The Effect of Reading and Vocabulary Intervention within the Test Validity on Vocabulary Learning Strategies among Iranian EFL Learners
Keywords:
Reading intervention within the test validity, vocabulary intervention within the test validity, vocabulary learning strategies, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)Abstract
Because intervention within the test validity as a dynamic assessment (DA)-laden procedure has been newly proposed by scholars in the field, research scarcity is there as far as this procedure is concerned with in EFL research. The present investigation focused on exploring the influence of reading and vocabulary intervention within the test validity on EFL learners’ strategies of vocabulary learning through a quasi-experimental pre-test post-test control group design. Three intact classes of intermediate female EFL learners, each composed of 30 learners, participated in this investigation from a private language institution in Tehran through convenience sampling. To collect the data, Quick Placement Test (QPT), and Vocabulary Learning Strategies Survey (VLSS) were utilized. To analyze the data, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used. It was shown that reading and vocabulary intervention within the test validity had a significant effect on vocabulary learning strategies among Iranian EFL learners. Moreover, there was a significant difference between the effectiveness of reading and vocabulary intervention within the test validity on vocabulary learning strategies in favor of the vocabulary intervention within the test validity. These results offer practical insights for language teachers, learners, and curriculum developers.
Downloads
References
1. Ramzan R. Use of language learning strategies in ESP and EGP: Perspectives from Saudi Arabia. 2021.
2. Wahyudin AY, Pustika R, Simamora MW. Vocabulary learning strategies of EFL students at tertiary level. The Journal of English Literacy Education: The Teaching and Learning of English as a Foreign Language. 2021;8(2):101-12. doi: 10.36706/jele.v8i2.15647.
3. Nguyen H, Terry DR. English learning strategies among EFL learners: A narrative approach. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning. 2017;3(1):4-18. doi: 10.22492/ijll.3.1.01.
4. Yanagisawa A, Webb S, Uchihara T. How do different forms of glossing contribute to L2 vocabulary learning from reading? A meta-regression analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2020;42(2):411-38. doi: 10.1017/S0272263119000688.
5. Behforouz B, Al Ghaithi A. Omani EFL learners' vocabulary learning strategies. Arab World English Journal. 2022;13(1):285-99. doi: 10.24093/awej/vol13no1.18.
6. Rahmasari AFM, Baa S, Korompot CA. The Relationship between Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension Ability of Junior High School Students. Journal of Excellence in English Language Education. 2023;2(1):1-8.
7. Hayatbakhsh Abbasi B, Haddad Narafshan M, Seifadidni P. Relationship Between Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Learning Styles Using Structural Equation Modelling across Age and Gender. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 2023;11(47):139-54. doi: 10.30495/jfl.2023.707752.
8. Ikawati L. Scaffolding in teaching writing. AL-TARBIYAH: Jurnal Pendidikan (The Educational Journal). 2020;30(1):48-58. doi: 10.24235/ath.v30i1.6487.
9. Taber KS. Scaffolding learning: Principles for effective teaching and the design of classroom resources: Nova Science Publishers; 2018. 1-43 p.
10. Birjandi P, Jazebi S. A comparative analysis of teachers' scaffolding practices. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. 2014;2(3):154-64. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140203.14.
11. Jafari S. The effect of scaffolding on the vocabulary improvement of EFL Iranian language learners. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences (IJELS). 2019;4(2):206-10. doi: 10.22161/ijels.4.2.2.
12. Hasson N. The Dynamic Assessment of Language Learning: Routledge; 2017.
13. Infante P, Poehner ME. Realizing the ZPD in second language education: The complementary contributions of dynamic assessment and mediated development. Language & Sociocultural Theory. 2019;6(1):63-91. doi: 10.1558/lst.38916.
14. Kostogriz A, Veresov N. The zone of proximal development and diversity: Oxford University Press; 2021.
15. Malmir A. The effect of interactionist vs. interventionist models of dynamic assessment on L2 learners' pragmatic comprehension accuracy and speed. Issues in Language Teaching. 2020;9(1):279-320. doi: 10.22054/ilt.2020.53398.515.
16. Alsaadi HMA. Dynamic assessment in language learning: An overview and the impact of using social media. English Language Teaching. 2021;14(8):73-82. doi: 10.5539/elt.v14n8p73.
17. Zare M, Barjesteh H, Biria R. Enhancing EFL learners' reading comprehension skill through critical thinking-oriented dynamic assessment. Teaching English Language. 2021;15(1):189-214. doi: 10.22132/TEL.2021.133238.
18. Sherkuziyeva N, Imamutdinovna Gabidullina F, Ahmed Abdel-Al Ibrahim K, Bayat S. The comparative effect of computerized dynamic assessment and rater mediated assessment on EFL learners' oral proficiency, writing performance, and test anxiety. Language Testing in Asia. 2023;13(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s40468-023-00227-3.
19. Daftarifard P, Birjandi P. Impact of mediation types on Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics. 2017;8(1):21-45. doi: 10.22055/rals.2017.12611.
20. Hasani M, Mohseni A, Molaie B. Effect of scaffolded differentiation strategies on inferential reading comprehension and receptive vocabulary improvement of intermediate students. Journal of Language and Translation. 2024;14(1):191-211.
21. Mohammadi S, Babaii E. The Dynamic Assessment of reading comprehension: An exploration of EFL teacher's perception and practice. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies. 2022;9(2):123-48. doi: 10.30479/jmrels.2020.12998.1607.
22. Shokri H, Khodareza MR. The Effect of interventionist dynamic assessment on language learners' reading comprehension. Language and Translation. 2021;11(4):211-22. doi: 20.1001.1.20088590.2021.11.5.7.7.
23. Jafarigohar M, Haghighi H. The impact of dynamic assessment on collocational knowledge of EFL learners. 2016.
24. Rezaee AA, Khomeijani Farahani AA, Mubarak LA. Scaffolding and EFL learners' use of language learning strategies in the Iraqi language teaching context. Teaching English Language. 2018;12(2):89-116.
25. Yusuk S. Effects of zone of proximal development based scaffolding techniques on reading comprehension of Thai university students. Interdisciplinary Research Review. 2018;13(4):1-6.
26. Khodabandeh F. Enhancing Vocabulary Learning and Retention in EFL Students: A Comparative Study of ARLOOPA Augmented Reality App in Flipped Online and Flipped Face-to-Face Classes. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025:1-19. doi: 10.1007/s11423-025-10489-8.
27. Snyder E, Witmer SE. Including English learners in multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) in reading: A CHAT-informed mixed methods investigation. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 2025;69(2). doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2024.2302145.
28. McLeod S, McCood S. Vygotsky's zone of proximal development and scaffolding theory: Cambridge Press; 2023.
29. Patang H, Machmoed H, Nasmilah. Promoting autonomous language learners through lesson study program: Vigotsky's Social Constructivism perspective. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. 2020;3(4):572-81. doi: 10.34050/elsjish.v3i4.12338.
30. Schmitt N. Vocabulary learning strategies: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
31. Hessamy G, Ghaderi E. The role of dynamic assessment in the vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;98:645-52. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.463.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Narges Alimohammadi (Author); Neda Fatehi Rad; Mohammad Iman Askari (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
