SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

Mediational moves and reciprocity behaviors in face-to-face and mobile-assisted dynamic assessment

Murat Şükür(NIGDE OMER HALISDEMIR UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-1327-5703
Burçak Yılmaz Yakışık(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, YABANCI DİLLER YÜKSEKOKULU, YABANCI DİLLER YÜKSEKOKULU BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0001-5008-9988
Gonca Yangın Ekşi(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0003-3555-7258
Pages
423–453
Publication Date
2023-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that the interactions occurred between the mediator and the learner in F2F and MA contexts were generally carried out effectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Research on dynamic assessment (DA) has been conducted on the efficiency of either face-to-face (F2F) or mobile-assissted (MA) DA sessions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thus, this study aims to explore the differences between F2F and MA DA sessions in terms of the mediator’s mediational moves and learners’ reciprocity behaviors.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that the interactions occurred between the mediator and the learner in F2F and MA contexts were generally carried out effectively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dynamic assessment · mobile-assisted language learning · mediational moves

Abstract

Research on dynamic assessment (DA) has been conducted on the efficiency of either face-to-face (F2F) or mobile-assissted (MA) DA sessions. However, the studies investigating the difference between these sessions conducted in the foreign language learning context are scarce. Thus, this study aims to explore the differences between F2F and MA DA sessions in terms of the mediator’s mediational moves and learners’ reciprocity behaviors. To this end, F2F and MA DA sessions were held with four tertiary level learners. Then the mediational moves and reciprocity behaviors employed in these sessions were explored through qualitative descriptive analysis. The results showed that the interactions occurred between the mediator and the learner in F2F and MA contexts were generally carried out effectively. However, it is noteworthy that the learners made more inaccurate responses and used L1 more in F2F DA sessions. In contrast to this, the learners made more careful attempts in MA DA sessions. Moreover, the teacher as a mediator tended to give more approval to the learners’ responses to eliminate the disadvantage of restricted context of MA DA. In light of these findings, pedagogical implications were suggested for both language teachers and researchers.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şükür, M., Yakışık, B. Y., Ekşi, G. Y. (2023). Mediational moves and reciprocity behaviors in face-to-face and mobile-assisted dynamic assessment. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 423–453. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1172583

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University.
  2. Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.555330
  3. Andujar, A. (2020). Mobile-mediated dynamic assessment: A new perspective for second language development. ReCALL, 32(2), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000247
  4. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education. Pearson.
  5. Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44040
  6. Çakmak, F. (2019). Mobile learning and mobile assisted language learning in focus. Language and Technology, 1(1), 30-48.
  7. Çetin-Köroğlu, Z. (2019). Interventionist dynamic assessment's effects on speaking skills testing: Case of ELT teacher candidates. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 10(3), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.3p.23
  8. Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482934
  9. Ebadi, S. (2016). Mediation and reciprocity in online L2 dynamic assessment. CALL-EJ, 17(2), 16-40.
  10. Ebadi, S., & Latif, S. V. (2015). Dynamic assessment of EFL learners' listening comprehension via computerized concept mapping. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 29-41.
  11. Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362
  12. Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2016). Planning future instructional programs through computerized L2 dynamic assessment. Teaching English with Technology, 16(4), 12-32.
  13. Ebadi, S., Weisi, H., Monkaresi, H., & Bahramlou, K. (2018). Exploring lexical inferencing as a vocabulary acquisition strategy through computerized dynamic assessment and static assessment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 790-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1451344
  14. Hsu, L. (2013). English as a foreign language learners’ perception of mobile assisted language learning: A cross-national study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649485
  15. Kang, H. S. (2010). Negative evidence and its explicitness and positioning in the learning of Korean as a heritage language, The Modern Language Journal, 94(4), 582-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01093.x
  16. Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256.
  17. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1i1.647
  18. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328
  19. Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context, (pp. 99-116). Cambridge University.
  20. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
  21. Merzifonluoğlu, A., & Tulgar, A. T. (2022). Are digital technologies effective for the improvement of L2 vocabulary at tertiary level?. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 22(1). 56-72.
  22. Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research. 19(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
  23. Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 73-95.
  24. Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University.
  25. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Springer.
  26. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky's teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(4), 312-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030903338509
  27. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935
  28. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
  29. Rassaei, E. (2021). Implementing mobile-mediated dynamic assessment for teaching request forms to EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-31.
  30. Rezaee, A. A., Alavi, S. M., & Razzaghifard, P. (2019). The impact of mobile-based dynamic assessment on improving EFL oral accuracy. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3091-3105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09915-1
  31. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334-340.
  32. Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
  33. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  34. Siwathaworn, P., & Wudthayagorn, J. (2018). The impact of dynamic assessment on tertiary EFL students’ speaking skills. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 142-155.
  35. Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800302
  36. Tarighat, S., & Khodabakhsh, S. (2016). Mobile-assisted language assessment: Assessing speaking. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 409-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.014
  37. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University.
  38. Yılmaz-Yakışık, B. (2012). Dynamic assessment of ELT students’ speaking skills [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Gazi University.
  39. Yılmaz-Yakışık, B., & Çakır, A. (2017). Dynamic assessment of prospective English teachers’ speaking skills. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 22–53. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.260205