaning and form: A Vygotskian perspective on task and pragmatic development in dynamic strategic interaction scenarios. In M. Ahmadian, & M. P. G. Mayo (Eds.), Recent trends in task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 79–97). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter
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. DOI: 10.1177/1362168813482917
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). Group dynamic assessment in the language classroom: Embodied participation as active reception in the collective Zone of Proximal Development. Classroom Discourse, 4(1), 42–62. DOI: 10.1080/19463014.2013.779284
van Compernolle, R. A., & Zhang, H. (2014). Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing, 31(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213520303
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press
Wilson, D. (2017). An investigation into the comprehensive development of L2 pragmatic development in the EFL classroom: A case of advanced Sebian EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey, England
Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learner’s use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223–244). Cambridge University Press
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. DOI:10.30479/jmrels.2019.11536.1433

Tests of normality via Kolmogorov-Smirnov

	Kolmogorov-Smirnov^b
	Statistic	df	Sig.
post-test	.155	15	.200^*

Levene's test of equality of error variances^a

F	df1	df2	Sig
2.765	2	42	.074

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 14 Feb, 2023

Read the published version in Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education →

Editorial decision: Major revision
09 Oct, 2022
Reviews received at journal
25 Sep, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
31 Aug, 2022
Reviews received at journal
31 Jul, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
15 Jul, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
11 Jul, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
16 Jun, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
13 Jun, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
13 Jun, 2022
First submitted to journal
13 Jun, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Cultivating Interlanguage Pragmatic Comprehension through Concurrent and Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment: A Mixed-methods Study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Interlanguage Pragmatic Comprehension

Group-Dynamic Assessment

Method Of The Study

Research Design

Setting and Participants

Instruments

Data Collection Procedures

Data Analysis Procedures

Results

Quantitative Results

Qualitative Results

Discussion

Conclusion And Implications

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Appendix

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1