The Comparative Effect of Dynamic and Negotiated Assessment on EFL learners’ Writing Complexity and Fluency

Shirin Sardarianpour, Sholeh Kolahi


The purpose of the present study was to investigate the comparative effect of dynamic and negotiated assessment on EFL learners’ writing complexity and fluency. To this end, 72 female intermediate EFL participants, selected from a larger group of 103 learners based on their performances on a piloted PET, in Tak language institute in Dezfoul, Iran participated in the present study and received either dynamic assessment, negotiated assessment, or traditional instruction during a term. Both of the experiments were process-oriented; however, in the dynamic assessment, the negotiation was done through teacher’s provision of feedback wherein the negotiated assessment group peer-negotiation was encouraged. The participants’ writing complexity and fluency were measured both before and after the instruction through essay writing pre-treatment test and posttest in accordance with Larsen-Freeman’s (2006) T-Unit protocol. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was run on the posttest scores to test the null hypotheses of the study, the results of which indicated that while dynamic assessment was significantly effective in improving writing complexity (p = 0.007 < 0.05), negotiated assessment yielded significantly better results in boosting writing fluency compared to the results obtained from both control (p = 0.000 < 0.05) and dynamic assessment groups (p = 0.042 < 0.05). Nevertheless, dynamic assessment did not show significantly better results in comparison to negotiated assessment in improving writing complexity (p = 0.084 > 0.05). Learners, teachers, and syllabus designers who are engaged in the process of language pedagogy may use these results. Depending on the focus of their learning, i.e., fluency or complexity, they may choose the optimal choice between these two types of assessment.


Dynamic Assessment, EFL Learners, Negotiated Assessment, Writing Complexity, Writing Fluency

Full Text:



Abbasi, A., & Fatemi, A. (2015). On the effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ acquisition of English tenses. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 8 (4), 222-236.

Ahmadi Safa, M., Donyaie, S., & Malek Mohammadi, R. (2015). An investigation into the effect of interactionist versus interventionist models of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ speaking skill proficiency. Teaching English Language, 9(2), 146-166.

Ahmadi, A., & Barabadi, E. (2014). Examining Iranian EFL Learners' Knowledge of Grammar through a Computerized Dynamic Test. Issues in Language Teaching, 3(2), 183-161.

Anderson, G., Boud, D., & J. Sampson, J. (1996). Learning contracts. London: Routledge Falmer.

Boud, D. (1992). The use of self-assessment schedules in negotiated learning. Studies in higher education, 17(2), 185-200.

Bull, S. (2016). Negotiated learner modelling to maintain today’s learner models. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 11(1), 10-18.

Day, T. (1999). The process of assessing social impacts in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. A discussion paper prepared for the Wet Tropics Management Authority to facilitate the development of guidelines for assessing social impacts. Cairns: James Cook University.

De Eça, M. T. T. P. (2005). Using portfolios for external assessment: An experiment in Portugal. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24(2), 209-218.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fatemi, M. A. (2008). The relationship between writing competence, language proficiency and grammatical errors in the writing of Iranian TEFL sophomores (Doctoral dissertation).Universitiy Sains Malaysia.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (2012). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 4(3), 465-466.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 52(3), 287-298.

Freed, B. (2000). Is fluency, like beauty, the eyes, of the beholder? In H. Riggenbach (ed.), Perspective on fluency (pp. 128-140). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gareis, C. (2006). Collaborative leadership: The forgotten art of formative assessment. Training and Technical Assistance Center newsletter, School of Education, College of William and Mary. Retrieved from

Gosling, D. (2000). Using Habermas to evaluate two approaches to negotiated assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (3), 293–304.

Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-86.

Hamavandi, M., Rezai, M. J., & Mazdayasna, G. (2017). Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness in the EFL context. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1324254.

Hapsari, A. S. (2011). The use of roundtable technique to improve students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text. Retrieved from

Haywood, H.C., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education,2 (4), 285-294.

Hilton, H. (2008). The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 153-166.

Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jafary, M. R., Nordin, N., & Mohajeri, R. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment versus static L/assessmenton syntactic development of Iranian college preparatory EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(7), 149-157.

Jahanbakhsh, A. A., & Ajideh, P. (2018). Changing the Learning Culture of Iranians: An Interplay between Method and Educational Policy. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(3), 1883 - 1904.

Khodashenas, M. R., & Rakhshi, F. (2017). The effect of electronic portfolio assessment on the writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(3), 67-77.

Koponen, M., & Riggenbach, H. (2000). Overview: Varying perspectives on fluency. In H. Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 5–24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33.

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

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4), 590-619.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Prediction or retrodiction? The coming together of research and teaching. In K. Losey & C. Pearson (Eds.), Spotlight on re-search: A new beginning. The selected proceedings of the 2008 MITESOL Conference (pp. 5-16). Raleigh, NC: Lulu.

Larson-Hall, J. (2012). Our statistical intuitions may be misleading us: Why we need robust statistics. Language Teaching, 45(2), 460-474. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000127.

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in second language acquisition, 22(4), 471-497.

Malmeer, E., & Zoghi, M. (2014). Dynamic Assessment of Grammar with Different Age Groups. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1707-1713.

McMahon, T. (2010). Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: Using action research to overcome students' reluctance to criticise. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 273-287.

Minaabad, M. S. (2017). Study of the Effect of Dynamic Assessment and Graphic Organizers on EFL Learners' Reading Comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 548-555.

Moghadam, M. Y., & Rad, N. S. S. (2015). On the Effect of Negotiated Metacognitive Assessments on Improving Listening Comprehension: A Case of Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(3), 212-218.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578.

Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590-601.

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

Polio, C. G. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of textbased studies. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). On second language writing (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (3rd ed.). London: Longman.

Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(2), 357-385.

Segalowitz, N. (2007). Access fluidity, attention control, and the acquisition of fluency in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 181-86.

Sharafi, M., & Abbasnasab Sardareh, S. (2016). The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL students’ L2 grammar learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(3), 102-120.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Indifferences in Second Language Learning. London Edward Arnold.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17(1) 38-62.

Tigelaar, D. E. H., & Tartwijk, J. van. (2010). The evaluation of prospective teachers in teacher education. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw, (eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 511- 517). Oxford: Elsevier.

Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Verberg, C. P., Tigelaar, D. E., & Verloop, N. (2015). Negotiated assessment and teacher learning: An in-depth exploration. Teaching and Teacher Education 49(2), 138-148.

Vercellotti, M. L. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency: The development of language performance. Paper presented at second language acquisition research symposium, English Language Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Waddell, C. A. (2004). The effect of negotiated written feedback within formative assessment on fourth-grade students motivation and goal orientations. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Missouri – Saint Louis.

Webb, M. (2010). Beginning teacher education and collaborative formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 597-618.

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

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, Hawai’i, University of Hawai’I at Manoa.

Xiaoxiao, L., & Yan, L. (2010). A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistic, 33(1), 24-40.

Zeng, D. (2005). The process-oriented approach to ESL/EFL writing instruction and research. M (5), 66-77.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.