Enhancing Feedback Literacy in EFL Writing: Exploring the Impact of Interactionist Dynamic Assessment

Year 2025, Volume: 25 Issue: 3, 1609 - 1627, 15.09.2025

Elif Sarı

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2025..-1564394

Abstract

The study examined the effects of interactionist dynamic assessment on EFL learners' feedback literacy in writing, comparing it with traditional written corrective feedback. It also explored learners' perceptions of this assessment approach. Using a quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test design, the study collected both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were gathered through the Feedback Literacy Scale to address the first research question regarding the impact of interactionist dynamic assessment on feedback literacy. Qualitative data were obtained from interviews to address the second research question concerning learners' perceptions of interactionist dynamic assessment. The findings indicated that interactionist dynamic assessment was more effective than written corrective feedback in enhancing students' feedback literacy. Learners reported predominantly positive experiences with interactionist dynamic assessment, noting improved understanding, increased motivation, a heightened awareness of errors, and a sense of being valued through individualized learning opportunities. Consequently, EFL teachers are encouraged to incorporate interactionist dynamic assessment into their writing classes to enhance the feedback process, improve student feedback uptake, and foster better teacher-student interactions.

Keywords

Interactionist dynamic assessment , Written corrective feedback , Feedback literacy , EFL writing , Student perceptions

Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Yazma Eğitiminde Geri Bildirim Okuryazarlığının Artırılması: Etkileşimli Dinamik Değerlendirmenin Etkisini İnceleme

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, diyalojik bir geri bildirim uygulaması olan dinamik değerlendirmenin İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin yazma geri bildirim okuryazarlığı üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Ayrıca, öğrencilerin bu değerlendirme yaklaşımına ilişkin algıları da araştırılmıştır. Yarı-deneysel ön test-son test deseni kullanılarak hem nicel hem de nitel veriler toplanmıştır. İlk araştırma sorusuna, yani etkileşimli dinamik değerlendirmenin geri bildirim okuryazarlığı üzerindeki etkisine yanıt bulmak için Geri Bildirim Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği aracılığıyla nicel veriler elde edilmiştir. İkinci araştırma sorusuna, yani öğrencilerin etkileşimli dinamik değerlendirmeye yönelik algılarına yönelik nitel veriler ise görüşmeler yoluyla toplanmıştır. Bulgular, etkileşimli dinamik değerlendirmenin öğrencilerin geri bildirim okuryazarlığını geliştirmede yazılı düzeltici geri bildirime göre daha etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Öğrenciler, etkileşimli dinamik değerlendirme ile ilgili genel olarak olumlu deneyimler yaşadıklarını ve bu yaklaşımın anlamalarını geliştirdiğini, motivasyonlarını artırdığını, hataların farkındalığını güçlendirdiğini ve bireyselleştirilmiş öğrenme fırsatlarıyla kendilerini değerli hissettiklerini belirtmişlerdir. Sonuç olarak, İngilizce öğretmenlerine yazma derslerinde geri bildirim sürecini geliştirmek, öğrencilerin geri bildirimi daha iyi anlamasını sağlamak ve öğretmen-öğrenci etkileşimlerini güçlendirmek için etkileşimli dinamik değerlendirmeyi derslerine dâhil etmeleri tavsiye edilmektedir.

Keywords

Etkileşimli dinamik değerlendirme , Yazılı düzeltici geri bildirim , Geri bildirim okuryazarlığı , Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce yazma , Öğrenci algıları

References

• Afshari, H., Amirian, Z., & Tavakoli, M. (2020). Applying group dynamic assessment procedures to support EFL writing development: Learner achievement, learners' and teachers' perceptions. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.02
• Askew, S. & Lodge, C. (2000) 'Gifts, ping-pong, and loops - linking feedback and learning'. In S. Askew (Ed.), Feedback for learning (pp. 1-17), Routledge.
• Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043
• Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2023). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
• Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.
• Carless, D. (2015). Exploring learning-oriented assessment processes. Higher Education, 69, 963-976. https://10.1007/s10734-014-9816-z
• Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143-153. http://10.1177/1469787420945845
• Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
• Ducasse, A. M., and K. Hill. (2019). Developing student feedback literacy using educational technology and the reflective feedback conversation. Practitioner Research in Higher Education Journal, 12(1), 24–37.
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple-guide and reference (10th Ed.). Pearson.
• Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2020). The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 680–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1689545
• Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Hill, J., & West, H. (2020). Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1608908
• Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 173–182.
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
• Hoo, H. T., Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2022). Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1925871
• Kushki, A., Rahimi, M., & Davin, K. J. (2022). Dynamic assessment of argumentative writing: Mediating task response. Assessing Writing, 52, 100606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100606
• Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005569
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49–74. https:// 10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
• 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.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
• Leung, C. (2020). Learning-oriented assessment: More than the chalkface. In M. E. Poehner, & O. Inbar-Lourie (Eds.), Toward a reconceptualization of second language classroom assessment (1st ed., pp. 85–106). Springer.
• Lidz, C.S. and B. Gindis. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S.Ageyev, and S.M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 1–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Little, T., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Tai, J. (2024). Can students’ feedback literacy be improved? A scoping review of interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2177613
• Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2022). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: Mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(7), 908–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784
• Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
• Nassaji, H., Kushki, A., & Rahimi, M. (2020). The differential diagnostic affordances of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment for L2 argumentative writing. Language & Sociocultural Theory, 7(2), 151–175.
• Oxford Placement Test (OPT). (2024). https://elt.oup.com/feature/global/oxford-online-placement
• Özturan, T., & Gürdal, H. H. U. (2022). Mediating multilingual immigrant learners’ L2 writing through interactive dynamic assessment. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 15(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1004155
• Özturan, T., & Gürdal, H. H. U. (2023). Dynamic assessment as a learning-oriented assessment approach. In Handbook of research on perspectives in foreign language assessment (pp. 89–103). IGI Global.
• Özturan, T., Uysal, H. H., & Shrestha, P. N. (2023). An investigation into EFL learners’ perspectives towards dynamic assessment. In Innovation in learning-oriented language assessment (pp. 63–79). Springer International Publishing.
• Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. McGrow-Hill.
• Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: l2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00583.x
• Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2015). Mediated development: Inter-psychological activity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 161–183.
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.308
• Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2019). Mediated development and the internalization of psychological tools in second language (L2) education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 22, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.100322
• 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
• Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337–357. Pollitt, A. (n.d.). The Oxford Placement Test: The meaning of Oxford Placement Test scores. https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/elt/feature/assessment/oxford-placement-test-what-does-it- measure.pdf?cc=de&selLanguage=en&- mode=hub
• Rad, H. S., Alipour, R., & Jafarpour, A. (2023). Using artificial intelligence to foster students’ writing feedback literacy, engagement, and outcome: A case of Wordtune application. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5020–5040. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208170
• Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185–208.
• Randall, T. S., & Urbanski, K. (2023). Development of a Computerized Dynamic Assessment Program for Second Language Grammar Instruction and Assessment. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 10(1), 50-81. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst. 21006.
• Shrestha, P. N. (2020). Dynamic assessment of academic writing and its future in higher education. In P. N.Shrestha (Ed.), Dynamic assessment of students' academic writing (pp. 231–246). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3- 030- 55845 - 1
• Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.647781
• Tang, Y., & Ma, X. (2023). An interventionist dynamic assessment approach to college English writing in China. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2022.2155165
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
• Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Routledge.
• Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
• Wood, J. (2021). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1173-1190.
• Xian, L. (2020). The effectiveness of dynamic assessment in linguistic accuracy in EFL writing: An investigation assisted by online scoring systems. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 18, 98–114.
• Yıldız, H., Bozpolat, E., & Hazar, E. (2022). Feedback literacy scale: A study of validation and reliability. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 7(19), 2214–2249. http://dx.doi.org/10.35826/ijoecc.624
• Yu, S., & Liu, C. (2021). Improving student feedback literacy in academic writing: An evidence-based framework. Assessing Writing, 48, 100525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100525
• Yu, L., & Poehner, M. E. (2023). Developing L2 writing abilities through an instructional enrichment program informed by dynamic assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 101013.
• Yu, S., Zhang, E. D., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53, 100643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100643.
• Zhang, E., Liu, C., & Yu, S. (2024). The impact of a feedback intervention on university students’ second language writing feedback literacy. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(3), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2254275