The Comparative Effect of Dynamic and Negotiated Assessment on EFL Learners' Writing Complexity and Fluency - Research Article

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Cart

This study compares dynamic assessment and negotiated assessment on EFL learners’ writing complexity and fluency. Seventy-two female intermediate learners participated for one term and received either dynamic assessment, negotiated assessment, or traditional instruction. Both experimental approaches were process-oriented, with feedback as the key mediation in dynamic assessment and encouraged peer negotiation in negotiated assessment. Writing performance was measured pre- and post-instruction using an essay-based T-Unit protocol. MANOVA results showed dynamic assessment improved complexity, while negotiated assessment produced significantly higher fluency than both control and dynamic assessment groups.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Writing as a core language skill

Components of writing proficiency (CAF)

Static vs. dynamic assessment

Definitions of dynamic and negotiated assessment

Advances in Language and Literary Studies ISSN: 2203-4714 [www.alls.aiac.org.au](www.alls.aiac.org.au) | The Comparative Effect of Dynamic and Negotiated Assessment on EFL learners’Writing Complexity and Fluency
Shirin Sardarianpour, Sholeh Kolahi*
Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Iran Corresponding Author: Sholeh Kolahi, E-mail: [shkolahi@gmail.com](shkolahi@gmail.com) | | | --- | --- | | ARTICLE INFO | ABSTRACT
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. | | Article history
Received: January 21, 2021
Accepted: March 07, 2021
Published: April 30, 2021
Volume: 12 Issue: 2
Advance access: April 2021 | | | Conflicts of interest: None
Funding: None | | | Key words:
Dynamic Assessment, EFL Learners, Negotiated Assessment, Writing Complexity,
Writing Fluency | | INTRODUCTION Writing is one of the important skills in the process of learning a second or foreign language and Hapsari (2011) says that writing is generally known as the most difficult of the four skills. The difficulty is seen in generating and organizing ideas and the mastery of the different aspects of writing such as grammar, spelling, word choice, punctuation, and so on. In addition, writing is an inseparable part of any language learning process as Adam (2003) argued that written production and feedback are very important in every language learning process. Feedback is used to express an idea or reflection of an individual’s performance (Mackey, Gass & McDonough, 2000) . Researchers in the area of second/ foreign language learning (Ellis, 2008; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 2009; Norris & Ortega, 2009) are now in agreement that L2 proficiency, in general, and writing proficiency, in particular, are multi-componential in nature, and that their principal dimensions can be adequately, and comprehensively, captured by the notions of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF)(Housen & Kuiken, 2009) . While the traditional methods of assessment usually focused on the accuracy of the writing, the distinction between these three components of writing was made in the late 1980s. Complexity was added in the 1990s, following Skehan (1989) who

FAQs

What was the main purpose of the study?

To investigate the comparative effect of dynamic and negotiated assessment on EFL learners’ writing complexity and fluency.

How were the two experimental assessment types implemented?

Dynamic assessment used teacher-provided feedback as mediation, while negotiated assessment encouraged peer negotiation within a negotiated process.

What did the results show about writing complexity and fluency?

Dynamic assessment significantly improved writing complexity, whereas negotiated assessment produced significantly better writing fluency than both traditional instruction and dynamic assessment.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Cart