The Impacts of Assessment Modes and Personality Traits on Speaking Skills Development in Iranian EFL Learners Across Proficiency Levels
Keywords:
Dynamic assessment, extraversion, FTF-GDA, introversion, language proficiency, WB-GDAAbstract
This study investigates the effects of face-to-face group dynamic assessment (FTF-GDA) versus web-based group dynamic assessment (WB-GDA) on speaking proficiency among Iranian EFL learners, considering personality traits and proficiency levels. Grounded in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, a quantitative quasi-experimental design with pretest-posttest was employed, involving 170 learners (ages 16–18) selected via convenience sampling from Ariana Institutes in Rasht. Participants were divided into 12 experimental and 6 conventional groups, undergoing 15 treatment sessions with evaluations pre- and post-intervention. Analysis through three-way ANOVA indicated significant improvements in speaking proficiency for all groups. FTF-GDA particularly benefitted extroverted beginners, enhancing interactive dynamics, while WB-GDA suited introverted advanced learners by providing a self-paced environment. Conventional methods resulted in minor progress, notably among intermediate extroverts. These findings underscore the necessity of adapting dynamic assessment strategies to align with diverse learner profiles to enhance speaking proficiency, suggesting FTF for extroverted beginners and WB for introverted advanced learners. Pedagogically, EFL instructors should tailor GDA modalities—FTF for extroverted beginners and WB for introverted advanced learners—to optimize speaking proficiency based on personality and proficiency levels.
Downloads
References
1. Kazemi N, Tavassoli K. The Comparative Effect of Dynamic vs. Diagnostic Assessment on EFL Learners' Speaking Ability. DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). 2020. doi: 10.30486/relp.2019.1878561.1155.
2. Teferi H. Cultivating EFL learners' productive skills by employing dynamic and non-dynamic assessments: Attitude in focus. Language Testing in Asia. 2023;13(1):1-21. doi: 10.1186/s40468-023-00228-2.
3. Harahap DI, Uswar Y, Syafitri W, Agustina L, Sanjaya D. An investigation of dynamic assessment on EFL learners' speaking performance. World Journal of English Language. 2023;14(1):121. doi: 10.5430/wjel.v14n1p121.
4. Chen Y. Effects of technology-enhanced language learning on reducing EFL learners' public speaking anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2022;37(4):789-813. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2022.2055083.
5. Nardo A. Exploring a Vygotskian Theory of Education and Its Evolutionary Foundations. Educational Theory. 2021;71(3):331-52. doi: 10.1111/edth.12485.
6. Thomas L. Quasi-Experimental Design, Definition, Types & Examples. Scribbr, 2020.
7. Sarabi Asl S, Rashtchi M, Rezaie G. The effects of interactionist versus interventionist dynamic assessment models on Iranian EFL learners' speaking sub-skills: A mixed-method study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. 2024;9(1):1-25. doi: 10.1186/s40862-023-00237-x.
8. Rezai A, Ashkani P, Ismail SM. Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2023;52(5):1345-70. doi: 10.1007/s10936-023-09934-7.
9. Siwathaworn P, Wudthayagorn J. The impact of dynamic assessment on tertiary EFL students' speaking skills. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2018;5(1):142-55.
10. Ghahderijani BH, Namaziandost E, Tavakoli M, Kumar T, Magizov R. The comparative effect of group dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized dynamic assessment on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners' speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Language Testing in Asia. 2021;12(32):1-20. doi: 10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3.
11. Rezai A, Naserpour A, Rahimi S. Online peer-dynamic assessment: an approach to boosting Iranian high school students' writing skills: a mixed-methods study. Interactive Learning Environments. 2024;32(1):306-24. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2086575.
12. Zhang C, Meng Y, Ma X. Artificial intelligence in EFL speaking: Impact on enjoyment, anxiety, and willingness to communicate. System. 2024;121:103259. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2024.103259.
13. Ebadi S, Velayati S, Ramezanzadeh A, Salman AR. Exploring the impact of AI-powered speaking tasks on EFL learners' speaking performance and anxiety: An activity theory study. Acta Psychologica. 2025;259:105391. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105391.
14. Ballıdağ M, Aydın S. A Comparison of the Effects of AI‐based Chatbots and Peer Interactions on Speaking Anxiety Among EFL Learners. Future in Educational Research. 2025;3(2):224-38. doi: 10.1002/fer3.70005.
15. Qanwal S, Ghani M. Relationship between Introversion/Extroversion personality trait and proficiency in ESL writing skills. International Journal of English Linguistics. 2019;9(4):107. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v9n4p107.
16. Hanafi M, Afghari A, Koosha M. The role of HEXACO personality traits in predicting the speaking ability of male and female EFL learners. Iranian journal of Learning and Memory. 2019;2(5):7-17.
17. Ritonga M, Farhangi F, Ajanil B, Farid Khafaga A. Interventionist vs. Interactionist models of dynamic assessment (DA) in the EFL classroom: Impacts on speaking accuracy and fluency (SAF), foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA), and foreign language learning motivation (FLLM). Language Testing in Asia. 2022;12(1):1-21. doi: 10.1186/s40468-022-00195-0.
18. Şükür M, Yakişik BY, Ekşi GY. Mediational moves and reciprocity behaviors in face-to-face and mobile-assisted dynamic assessment. Kuramsal Eğitim Bilim Dergisi. 2023;16(2):423-53. doi: 10.30831/akukeg.1172583.
19. Fathi A, Aslrasouli M, Kuhi D. The Effects of Web-based Dynamic Assessment on Grammatical Accuracy and Autonomy of Iranian EFL Learners and Their Attitudes to Web-based Dynamic Assessment. Issues in Language Teaching. 2023;12(1):205-36. doi: 10.22054/ilt.2023.67266.688.
20. Fakhri Alamdari E, Hosnbakhshan L. The dilemma of metacognitive intervention and EFL listening: Is L1 a panacea in EFL contexts? Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching. 2023;1(1):18-33.
21. Ulum ÖG. Syrian lives matter in an EFL speaking class: An interdisciplinary approach to language, culture, and social justice. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2025;160:105040. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2025.105040.
22. Miller CJ, Smith SN, Pugatch M. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs in implementation research. Psychiatry Research. 2020;283:112452. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.027.
23. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach: London: SAGE Publications; 2018.
24. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches: SAGE Publications; 2018.
25. Best JW, Kahn JV. Research in Education: Pearson; 2005.
26. Eysenck SB, Eysenck HJ. Eysenck Personality Scales, Adult (EPS). In British Psychological Society eBooks. 2003. doi: 10.53841/bpstest.2003.epsa.
27. Latham-Koenig C, Oxenden C, Seligson P, Lowy A, Mabbott K. American English File Series: Oxford University Press; 2021.
28. Pollitt A. Using Professional Judgement to Equate Exam Standards. 2017.
29. Murphy N, Messer D. Differential Benefits from Scaffolding and Children Working Alone. Educational Psychology. 2000;20(1):17-31. doi: 10.1080/014434100110353.
30. Ahmadi Safa M, Beheshti S. Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 2018;6(3 (Special Issue)):37-56. doi: 10.30466/ijltr.2018.120600.
31. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2018.
32. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education: Routledge; 2017.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Samaneh Safarpour (Author); Davood Mashhadi Heidar; Ramin Rahimy (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
