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) 52:1345–1370
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-09934-7
Effects of Group‑Dynamic Assessment and Process‑Based

Instruction on EFL Learners’ Metacognitive Awareness
and Listening Comprehension: A Mixed‑Methods Inquiry
Afsheen Rezai1 · Parisa Ashkani2 · Sayed M. Ismail3
Accepted: 26 December 2022 / Published online: 18 January 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023
Abstract
Although a range of studies has explored the effectiveness of group-dynamic assessment
(G-DA) and process-based instruction (PBI) in second language (L2) learning, no study
has compared the effects of G-DA and PBI on EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness
(MA) and listening comprehension (LC). Thus, this study aimed to explore the effects of
G-DA and PBI on fostering EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening
comprehension (LC) in Iran. For this purpose, a total of one hundred and sixty interme-
diate EFL learners were selected through a convenience sampling method at Iran Lan-
guage Institute (ILI) and were homogenized using the Key English Test (KET). The EFL
learners whose scores fell around the mean score were chosen and randomly allocated as
G-DA group (n = 30), PBI group (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). Afterward, they went
through a pre-test, interventions (lasting 16 one-hour sessions held twice a week) and a
post-test. The interactions in the classes were also meticulously recorded. The collected
data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and a microgenetic development approach.
Findings evidenced that the G-DA group and PBI group outperformed the control group
concerning the gains in MA and LC. However, the findings evidenced that G-DA was more
effective than PBI to foster the EFL learners’ MA and LC. Additionally, the complemen-
tary qualitative results documented that the proper feedback offered in line with the princi-
ples and procedures of G-DA and PBI contributed to developing the participants’ MA and
LC. The study ends by offering some implications for the relevant stakeholders.
Keywords Group-dynamic assessment · Process-based Instruction · Metacognitive

awareness · Listening comprehension · A mixed-methods design · EFL learners
Abbreviations
G-DA Group-dynamic assessment
PBI Process-based instruction
LC Listening comprehension
MA Metacognitive awareness
* Afsheen Rezai
afsheen.rezai@abru.ac.ir
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1346 Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2023) 52:1345–1370
KET Key English test

SCT Sociocultural theory
Introduction
Different learning theories have proposed different views toward human learning. One of
these influential learning theories is sociocultural theory (SCT). It is predicated on the
assumption that development occurs as learners are actively involved in dialogic interac-
tions. One of the pedagogical approached built on the tenets of SCT is dynamic assess-
ment (DA) (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). DA emphasizes the integration of assessment and
instruction, aiming at recognizing the fully-developed abilities and underdeveloped abili-
ties. It other words, DA, teachers try to maximize the effectiveness of the instruction by
considering students’ zone of proximal development (ZPD). It is construed as “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through adult guidance or in collabora-
tion with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). From this perspective, learning
is fundamentally a social activity in which learners constantly engage in dialogic interac-
tions to acquire, internalize, and self-regulate teach (Rezai et al., 2022). Thus, by providing
ZPD-sensitive mediations, a teacher can help students perform beyond their present level
of independent functioning (Vygotsky, 1986). However, DA has been criticized on the
ground that it is particularly suitable for one-to-one interaction. As Poehner (2009) states,
this issue has presented itself as a challenge in the implementation of DA in L2 classrooms.
Hence, a whole-class ZPD should be considered in which teachers and students jointly co-
construct knowledge—what Poehner (2009) termed Group-Dynamic Assessment (G-DA).
That is, teachers attune their mediations to the whole group’s ZPDs.
One of teaching approaches that has received huge attention over the last decades is
process-based instruction (PBI) (Ashman & Conway, 1989, 2017). It encourages L2 learn-
ers to design “plans and revise those plans as learning needs change” (Hay, 2000; p. 2).
PBI has been built on the assumptions of three lines of educational thinking: educational
psychology, social psychology, and cognitive psychology. The educational psychology
emphasizing planning and coding in learning (Das et al., 2013). The social psychology
prioritizing the significance of positive classroom climate (Fraser, 1986). And, the cogni-
tive psychology underscoring self-instruction to promote retention and recall of informa-
tion (Hughes & Hall, 1989). In a sense, self-instruction adopted the perspectives of cogni-
tive constructivists, positing that “learners actively select, organize, and integrate incoming
experiences and knowledge with existing knowledge and that this processing involves
problem-solving and reflection” (Hay, 2000, p. 2). In PBI, the primary focus is on the pro-
cesses leading to the final product.
Listening comprehension (LC) has always been a demanding skill for L2 learners. To
help L2 learners with the complex processes of LC, strategy instruction has been always
emphasized (Mahdavi & Miri, 2019; Mendelsohn & Rubin, 1995). The primary reason for
this emphasis is to make L2 learners be able to use strategies and control the comprehen-
sion processes over time and across contexts (Goh & Hu, 2014). Additionally, L2 listen-
ing instruction has witnessed a radical shift from the product-oriented view of comprehen-
sion with a significant focus on a thorough understanding of the listening text toward the
cognitive-process view of comprehension, which mainly focuses around instructing strate-
gies and developing L2 learners’ knowledge about this (Bermillo & Aradilla, 2022; Cross,
13
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2023) 52:1345–1370 1347
2015; Goh, 2008, 2018; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).
From the process-oriented instruction, it is assumed that developing metacognitive aware-
ness (MC) is necessary to make the way for L2 learners to self-control their LC through
orchestrating appropriate strategies (Cross, 2015; Goh, 2008, 2018; Vandergrift & Goh,
2012; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).
Given the importance of MA and LC for L2 learners, it is essential to conduct exper-
imental studies to disclose if new approaches in L2 instruction, such as G-DA and PBI
significantly contribute to their development. In spite of this urgent call, it is interesting
to note that to date, no study has explored the contributions of G-DA and PBI to devel-
oping L2 learners’ MA and LC concurrently in the EFL context of Iran. Therefore, the
present study aimed at disclosing the contributions of G-DA and PBI to fostering Iranian
EFL learners’ MA and LC from quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It is hoped that
the findings of the present study can further the understanding of EFL teachers of the pro-
cesses leading to improved MA and LC.
Literature Review
Group Dynamic Assessment
One of the most influential theories in the literature of applied linguistics has been SCT
(Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). Rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) studies of human mental develop-
ment, it considers human learning as a dynamic social activity. SCT maintains that an indi-
vidual’s cognition is socially formed and higher mental abilities are mediated by tools and
signs or, to use Vygotsky’s word, “cultural artifacts.” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). In other
words, Vygotsky (1978) posits that higher mental abilities are mediated through social
interactions with the help of physical and symbolic artifacts. One of the pedagogical appli-
cations of SCT for education, in general and second language education, in particular has
been dynamic assessment (DA) (Lantolf, 2004). DA is predicated on the assumption that
instruction and assessment can be integrated into one learning activity in which teachers
scaffold students through mediations. (Abdolrezapour, 2017; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014). As
underscored by Poehner and Wang (2021), through contingent mediations in dialogic inter-
actions, students can co-construct the required knowledge to mediate their thoughts and the
surrounding environment. In the literature, three prominent features have been highlighted
for DA: including assessing the fully-developed abilities and under-developed abilities,
identifying effective teaching strategies, and guiding students’ needs (Rezai et al., 2022). It
can be defined as “process-oriented approach in which assessment and learning are consid-
ered as integrally connected rather than separate” (p. 99). In contrast to static assessment, it
is an instructional approach which is “process-concerned, future-oriented, interactive, and
ZPD-sensitive instruction” (Ghahderijani et al., 2021).
DA rests on some key concepts, including scaffolding, ZPD, and mediation. Scaffold-
ing is perceived as the help given to students to accomplish a learning tasks which beyond
their present learning capabilities (Poehner & Yu, 2021). Upon being able to control the
learning task independently, teachers withdraw gradually their support. ZPD, as defined
by Vygotsky (1978), is “the difference between actual developmental levels as indicated
by autonomous problem-solving and prospective developmental levels as indicated by
problem-solving under adult helps or in cooperation with more competent peer” (p. 86).
He adds that there are three types of zones for development. The first zone includes the
13
abilities that students can do independently. The second zone entails the abilities that stu-
dents can accomplish if they be scaffolded by capable peers. The third zone consists of the
abilities that cannot be performed even by being scaffolded by capable peers. Mediation
refers to the assistance provided to students in the form of questioning look, pause, ques-
tion, hints, and explanations to help them co-build knowledge. Lantolf and Poehner (2014)
stress that to make mediations effective, they should be offered from implicit to explicit.
That is, if implicit mediations do not work, the explicit ones are offered.
Despite this robust theoretical underpinnings, DA has received a mass of criticism
around the world due to its inapplicability in large classes (Ghahderijani et al., 2021;
Mowla et al., 2017; Rezai, et al., 2022). This limitation encouraged Poehner (2009) to intro-
duce G-DA as an alternative approach. He posits that based on the conceptualization ZPD
(Vygotsky, 1987) and group (Petrovsky, 1985), it is plausible to co-build a group’s ZPD
by offering contingent and congruent mediations. He opines that if a group be scaffolded
appropriately, both primary interactants and secondary interactants can be beneficiary. That
is, as a teacher acaffolded a student to accomplish the learning activity in hand, they both
are considered as primary interactants. However, as the other students are exposed to the
interaction perceived as secondary interactants. Poehner (2009) maintains that G-DA can
be implemented in the form of concurrent or cumulative. In the case of the former, as the
addressed student cannot respond to the teacher’s prompts, the interactions is directed to a
secondary interactant. This procedure continues until the problem is selected and rectified.
In contrast, in the cumulative-G-DA, the teacher scaffolds the addressed student so much
so that he/she could take control of the learning task in hand. To put it simply, “concurrent
GDA is to promote each individual by working within the group’s ZPD but cumulative
GDA promotes the group through co-constructing individuals’ ZPDs” (Poehner, 2009, p.
476). It should be mentioned that both approaches were employed in this study.
Process‑Based Instruction in L2 Learning
In recent years, PBI has received noticeable attention (Graham & Sandmel, 2011; Gua
et al., 2021; Mahdavi & Miri, 2019). As defined by Silva and Matsuda (2001), PBI is con-
strued as a teaching approach focusing on the learning processes to pave the ground for L2
learners to plan their own voices, determine their own topics, monitor their own learning,
and evaluate their own achievement. In simple terms, as Nordin and Mohammad (2017),
it focuses on the processes of learning rather than the final product. In PBI, L2 learners
go through a cycle of three-phase processes. In the first phase, planning, they are encour-
aged to generate ideas, organize and set their goals. In the second phase, generating, they
produce some pieces of L2. In the third phase, reviewing, they review and revise their pro-
duction (Gua et al., 2021). Of particular note is that instead of being linear in time, these
processes have a complex and recursive nature (Flower & Hayes, 1981).
Some advantages have been highlighted for PBI in the literature. First, it encourages
and guides L2 learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate which are of paramount importance
to gain a correct understanding of the learning processes (Guo et al., 2021; Rijlaarsdam
& Van den Bergh, 2006). Second, it can meet L2 learners’ needs and bolster their perfor-
mances (Graham & Sandmel, 2011). Due to its emphasis on responsibility, personal atten-
tion, and cooperation, it enhances L2 learners’ motivation (Graham & Sandmel, 2011). On
the other side of the coin, according to Sharp (2016), there are some disadvantages with
PBI. For example, it sticks to a prescribed process and is narrow, inflexible, and rigid.
13
Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in L2 Learning
Three types of listening instruction have been identified: text-oriented, communication-

oriented, and learner-oriented (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Metacognition is germane
to the learner-oriented listening instruction. Using PBI, L2 learners are trained on how
to listen in this approach. One of the best ways to equip L2 learners to take control
of the complexities of LC is metacognitive instruction (Goh, 2008). It is perceived
as a process-based approach implemented to make L2 learners aware of the learning
processes and the ways to facilitate them to reach the utmost incomes. According to
Flavell (1976), it is defined as:
“one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or any-
thing related to them. Metacognition refers, among other things, to active moni-
toring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation
to the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of some
concrete goal or objective.” (p. 232).
Put it simply, it is ‘thinking about thinking’. Additionally, Flavell (1976) draw a
distinction between metacognitive knowledge (or awareness) and metacognitive regu-
lation (or control). The former refers to the dimensions of knowledge concerned with
cognitive factors and often consists of three variables: person, task, and strategy. As
noted by Goh and Taib (2006), as learners strengthen these three aspects, they can
effectively evaluate their learning and choose the appropriate strategies to bolster
their performances. In contrast, the latter affords L2 learners to have conscious con-
trol over their listening process through active planning, monitoring, problem-solving,
and evaluation. The previous studies (e.g., Goh, 2018; Mahdavi & Miri, 2019; Pei &
Suwanthep, 2021) demonstrated the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy instruction
in improving LC.
Significance of L2 Listening Comprehension
LC is viewed as the heart of L2 learning, because the development of other skills is

tightly entangled with it (Rost, 2002; Vandergrift, 2003). After demonstrating the cru-
cial role of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), LC was put at the heart of learning
activities in the classroom. It was widely assumed that if L2 learners received enough
comprehensible input, L2 development would occur. More recently, the researchers
have evidenced that the mere exposure to comprehensible input is not enough. What is
important is how L2 learners process the input they receive (Mahdavi & Miri, 2019).
In a sense, the primarily attention has shifted to the challenges and the strategies
employed by L2 learners to resolve these challenges (Cross, 2011). LC is perceived
demanding for L2 learners because they have to focus on the processes, leading to
comprehending the input to which they are exposed. By the same token, a major part
of this difficulty lies in the fact that L2 learners need to consider linguistic and non-
linguistic factors and interpret the incoming input quickly (Buck, 2001). One possible
reason for L2 learners’ inability to overcome these challenges may be ascribed to the
pedagogical activities focusing on the product rather than the process of LC. One solu-
tion to mitigate this thorny situation is adopting teaching approaches, such as G-DA
and PBI (Mahdavi & Miri, 2019).
13
Effects of DA and PBI on L2 Listening Comprehension and Metacognitive Awareness
A mass of studies has inspected the effects of DA approaches (i.e., one-on-one DA,
G-DA, and computerized-DA) and PBI on L2 learners’ LC. A range of them is criti-
cally reviewed to pave the ground for the present study. Ableeva (2010) scrutinized the
impact of DA on fostering French learners’ LC in the U.S.A. The results of the microge-
netic development approach supported the efficiency of DA in raising the participants’
French LC because the ZPD-sensitive mediations let both recognition of the actual level
of abilities and the potential level of listening development. In addition, Alavi et al.
(2012) examined the applicability of G-DA on boosting Iranian EFL learners’ LC in a
qualitative study. The results of the microgenetic development analysis disclosed how
collective scaffolding paved the ground for the EFL learners to pool their cognitive and
linguistic resources to take control of the listening tasks in hand. Moreover, the effec-
tiveness of DA and schema theory in bolstering EFL learners’ LC was compared by Far-
angi and Kheradmand Saadi (2017) in Iran. Their findings demonstrated that whereas
DA and schema theory approach exerted positive effects on the participants’ LC, the
participants instructed based on the tenets of schema theory gained much better scores
on the post-test. Besides, Khodabakhsh et al. (2018) explored the effects the interaction-
ist DA and the interventionist DA on improving Iranian EFL learners’ language aware-
ness and metacognitive strategy use. Their findings both DA approaches led to improv-
ing the EFL learners’ learners’ language awareness and metacognitive strategy use.
Additionally, Barabadi et al. (2018) studied the effects of interventionist and interaction-
ist DA on improving Iranian EFL learners’ LC. They unveiled that the approaches were
useful to foster the participants’ LC. Further, the applicability of interventionist and
interactionist G-DA approaches in boosting EFL learners’ LC was explored by Ahmadi
Safa and Beheshti (2018) in Iran. The results indicated that while both approaches sig-
nificantly developed the participants’ LC, the interactionist G-DA group outperformed
the interventionist G-DA group. Finally, the effects of computerized-DA on improving
Iranian TOEFL candidates’ LC were inspected by Pileh Roud and Hidri (2021). They
uncovered that computerized-DA significantly contributed to improving their partici-
pants’ control of dialogue and monologue tasks.
Concerning the effects of PBI on L2 learners’ LC and MA, Li and Liu (2008)
inspected the impact of strategy-based instruction on EFL learners’ LC in China. They
found that the intervention significantly enhanced the EFL learners’ LC. Moreover, Ai-
hua (2013) carried out a study to look into the effects PBI on Taiwanese EFL learners’
perceived listening problems. Their results advocated the effectiveness of the instruc-
tion on the EFL learners’ perceived listening problems such that they became aware of
rapid speech, unfamiliar vocabulary, and linking sounds between words. Plus, Moradian
and Kogani Baharvand (2017) explored the potential of PBI in developing Iranian EFL
learners’ MA and LC. They uncovered that the participants’ EFL learners’ MA and LC
significantly developed owing to the positive effects of the instruction. Likewise, the
impact of metacognitive PBI and Iranian EFL learners’ LC and MA was investigated by
Maftoon et al. (2020). Their findings disclosed the instruction played a positive role in
developing the EFL learners’ LC and MA. Finally, Bermillo and Aradilla (2022) scru-
tinized the potential of PBI in cultivating L2 learners’ LC and MA. Their findings sup-
ported the potential of the intervention in cultivating the learners’ LC and MA.
The review above indicates that the studies suffered from two limitations. First, there
has been a lack of study to explore the contributions of G-DA and PBI to MA and L2
13
LC concurrently. Second, they have not looked into the contributions of G-DA and PBI
to MA and L2 LC from quantitative and qualitative perspectives. To respond to this
lacuna, this study aimed at disclosing the contributions of G-DA and PBI to develop-
ing MA and LC from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It is hoped that the
gained results can further our understanding of the processes involved in the develop-
ment MA and LC. Further, the findings can be beneficial for pertinent stakeholders to
pave the way for improving EFL learners’ MA and LC. In line with these objectives, the
following research questions were explored:
RQ1Does group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction significantly foster

Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension?
RQ2Does group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction significantly foster
Iranian EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness?
RQ3How do group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction improve Iranian
EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension?
Research Method
Research Design
The researchers adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to conduct the

present study. That is, quantitative findings were complemented by qualitative findings.
The primary reason for choosing this kind of mixed-methods design was to reach trian-
gulation. As underscored by Riazi (2016), triangulation is a useful strategy to delve into
the different perspectives of a research topic using different data collection approaches. To
meet this purpose, the researchers implemented a true-quasi experimental design for the
quantitative part and adopted a microgenetic development approach for the qualitative part.
Overall, the researchers implemented the mixed-methods design to disclose the effects of
G-DA and PBI on fostering Iranian EFL learners’ LC and MA.
Setting and Participants
The researchers conducted this research at the setting of Iran Language Institute (ILI) in
Khorramabad City, Iran. It is a non-profit language institute with lots of branches across
the country. The researchers selected intermediate EFL leaners (n = 160) using a conven-
ience sampling method. Considered as a type of non-probability sampling method, it is
used to select the participants from a population easy to reach or contact (Riazi, 2016).
Due to the single-gender education system in Iran, the participants were all females and
their ages ranged from 15 to 25. They were attending their classes four hours per week and
were leaning English as a foreign language, where their opportunities to converse in Eng-
lish was confined to inside of the institute. To homogenize the participants, the researchers
administered Key English Test (KET) and the participants whose scores fell around the
mean score were selected. Then, they were randomly assigned to G-DA group (n = 30),
PBI (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). It is worth noting that the first researcher gained
the consent of the principal of ILI and the willing EFL learners signed a written consent
form (in Persian). The researchers announced that participation in the study was voluntary
and the participants were free to withdraw from the study as they wished. Moreover, they
13
assured confidentiality of the participants’ performances during the study and ensured to
inform the participants about the final findings. The first researcher who had a comprehen-
sive understanding of the research topic ran the interventions. The present study was moni-
tored and confirmed by the committee for ethics in research at Ayatollah Ozma University
Borujerdi.
Instruments
The researchers employed some data gathering instruments in this study. The first instru-
ment included KET employed to homogenize the participants in terms of language profi-
ciency. Due to logistical limitations, its reading and writing parts were administered. The
reading part includes thirty items and test-takers need to read different kinds of texts, such
as brochures, signs, magazines, and newspapers and answer follow-up questions in multi-
ple-choice. And, the writing part comprises two writing tasks in which test-takers need to
write about daily life and educational topics one hundred words in length. Responding to
the reading and writing parts takes sixty minutes.
The second instrument was Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ).
As its name suggests, the MALQ assesses the extent to which L2 learners are aware of and
can regulate the processes of LC (Vandergrift et al., 2006). As a self-assessment instru-
ment, it can be used by L2 learners to report their awareness of the processes of listening
and to reflect on the strategies they use during LC. It includes 21 Likert scale items, rang-
ing from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 6 (= strongly agree). It measures five sub-components
of metacognition, including problem-solving (e.g., “I use the words I understand to guess
the meaning of the words I don’t understand.”), planning and evaluation (e.g., “Before I
start to listen, I have a plan in my head for how I’m going to listen.”), mental translation
(e.g., “I translate in my head as I listen.”), person knowledge (e.g., “I find that listening
to English is more difficult than reading, speaking, or writing in English.”), and directed
attention e.g., (e.g., “when my mind wanders I recover my concentration right away.”). The
instrument was used before and after the treatments.
The third instrument included two teacher-made listening comprehension tests (LCTs).
The researchers recruited two EFL teachers with over ten teaching experience years. They
went through IELTS, TOEFL, KET and Oxford Quick placement tests available at the mar-
ket, selected, and modified the items which were appropriate for the purposes of the pre-
sent study. The teacher-made tests measured the EFL learners’ ability to listen for basic
interpersonal and instructional objectives. During the test administration, the EFL learners
were asked to listen to recordings of different monologues and dialogues. Then, following
each audio, they read a multiple-choice question or some questions about what they just
heard. As the tests included forty items, the students’ scores fell from 1 to 40. Of particular
note is that the LCTs administered prior to and after the interventions to gauge the EFL
learners’ LC.
It is worth to be noted that prior to the main study, the researchers got the instruments
translated into Persian by two professional translators. Next, they measured their reliabil-
ity and validity in a pilot study. For the former, the researchers administered it to 30 EFL
leaners who were similar to the participants of the main study in terms of gender, L2 pro-
ficiency, and age. The results of Cronbach Alpha yielded 0.95 for KET, 0.86 for MALQ,
and 0.79 for LCTs, respectively, meeting the purposes of the current study. For the latter,
validity, the researchers adopted the experts’ judgment strategy. For this purpose, they had
13
the instruments two university professors in Applied Linguistics at Lorestan University to

assess them in terms of face and content. While they offered some minor language and
content comments, they approved that the instruments were sufficiently valid.
The last instrument included a conversation pamphlet of English conversions accom-
panied by audio files. To compile the pamphlet, the researchers recruited a panel of EFL
teachers. They went through the best-selling conversation books at the market (e.g., Inter-
change, TopNotch, American files, and TouchStone) and piled up the conversations attuned
to the purposes of this study. It was used as the educational material in the intervention
phase.
Data Collection Procedures
The researchers took some steps to carry out this study. In the first step, they ran a pilot
study to measure the reliability and validity of the instruments. In the second step, they
administered the KET to homogenize the participants. As pointed out above, the par-
ticipants whose scores fell around the mean score were chosen and allocated as G-DA
group (n = 30), PBI group (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). In the third step, they
administered the MALQ and the MLCT to measure the participants’ LC and MA before
the interventions. It is worth mentioning that the participants took the pre-test prior to
the MALQ to reduce the practice effect of the MALQ on raising their MA of listening.
In the third step, the interventions were offered as a circular-program. They lasted 16
forty-five-minute sessions held twice a week. For G-DA group, to apply metacognitive
strategies of LC through G-DA, at the start of each instructional session, the participants
received a piece of paper divided into three sections: 1) pre-listening; 2) while-listening;
and 3) post-listening. The instructor asked the EFL learners to verbalize their thoughts
and to write them down regarding the strategies and activities used during these stages.
At the beginning of each session, the instructor emphasized that active engagement and
contribution to the class discussion were of paramount importance to construct the tar-
get knowledge. Moreover, she stressed that the lack of participation in the discussion
would be regarded as a sign of inability in understanding English. The reason for this
was to encourage the EFL learners to willingly attend the dialogic interactions. In the
pre-listening stage, the instructors asked the EFL learners to write down in Persian what
they might have understood by looking at some relevant pictures. Having completed this
part, they took turns to read aloud their notes on their preliminary reflections. As each
EFL learner expressed her notes, the instructors, as a mediator, provided them with the
graduated prompts tailored to their notes and needs in a dialogic format within their
ZPDs. Sticked to the procedures by Poehner (2009), the instructors scaffloded the EFL
learners with congruent and contingent prompts. Put it exactly, when the EFL learn-
ers made an error and they could not take control of it, the instructor afforded them
with contingent prompts so much so that they could co-build the required knowledge.
Of particular note is that the instructor shifted the dialogic prompts between the pri-
mary interactants and secondary interactants as one EFL learner’s question or comment
set the stage for another’s contribution. In this way, the instructors could dialogue with
the entire group and they could pool their linguistic and cognitive resources together
to move beyond their solo abilities. Following Poehner (2009), the scaffolding entailed
hints, prompts, questions, suggestions, and explanations determined by the mediator’s
recognition of the learners’ needs and lacks. In this phase, the instructor guided the
13
EFL learners to focus on the topic, think of, or guess the keywords in the listening input
before listening, as well as to pay meticulous attention to the relationship between the
interlocutors through the tone of the voices employed to address each other.
In the while-listening phase, the audio file was played for the EFL learners three times.
After the first listening, the participants were asked to note down what they had under-
stood. Similar to the first phase, the instructor scaffolded the participants with graduated
prompts to co-build the required knowledge of the strategies leading to the successful LC.
That is, as the class was not able to apply the appropriate strategy to take control of the
listening task at hand, the instructor offered them ZPD-sensitive prompts to make it man-
ageable. Afterward, the EFL learners were afforded another opportunity to listen to the
conversation for the second and third times to compensate what they missed at the first
time. The instructor strived to motivate the EFL learners to remove the sources of incom-
prehensibility, highlight the parts requiring careful attention, and verify the points of ear-
lier disagreement.
In the post-listening phase, upon completing the listening task, the instructor asked
the class to reflect individually on how they completed it. The participants individually
wrote down their reflections on the procedures they took to comprehend the conversion
in 15 min. Then, in light of the earlier discussion of the strategies used to compensate for
what was not understood, they wrote goals for the next listening task (Vandergrift & Taf-
aghodtari, 2010). This stage was regarded as an immediate retrospection allowing the EFL
learners to report their mental processes before forgetting (Færch & Kasper, 1987). This
explicit sequence of listening tasks was aligned with sharing, discussion, and evaluation,
suggested by Goh and Taib (2006). For this purpose, the instructor called out randomly one
of the EFL students to read out their refection. In the case of a problem, she scaffolded the
class using contingent prompts to co-form the needed knowledge and go beyond their cur-
rent understanding of listening strategies.
For PBI group, the instructor divided them into fifteen pairs to afford them opportuni-
ties to talk in English in the form of discussion. In other words, the pairs followed the peda-
gogical sequence, suggested by Vandergrift (2004). Unlike the G-DA group, in which the
EFL learners received MA in line with the tenets of G-DA, the participants were generally
informed about the topic and text type. The instructor encouraged them to predict the types
of information and the possible words they might hear. After that, the instructor played the
listening file three times, and asked the EFL learners to listen to it completely, referred to
as the first, second, and third verification stages. In the first verification stage, the instructor
gave the EFL learners time to verify their initial hypotheses, correct them if needed, note
additional information, and compare what they have understood/written with peers. Then,
they tested earlier points of disagreements, made corrections, and marked them. Addition-
ally, the EFL learners participated in class discussions to reconstruct the text’s main points.
In the ultimate verification stage, they listened specifically to the information shared in the
class discussion. In the last stage, the reflection stage, they wrote down their aims for the
next listening activity according to the earlier discussion of strategies to redress the gaps in
their initial understanding.
In contrast, for the control group, the instructor played the audio files three times and
answered the EFL learners’ questions without offering any mediations or points of meta-
cognitive strategy. If they could not understand the conversation and answer the follow-up
questions, the instructor present the correct answer without any explanation. In the final
step, the researchers administered the MALQ and the MLCT to measure the participants’
LC and MA after the interventions. It is worthy of note that all the dialogues in both classes
were audio-recorded and stored for the qualitative part.
13
Data Analysis Procedures
Given the fact the study adopted a mixed-methods design, the collected data were ana-
lyzed though quantitative and qualitative procedures. Concerning the quantitative part, the
researchers employed SPSS, version 22. At First, they calculated the descriptive statistics,
such as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). Then, they ran two one-way ANOVAs to
disclose the effects of G-DA and PBI on Iranian EFL learners’ LC and MA.
Regarding the qualitative part, the researchers used a microgenetic development
approach. It is used by SCT scholars to track “the moment-to-moment co-construction of
language and language learning” (Gánem Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 2). As such, the researchers
used it to track the moment-to-moment changes in the participants’ learning when they
were engaged in co-constructing the intended knowledge in the dialogic conversations
(Lantolf, 2000). To accomplish these objectives, the first researcher transcribed carefully
the interactions between the instructors and the EFL learners recorded during the interven-
tions. Then, she went through the transcriptions so much so that she became familiar with
them. Next, she examined closely the transcriptions to identify and record the interactions
demonstrating the signs of changes and development. Afterward, the researchers invited
an associated university professor at Teheran University who wrote extensively about SCT
and microgenetic development approach to examine the transcriptions and the extracted
episodes. He confirmed that the procedures had been taken properly.
Results
Quantitative Results
As pointed out, the first research question explored if G-DA and PBI significantly fostered
Iranian EFL learners’ LC. The researchers ran a one-way ANOVA to respond to it. Before
that, they examined the assumptions for running it. First, as the results of the Kolmogo-
rov–Smirnov test (p. 0.08 > 0.05) evidenced, the collected data were normally distrib-
uted. Second, the results of Levene’s test (F(2,90) 4.21, p 0.35 > 0.05) documented that
the equality of variances assumption was also met. Third, as the participant attended just
one class, the independence of the observations assumption was not violated. After ensur-
ing that the assumptions were met, the researchers employed a one-way ANOVA. Table 1
reports the calculated descriptive statistics.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics results of listening comprehension pre-test of the three groups
N Mean Std. deviation Std. error 95% Confidence interval Min Max
for mean
Lower bound Upper bound
Group dynamic 30 9.4667 2.99117 .54611 8.3497 10.5836 5.00 17.00

assessment
Process-based 30 9.2333 2.55536 .46654 8.2791 10.1875 4.00 14.00
instruction
Control group 30 8.9333 2.91173 .53161 7.8461 10.0206 5.00 15.00
Total 90 9.2111 2.80246 .29541 8.6241 9.7981 4.00 17.00
13
As Table 1 informs, M (9.46) and SD (2.99) for the G-DA group, M (9.23) and SD
(2.55) for the PBI group, and M (9.21) and SD (2.80) for the control group were calculated,
respectively. As it is evident, there were not substantial differences among the groups’ Ms.
Accordingly, the researchers utilized a one-way ANOVA to reveal if the differences were
statistically significant. Table 2 reports the results.
As Table 2 presents, there did not exist a statistical significance difference among
the three groups concerning LC on the pre-test: F (2, 87) = 0.269, p ˃ 001. Afterwards,
the researchers employed another one-way ANOVA to disclose the contributions of the
interventions to the EFL learners’ LC on the post-test. Table 3 presents the results of the
descriptive statistics.
As Table 3 reports, M (30.60) and SD (5.19) for the G-DA group, M (20.10) and SD
(3.76) for the PBI group, and M (11.80) and SD (2.95) for the control group were calcu-
lated, in turn. As it is clear, there were substantial differences among the groups’ Ms. As a
result, the researchers ran a one-way ANOVA to disclose if these differences were statisti-
cally significant. Table 4 displays the results.
As Table 4 reveals, there was a statistically significant difference among the groups
concerning scores of the post-test (F (2, 87) = 160.3, p = 0.000). That is, the G-DA group
and the PBI group gained much better scores on the post-test. Then, the researchers used
a Post-hoc Scheffe Test, Multiple Comparisons to uncover where these differences lain.
Table 5 reports the results.
As Table 5 indicates, as the value of the obtained Sig (0 = 00) were less than the
value of the significance level (0.05), the researchers concluded that there existed a
Table 2 One-way ANOVA Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

results comparing the listening
comprehension pre-test scores
Between groups 4.289 2 2.144 .269 .765
the three groups
Within groups 694.700 87 7.985
Total 698.989 89
Table 3 Descriptive statistics results of the listening comprehension post-test of the three groups
for mean
Group dynamic 30 30.6000 5.19018 .94759 28.6620 32.5380 21.00 39.00

assessment
Process-based 30 20.1000 3.76325 .68707 18.6948 21.5052 14.00 28.00
instruction
Control group 30 11.8000 2.95250 .53905 10.6975 12.9025 8.00 18.00
Total 90 20.8333 8.72199 .91938 19.0065 22.6601 8.00 39.00

comprehension post-test scores
Between groups 5325.800 2 2662.900 160.360 .000
of the three groups
Within groups 1444.700 87 16.606
Total 6770.500 89
13
Table 5 Multiple comparisons results of listening comprehension post-test scores of the three groups
(I) Groups (J) Groups Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig 95% Confidence interval
Group dynamic aassessment Process-based instruction 10.50000* 1.05216 .000 7.8796 13.1204
Control group 18.80000* 1.05216 .000 16.1796 21.4204

Process-based instruction Group-dynamic assessment − 10.50000* 1.05216 .000 − 13.1204 − 7.8796
Control group 8.30000* 1.05216 .000 5.6796 10.9204
Control group Group-dynamic assessment − 18.80000* 1.05216 .000 − 21.4204 − 16.1796
Process-based instruction − 8.30000* 1.05216 .000 − 10.9204 − 5.6796
*p < 0.05
1357
13
Table 6 Descriptive statistics results of metacognitive awareness Pre-test of the three groups
for mean
Group dynamic 30 8.5000 2.77613 .50685 7.4634 9.5366 3.00 14.00

assessment
Process-based 30 7.8000 2.59176 .47319 6.8322 8.7678 3.00 15.00
instruction
Control group 30 7.8667 2.47377 .45165 6.9429 8.7904 3.00 12.00
Total 90 8.0556 2.60665 .27477 7.5096 8.6015 3.00 15.00

results comparing the
metacognitive awareness pre-test
Between groups 8.956 2 4.478 .654 .523
scores the three groups
Total 604.722 89
statistically significant difference between the G-DA group and the control group,
between the PBI group and the control group, and between the G-DA group and the PBI
group. That is, while the G-DA group and the PBI group outdid the control group, the
G-DA group outperformed the PBI concerning the gains in LC.
As pointed out, the second research question explored if G-DA and PBI significantly
fostered Iranian EFL learners’ MA. The researchers used a one-way ANOVA to answer
it. Prior to it, they checked the assumptions for using it. First, as the results of the Kol-
mogorov–Smirnov test (p. 0.12 > 0.05) documented, the normality assumption was met.
Second, as the results of Levene’s test (F(2,90) 3.79, p 0.32 > 0.05) indicated, the equal-
ity of variances assumption was also met. Third, because no participant attended more
than one class, the independence of the observations assumption was meet, as well.
After ensuring of the assumptions, the researchers ran the one-way ANOVA. Table 6
reports the results of the descriptive statistics.
As Table 6 shows, M (8.50) and SD (2.77) for the G-DA group, M (7.80) and SD
(2.59) for the PBI group, and M (7.86) and SD (2.47) for the control group were cal-
culated, respectively. As it is clear, there were not substantial differences among the
groups’ Ms. Accordingly, the researchers utilized a one-way ANOVA to uncover if the
differences were statistically significant. Table 7 reports the results.
As Table 2 presents, there did not exist a statistical significance difference among
the three groups concerning MA on the pre-test: F (2, 87) = 0.654, p ˃ 001. Next, the
researchers used another one-way ANOVA to disclose the contributions of the inter-
ventions to the EFL learners’ MA on the post-test. Table 8 presents the results of the
descriptive statistics.
As Table 8 informs, M (18.16) and SD (1.76) for the G-DA group, M (15.16) and SD
(2.71) for the PBI group, and M (10.83) and SD (2.47) for the control group were calcu-
lated, respectively. As it is obvious, there were noticeable differences among the groups’
Ms. Accordingly, the researchers used a one-way ANOVA to clarify if these differences
were statistically significant. Table 9 displays the results.
13
Table 8 Descriptive statistics results of the metacognitive awareness post-test of the three groups
for mean
Group dynamic 30 18.1667 1.76329 .32193 17.5082 18.8251 14.00 21.00

assessment
Process-based 30 15.1667 2.71755 .49615 14.1519 16.1814 10.00 20.00
instruction
Control group 30 10.8333 2.47864 .45254 9.9078 11.7589 5.00 16.00
Total 90 14.7222 3.81902 .40256 13.9223 15.5221 5.00 21.00

comprehension post-test scores
Between groups 815.556 2 407.778 73.527 .000
of the three groups
Total 1298.056 89
As Table 4 reports, there a statistically significant difference existed among the groups
concerning scores of the post-test (F (2, 87) = 73.52, p = 0.000). That is, the G-DA group
and the PBI group outperformed the control group on the post-test. Afterward, the
researchers employed a Post-hoc Scheffe Test, Multiple Comparisons to reveal where these
differences lain. Table 10 reports the results.
As Table @5 informs, as the value of the obtained Sig (0 = 00) were less than the value
of the significance level (0.05), the researchers found that there existed a statistically sig-
nificant difference between the G-DA group and the control group, between the PBI group
and the control group, and between the G-DA group and the PBI group. That is, while the
G-DA group and the PBI group outdid the control group, the G-DA group outperformed
the PBI concerning the gains in MA.
Qualitative Results
The third research question examined how G-DA and PBI affected the Iranian EFL
learners’ LC. A microgenetic development analysis was employed to answer this
research question. To track the impact of interventions on the EFL learners’ LC and
MA some episodes are presented below. As Excerpt 1 shows, there are multiple EFL
learners’ responses to the first part of the task (i.e., the pre-listening phase). They also
proposed their attitudes and typical interpretations of various phases of LC. Inciden-
tally, these data also represent how, through co-constructing the meaning concurrently,
a whole class ZPD is formed. In the transcripts, the EFL learners were identified by
the abbreviation S followed by a number. T also represents the instructor who acted as
the mediator, as well. Also, enclosed words and phrases in parentheses represent the
non-verbal behavior or the author’s extra explanations. In order to avoid any misun-
derstanding and ascertain comprehension on the EFL learners’ part, the mediation ses-
sions were held in the learners’ mother tongue, Persian. Moreover, Swain and Lapkin
13
1360
13
Table 10 Multiple comparisons results of metacognitive awareness post-test scores of the three groups
(I) Groups (J) Groups Mean difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig 95% confidence interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Group-dynamic assessment Process-based instruction 3.00000* .60806 .000 1.4856 4.5144

Control Group 7.33333* .60806 .000 5.8190 8.8477
Process-based instruction Group-dynamic assessment − 3.00000* .60806 .000 − 4.5144 − 1.4856
Control Group 4.33333* .60806 .000 2.8190 5.8477
Control group Group-dynamic assessment − 7.33333* .60806 .000 − 8.8477 − 5.8190
Process-based instruction − 4.33333* .60806 .000 − 5.8477 − 2.8190
(2000) underscored the effectiveness of L1 in interaction which is likely to assist in

understanding and management of task requirements. Although, for readers’ conveni-
ence, the translated utterances have been presented here.
In the beginning, S1 appears to be not aware of the very initial phase of listening, and she
demonstrates this lack of awareness through a cognitive statement, “I don’t do anything”
(line 2). Drawing S1’s attention to the work she most properly does, the instructor points
out to the paper that is the planning strategy for listening. In line 4, S1 accepts the prompt
and adds that she prepares herself by bringing out the pencil. This can demonstrate that
she is now more focusing on what she usually does before listening. However, by talking
about mundane activities, such as ‘bringing my pen,’ the class demonstrates that they are
not still able to notice listening strategies in the pre-listening phase. The extract shows that
the whole class is collaborating on the task, and there is evidence to suggest that the devel-
opmental activity is taking place at the moment. At a new level of mediation, the instructor
tries to convey to the class that there is a reason for looking at their book before listening
and aims to guide them to the predicting strategy. Collaboratively, S4 confirms and co-
constructs the instructor’s implicit mediation via drawing the attention of the class to the
pictures that are related to the recorded audios they were supposed to hear (Line 13). Like-
wise, this co-construction of knowledge shows the origin of the EFL learners’ development
in awareness of preparation for listening. In the pre-listening phase, the instructor typically
tries to activate the background knowledge of the subject matter prior to listening by dis-
cussing the theme of the listening and, on some occasions, through pre-teaching vocabu-
lary. Yet, prior to this aim, she tries to draw the EFL learners’ attention to think about what
13
they usually do before listening and what they should do. Within G-DA, the entire class is
the target of the mediation, and the instructor engages the whole ZPDs.
The Tenth Session (While‑Listening Part)
In the following episode, the class discusses one of the EFL learners’ problems in the
while-listening phase. The class demonstrates an active engagement in pooling opinions
and thoughts together to co-construct a whole ZPD. As the nature of G-DA entails, the
interaction and assessment are not focused on one single individual, but it actively and rap-
idly shifts among the class participants.
Upon asking ‘why did you jot down new vocabularies,’ the instructor scaffolds S1 to
notice the strategy, she used during this phase (line 3). Consequently, S1 successfully justi-
fies the rationale behind this action, which is her aim to compare her accurate predictions and
strategies with her partner’s, and shows signs of MA. Additionally, note-taking as an effective
strategy was recommended during previous treatment sessions. According to Oxford (1990),
it demonstrates the EFL learners’ understanding of the content of what is heard and not the
writing per se. In the while-listening phase, the EFL learners can verify their initial hypoth-
eses and revise them if needed, and note additional information understood. In this stage, the
learners somehow compare what they have understood/written with the whole class. In line 9,
S3 expresses her misunderstanding of a word, and other speakers, as well as the teacher over
rapid turn changes try to help her co-construct a ZPD via recommending some strategies. In
this phase, the EFL learners modify their thoughts and writings as required. Sometimes, they
decide on the important details that need a closer focus. During the current episode, the EFL
learners show different levels of understanding of strategic listening. For instance, in line 13,
S1 tries to scaffold her peer by guiding her to another listening strategy, guessing the word
in context. In line 14, through a confirmation check, the instructor aims to lead the class as
a whole to get the guessing strategy from the context in which it is located. Not only does
13
the instructor explicitly direct whole ZPDs to this strategy (lines 14), but collaboratively S2
gives another clue to the class that is likely to spark up more successful guessing. This final
collaboration manifests the listeners’ understanding (i.e., strategy awareness) and can be an
indication of microgenetic development. The presented extracts evidence the listeners make
greater use of metacognitive strategies (i.e., strategies that promote their comprehension,
such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating) (Goh, 2008; Vandgergrift, 2002; Vandergrift
et al., 2006). As it is clear, the mediation on strategic listening offered to students follows
those of Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) which means that the instructor’s suggestions, lead-
ings, and further explanations move from the most implicit to the most explicit.
In the PBI group, the participants received metacognitive instruction. The scaffold-
ing was informed by Vandergrift’s (2004) metacognitive pedagogical cycle. At first, the
instructor encouraged the EFL learners to go through the planning, first listening, second
listening, and third listening. Then, she asked them to reflect on their learning, the strate-
gies they used, and evaluate their learning. They also demonstrated signs of development
due to the positive effects of the teacher- and peer-led discussion. Some examples of their
reflections are presented below. The following episodes have been selected from the first
and second sessions of treatment wherein the EFL learners were initiating to gain aware-
ness of their weaknesses, problems, and ways of listening more cautiously.
In this phase, the learners are given some time to make their initial hypotheses and pre-
dictions on what they are going to hear. As it is clearly portrayed in this extract, the listeners
try to predict what the text will be about. They make some guesses, and through reasoning,
they omit those ones which are not logical (e.g., lines 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8). The pair separately
brainstormed to guess what they were going to hear through evidence and pictures. Planning
and guessing as the most appropriate strategies were employed by each pair. It is worthy of
mention that the pairs did the task independently and with different quality and quantities.
The First Session (While‑Listening/First, Second, and Third Listening Part)
After the pre-listening phase, the class was invited to discuss the problematic issues they
encountered during some listening phases. In fact, the teacher encouraged them to share their
13
understanding as well as their questions with peers in groups, this time with an eye on assist-
ing them in constructing a firm and more conscious understanding of listening strategies.
As it is evident from the turns, the flow of interaction and discussion is determined by
the students, wherein the teacher plays a less active role in guiding them. They mainly
express the lack of knowledge of vocabulary as the main rationale behind their lack of LC
and come to an agreement to ask the teacher to let them know the new vocabularies before
listening to the audio file (from line 6 on). The teacher does the least aid and involvement
during class discussion, and repeatedly beforehand, she emphasized that they should man-
age it themselves. But rarely and only when directly addressed does she answers the stu-
dents (lines 8 & 12). Overall, the results of the mocrogenetic development analysis of both
G-DA and PBI groups demonstrated the superiority of the former approach over the latter,
which reinforces the quantitative results of the present study.
Discussion
As mentioned above, the first research question inspected if G-DA and PBI significantly
fostered the Iranian EFL learners’ LC. The results of the one-way ANOVA indicated that
both approaches significantly fostered the EFL learners’ LC. However, the findings evi-
denced that G-DA was more effective than PBI to foster the EFL learners’ LC. Aligned
with the findings, it may be argued that as the two approaches provided useful feedback on
the lacks and needs of the EFL learners, they could significantly bolster their LC. However,
the superiority of G-DA may be ascribed to the view that it might detect better the lacks
needing improvement, and accordingly, let the instructor offer appropriate mediations. That
is, the ZPD-sensetive prompts offered through the dialogic interactions might have afforded
the instructor both to diagnose the actual level of abilities and to verify the potential level
of development concurrently (Albeeva, 2011; Rezai et al., 2022). The gained findings lend
credence to those of the previous studies (e.g., Ableeva, 2010; Alavi et al., 2012; Farangi
& Kheradmand Saadi, 2017; Pileh Roud & Hidri, 2021), reporting that DA/G-DA signifi-
cantly bolstered the EFL learners’ LC. Additionally, the findings are in line with those of
the previous studies (e.g., Ai-hua, 2013; Li & Liu, 2008), offering strong evidence in sup-
port of the applicability of PBI in cultivating EFL learners’ LC.
13
The second research question explored if G-DA and PBI significantly fostered the
Iranian EFL learners’ MA. The results of the one-way ANOVA documented that both
approaches significantly contributed to developing of the EFL learners’ MA. However, the
results demonstrated the participants instructed through G-DA gained better results com-
pared with the participants trained via PBI. Along with the findings, it may be argued that
G-DA and PBI might develop their knowledge of MA as they received appropriate feed-
back from the instructors. That is, the feedback might have assisted the EFL learners to
gain the required knowledge to plan, monitor, and evaluate their LC. However, the supe-
riority of the G-DA group might be attributed to this view that the prompts offered by the
instructor might have helped the EFL learners to put their resources together to co-con-
struct the intended knowledge (Bahramlou & Esmaeili, 2019). That is, the given prompts
might have assisted the EFL learners to move beyond their current level of abilities and
take good control of the metacognitive strategy in hand. The gained findings are congruent
with those of the previous studies (e.g., Birjandi et al., 2013; Khodabakhsh et al., 2018;
Shobeiry, 2021), revealing that DA/G-DA was beneficial to develop L2 learners’ MA. Plus,
the obtained results are keeping with those of the past studies (e.g., Bermillo & Aradilla,
2022; Maftoon & Fakhri Alamdari, 2020). They evidenced that PBI can be implemented to
develop EFL learners’ MA.
The third research question explored how G-DA and PBI improved the Iranian EFL
learners’ MA and LC. The results demonstrated that when different forms of explicit and
implicit feedback are provided for the EFL learners, they could redress the gaps in their
knowledge. The episodes related to the G-DA group showed that collective scaffolding
can be useful for both primary interactants and secondary interactants (Poehner, 2009).
The dialogic interactions with the G-DA group created a social space in which all the EFL
learners could mutually take advantage of the other’s contributions.
A plausible reason for the contribution of G-DA to fostering the EFL learners might be
the dialogic interactions. That is, along with Lantolf and Poehner (2014), it may be argued
that they might have changed the learning tasks at social activities in which all the EFL
learners might have benefited from the collective scaffolding. By receiving mediations
from the instructors, the EFL learners’ might have attempted to construct the required ZPD
such that they could manage the learning activity in hand (Rezai et al., 2022). To further
discuss the findings, it can be referred to the tenet of SCT posting that as the EFL learners
were scaffolded with contingent and congruent mediations trailered to their ZPDs, not only
might the instructor have gained real insights into their potential level of development but
she might have recognized their lacks and needs (Poehner & Yu, 2021).
To justify the findings of the study, as Poehner and Infante (2017) note, as the EFL
learners in G-DA group were afforded with contingent and congruent feedback attuned to
their lacks and needs, they might have co-shaped essential knowledge to go beyond their
solo capabilities. This argument receives support from this fundamental tenet of SCT post-
ing that knowledge first is co-built on the social level and later is internalized with the help
of appropriate mediation from capable peers (Poehner & Wang, 2021).
A reason for the findings of the study showing that PIB contributed to improving the
EFL learners’ LC and MA strategy may be ascribed to the view that it might have assisted
them to plan, monitor, and evaluate effectively their LC processes and move forward their
listening development. That is, along with Goh (2008), it may be argued that PBI might
have been useful for the EFL learners to construct and improve their knowledge about the
required listening processes, and, accordingly, might have allowed them to manage their
LC efficiently. Further, in line with the obtained results, it may be argued that PBI might
have established a learning environment in which the EFL learners could gain a deep
13
awareness of the learning and the listening processes and develop a correct understand-
ing of the proper use of the strategies (Maftoon & Fakhri Alamdari, 2020). Additionally, a
further line of discussion of the findings may be ascribed to the benefits of PBI that might
have brought about for the EFL learners. In other words, as PBI could enhance affect in the
listening processes, bolster the EFL learners’ self-confidence, motivation, and positive atti-
tudes, and relieve their anxiety, it might have assisted them to take control of the listening
tasks in hand.
Concerning the findings reported for the control group, they may be ascribed to the
instruction they received. That is, as they received non-dialogic feedback, they could not
construct the required knowledge of LC and MA. This might be due to the fact that the
given feedback was not attuned to the EFL learners’ ZPD. Thus, it could not make it pos-
sible for the instructor to gain correct insights into their fully-developed abilities and the
underdeveloped abilities. Consequently, the non-ZPD sensitive feedback could not effec-
tively pave the way for their independent development.
Conclusion
As pointed out above, this research purported to inspect the contributions of G-DA and
PBI to fostering Iranian EFL learners’ LC and MA. The gained results uncovered that both
G-DA and PBI significantly contribute to developing the participants’’ LC and MA. Addi-
tionally, the findings revealed that the G-DA group outflanked the PBI group concerning
the gains in LC and MA. Complementary with the quantitative findings, the qualitative
results documented the ways through which G-DA and PBI improved the EFL learners’ LC
and MA. The gained findings imply that if EFL learners are offered graduated mediations
tailored to their ZPDs, not only can they detect the gaps in their abilities but they can also
redress them substantially. To put it simply, if EFL teachers are to push EFL learners to
move beyond their current level of abilities, they need to scaffold them with congruent and
contingent mediations.
Some pertinent stakeholders may benefit from the obtained findings. The first benefi-
ciary of the results may be education officials. They can gain insights into the applicability
and efficiency of G-DA and PBI in large classes and hold pre-service and in-service work-
shops to familiarize EFL teachers with them. Additionally, material developers may benefit
from the findings by considering the tenets of G-DA and PBI in educational materials.
For example, they can design listening tasks in which EFL learners are afforded opportu-
nities to receive feedback from peers or teachers. Moreover, the findings may be benefi-
cial for teacher-educators to incorporate G-DA and PBI in their syllabuses. They can draw
teacher-students’ attention to the effectiveness of G-DA and PBI in improving L2 learners’
achievement with the hope of applying them in their future classes. Likewise, EFL teach-
ers can take advantage of the results of the study by accommodating G-DA and PBI in
their instructions. They can further their understanding of the effectiveness of graduated
feedback in constructing the required knowledge and skills. Finally, EFL learners can be
beneficiary of the gained findings to notice that involving in dialogic interactions plays a
pivotal role in fostering their MA and LC.
Some limitations imposed on the current study paving the way for further research.
First, as this study explored the effects of G-DA and PBI in a short time of period, lon-
gitudinal studies are needed to trace the effects of G-DA and PBI on fostering EFL learn-
ers’ LC and MA over a more expanded time. Second, as this study just included female
13
EFL learners, future studies need to recruit EFL male learners to uphold the credibility
of the gained findings. Third, as this study was conducted in the setting of a non-profit
language institute (ILI), interested researchers can replicate the study in other settings like
state schools and universities to generalize the findings. Fourth, because the present study
focused on the contributions of G-DA and PBI to fostering EFL learners’ MA and LC,
more studies are need to inspect if G-DA and PBI are beneficial to promote psycho-emo-
tional constructs, motivation, learning anxiety, self-efficacy, anger and the like. Last but not
least, as the study used the microgenetic development approach to reveal how G-DA and
PBI improve EFL learners’ LC and MA, other data collection instruments, such as inter-
views and observation can be used to further our understanding of the research topic.
Funding This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University Project Number
(PSAU 2023 /R/1444).
Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The corresponding author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval This study was approved by the Ethical Board of Iranian English language Institutions.
Consent to Participate All the participants provided written informed consent and they were fully understood
the study purpose.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study.
References
Abdolrezapour, P. (2017). Improving L2 reading comprehension through emotionalized dynamic assess-
ment procedures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(3), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10936-016-9464-9
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. The
Pennsylvania State University.
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
Ahmadi Safa, M., & Beheshti, S. (2018). Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment
(GDA) and EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teach-
ing Research, 6(3), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2018.120600
Ai-hua, C. (2013). EFL listeners’ strategy development and listening problems: A process-based study.
Journal of Asia TEFL, 10(3), 1–23.
Alavi, S. M., Kaivanpanah, Sh., & Shabani, K. (2012). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of media-
tional strategies for teaching listening. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 27–58.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and learning in the zone of proxi-
mal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.
tb02064.x
Ashman, A. F., & Conway, R. N. (1989). Cognitive strategies for special education. Routledge.
Ashman, A. F., & Conway, R. N. (2017). Using cognitive methods in the classroom. Routledge.
13
Bahramlou, K., & Esmaeili, A. (2019). The effects of vocabulary enhancement exercises and group dynamic
assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(4),
889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09638-x
Barabadi, E., Khajavy, G. H., & Kamrood, A. M. (2018). Applying interventionist and interactionist
approaches to dynamic assessment for L2 listening comprehension. International Journal of Instruc-
tion, 11(3), 681–700.
Bermillo, J., & Aradilla, F. J. (2022). Developing students’ listening comprehension and metacognitive
awareness through metacognitive process-based listening instruction. Journal of English Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.32996/jeltal
Birjandi, P., Estaji, M., & Deyhim, T. (2013). The impact of dynamic assessment on reading comprehen-
sion and metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Iranian high school learners. International
Journal of Language Testing, 3(2), 60–77.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.
Cross, J. (2011). Metacognitive instruction for helping less-skilled listeners. ELT Journal, 65(4), 408–416.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq073
Cross, J. (2015). Metacognition in L2 listening: Clarifying instructional theory and practice. TESOL Quar-
terly, 49(4), 883–892.
Das, J. P., Kirby, J. R., & Jarman, R. F. (2013). Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. Academic
Press.
Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process: Introspective methods in second language
research. Introspection in Second Language Research, 30, 5–23.
Farangi, M. R., & Kheradmand Saadi, Z. (2017). Dynamic assessment or schema theory: The case of listen-
ing comprehension. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1312078. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.13120
78
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intel-
ligence (pp. 231–235). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Com-
munication, 32, 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Fraser, B. J. (1986). Classroom environments. Croom Helm.
Gánem Gutiérrez, A. (2008). Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Span-
ish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/app-
lin/amm032
Ghahderijani, B. H., Namaziandost, E., Tavakoli, M., Kumar, T., & Magizov, R. (2021). The comparative
effect of group dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian
upper-intermediate EFL learners’ speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Language Test-
ing in Asia, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3
Goh, C. C. M. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, prac-
tice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208
092184
Goh, C. C. (2018). Metacognition in second language listening. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Lan-
guage Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0572
Goh, C. C. M., & Hu, G. (2014). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening
performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness Journal, 23, 255–274. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09658416.2013.769558
Goh, C. C. M., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal,
60, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 104(6), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
Guo, W., Bai, B., & Song, H. (2021). Influences of process-based instruction on students’ use of self-regu-
lated learning strategies in EFL writing. System, 101, 102578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.
102578
Hay, I. (2000). Cognitive strategies in the secondary school: Investigating process-based instruction and
students’ perceptions of effective teaching strategies. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,
1(2), 164–176.
Hughes, J., & Hall, R. (1989). Cognitive behavioural psychology in schools. Guilford.
Khodabakhsh, S., Abbasian, G. R., & Rashtchi, M. (2018). Incorporation of dynamic assessment models
into developing language awareness and metacognitive strategy use in writing classes. Journal of Mod-
ern Research in English Language Studies, 5(4), 55–79.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
13
Lantolf, J. P. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104–114). Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 educa-
tion. Rutledge.
Li, Y., & Liu, Y. (2008). The impact of strategies-based instruction on listening comprehension. English
Language Teaching, 1(2), 128–134.
Maftoon, P., & Fakhri Alamdari, E. (2020). Exploring the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on
metacognitive awareness and listening performance through a process-based approach. International
Journal of Listening, 34(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1250632
Mahdavi, N., & Miri, M. (2019). Co-shaping metacognitive awareness and developing listening comprehen-
sion through process-based instruction. International Journal of Listening, 33(1), 53–70. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1260454
Mendelsohn, D. J., & Rubin, J. (1995). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. Dominie
Press.
Moradian, M. R., & Kogani Baharvand, P. (2017). Exploring the role of process-based instruction in
improving young EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension: A sociocultural
perspective. Teaching English Language, 11(1), 145–166.
Mowla, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Bavarsad, P. S. (2017). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in
zone of proximal development (ZPD): Concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eura-
sian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1–24.
Nordin, S. M., & Mohammad, N. (2017). The best of two approaches: Process/genre-based approach to
teaching writing. The English Teacher, 35, 75–85.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
Pei, T., & Suwanthep, J. (2021). Development of L2 Listening Metacognitive Awareness via Online Meta-
cognitive Listening Practice. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET),
19(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.286741
Petrovsky, A. V. (1985). Studies in psychology. The Collective and the individual. Progress.
Pileh Roud, L. F., & Hidri, S. (2021). Toward a sociocultural approach to computerized dynamic assess-
ment of the TOEFL iBT listening comprehension test. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4),
4943–4968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10498-z
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43,
471–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x
Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2017). Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming sec-
ond language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 332–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.308
Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (2021). Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language
Teaching, 54(4), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000555
Poehner, M. E., & Yu, L. (2021). Dynamic assessment of L2 writing: Exploring the potential of rubrics
as mediation in diagnosing learner emerging abilities. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.
3098
Rezai, A., Naserpour, A., & Rahimi, S. (2022). Online peer-dynamic assessment: an approach to boosting
Iranian high school students’ writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Interactive Learning Environ-
ments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2086575
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge.
Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In
C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 41–53). Guilford.
Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. Logman.
Sharp, L. A. (2016). Acts of writing: A compilation of six models that define the processes of writing. Inter-
national Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 77–90.
Shobeiry, M. (2021). The effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian IELTS students’ metacognitive awareness
for reading strategy and reading development. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 79,
8–19.
Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. (2001). On second language writing. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Lan-
guage Teaching Research, 4(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400304
Vandergrift, L. (2002). “It was nice to see that our predictions were right”: Developing metacognition in
L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.
3138/cmlr.58.4.555
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: guiding students: Through the process of L2 lis-
tening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.3.425
13
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24,
3–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000017
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in
action. Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness
listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference:
An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.
00559.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.
Authors and Affiliations
Afsheen Rezai1 · Parisa Ashkani2 · Sayed M. Ismail3

Parisa Ashkani
ashkaniparisa@yahoo.com
Sayed M. Ismail
a.ismail@psau.edu.sa
1
Ayatollah Ozma Burojerdi University, Borujerd City, Lorestan Province, Iran
2
Ayatollah Ozma Burojerdi University, Borujerd City, Lorestan Province, Iran
3
College of Humanities and Sciences, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al‑Kharj City,
Saudi Arabia
13

Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction On EFL Learners Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension A Mixed-Methods Inquiry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction On EFL Learners Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension A Mixed-Methods Inquiry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (2023) 52:1345–1370

Effects of Group‑Dynamic Assessment and Process‑Based

Afsheen Rezai1 · Parisa Ashkani2 · Sayed M. Ismail3

Accepted: 26 December 2022 / Published online: 18 January 2023

Keywords Group-dynamic assessment · Process-based Instruction · Metacognitive

KET Key English test

Group Dynamic Assessment

Process‑Based Instruction in L2 Learning

Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in L2 Learning

Three types of listening instruction have been identified: text-oriented, communication-

Significance of L2 Listening Comprehension

LC is viewed as the heart of L2 learning, because the development of other skills is

Effects of DA and PBI on L2 Listening Comprehension and Metacognitive Awareness

RQ1Does group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction significantly foster

The researchers adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to conduct the

Setting and Participants

the instruments two university professors in Applied Linguistics at Lorestan University to

Data Collection Procedures

Data Analysis Procedures

Group dynamic 30 9.4667 2.99117 .54611 8.3497 10.5836 5.00 17.00

Table 2 One-way ANOVA Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

Group dynamic 30 30.6000 5.19018 .94759 28.6620 32.5380 21.00 39.00

Table 4 One-way ANOVA Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

Control group 18.80000* 1.05216 .000 16.1796 21.4204

Group dynamic 30 8.5000 2.77613 .50685 7.4634 9.5366 3.00 14.00

Table 7 One-way ANOVA Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

Group dynamic 30 18.1667 1.76329 .32193 17.5082 18.8251 14.00 21.00

Table 9 One-way ANOVA Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig

Group-dynamic assessment Process-based instruction 3.00000* .60806 .000 1.4856 4.5144

(2000) underscored the effectiveness of L1 in interaction which is likely to assist in

The Tenth Session (While‑Listening Part)

The First Session (While‑Listening/First, Second, and Third Listening Part)

Authors and Affiliations

Afsheen Rezai1 · Parisa Ashkani2 · Sayed M. Ismail3

You might also like

KET Key English test