Article Etc312 English

Hidri Language Testing in Asia 2014, 4:4
http://www.languagetestingasia.com/content/4/1/4
RESEARCH Open Access
Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment

of listening comprehension in an EFL context
Sahbi Hidri
Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract
Faculty of Human and Social
Sciences of Tunis, 94, BD du 9 avril This study addressed a need to examine and improve current assessments of
1938, Tunis 1007, Tunisia listening comprehension (LC) of university EFL learners. These assessments adopted a
traditional approach where test-takers listened to an audio recording of a spoken
interaction and then independently responded to a set of questions. This static
approach to assessment is at odds with the way teaching listening was carried out
in the classroom, where LC tasks often involved some scaffolding. To address this
limitation, a dynamic assessment (DA) of a listening test was proposed and investigated.
DA involves mediation and meaning negotiation when responding to LC tasks and
items. This paper described: (a) the local assessment context, (b) the relevance of DA in
this context, and (c) the findings of an empirical study that examined the new and
current LC assessments. Sixty Tunisian EFL students responded to a LC test with two
parts, static and dynamic. The tests were scored by 11 raters. Both the test-takers and
raters were interviewed about their views of the two assessments. Score analyses, using
the Multi-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) (FACETS program, version, 3.61.0), indicated
that test-taker ability, rater behavior and item difficulty estimates varied across test types.
Qualitative data analysis indicated that although the new assessment provided better
insights into learners' cognitive and meta-cognitive processes than did the traditional
assessment, raters were doubtful about the value of and processes involved in DA
mainly because they were unfamiliar with it. The paper discussed the findings and their
implications for listening assessment practices in this context and for theory and research
on listening assessment.
Keywords: Dynamic/Static assessment; Ability estimates; Rater behavior; Item difficulty;
Significant bias; FACETS; Qualitative; Quantitative analysis
Background
The purpose of this study addressed a need to examine and improve current assessments
of listening at the tertiary level. In this study, two listening tests, dynamic and static, were
examined and assessed. Static LC tests have been used in language research and
assessment. This type of listening seems to be at odds with the way teaching listening is
carried out in class in which learners are supposed to be engaged in joint activities to
comprehend listening. Static assessment (SA) rests on engaging the test-takers in working
on the test individually with no scaffolding on the part of mediators or test-takers. SA
may be more convenient and practical than DA, especially in large-scale situations
(Lantolf & Poehner 2010). In static or traditional LC tests, there is no interest allocated
2014 Hidri; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly credited.
Hidri Language Testing in Asia 2014, 4:4 Page 2 of 19
to the joint interactions of the learners required for approaching the learning input (Leung
2007; Lidz & Gindis 2003).
The pendulum in language testing research has shifted to the social dimension of
language testing where learners are tested on their abilities to use language in a
particular social setting (McNamara 2001; McNamara & Roever 2006). For instance,
a growing interest has been given to the link between Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
and language assessment (Bachman & Cohen 1998; Chalhoub-Deville 2003; Douglas &
Selinker 1985; Lantolf 2009; Leung 2007). McNamara (2000) highlights this emerging trend
in testing when he states that
New forms of language assessment may no longer involve the ordeal of a single test
performance under time constraints. Learners may be required to build up a
portfolio of written or recorded oral performances for assessment. They may be
observed in their normal activities of communication in the language classroom on
routine pedagogical tasks. [] Pairs of learners may be asked to take part in role
plays or in group discussions as part of oral assessment. (p. 4)
Many researchers (e.g., Lantolf & Poehner 2006; Ohta 2000; Swain 2000) argue that
language acquisition and learning can be achieved through joint interactions. Such
an interaction can be implemented through using prompts, hints, clarifications,
and leading questions. In part, the use of these strategies depends on the language
ability of the learner. Chalhoub-Deville (2003), p. 377 claims that it is likely that
language users at different proficiency levels call upon different or differentially
developed abilities. Since dynamic listening tasks involve interaction among students
and guided performance of learners by mediators (Gibbons 2003; Lantolf & Poehner 2004,
2006), it is no wonder then that such tests, necessitating interaction, can inform about
language learning and assessment.
DA can be traced back to Vygotsky (1981, 1986) that stresses the social environment
as a facilitator of the learning process (Karpov & Haywood 1998; Kozulin & Garb
2002). DA has gained momentum in research (e.g., Leung 2007; Poehner and van
Compernolle 2011; Rea-Dickins 2006; Tzuriel 2011) and has also been applied to
classroom-based assessment (Ableeva 2008; Ableeva & Lantolf 2011; Sternberg &
Grigorenko 2002). In DA, teaching and testing are intertwined into a joint activity which
targets the activation of the learners cognitive and metacognitive processes (Ableeva &
Lantolf 2011; Tzuriel 2011, p.115). Research (e.g., Gass 1997; Lidz 2002; Swain
2001) has shown that learners become co-constructors of meaning in collective
joint activities where knowledge and meaning can be negotiated and mediated. This
negotiation is context-bound.
Mediation, the zone of proximal development (ZPD), contingency and scaffolding are
cornerstones in DA. Vygotskys theory of learning stresses mediation in that it can
instruct learners in how to use their cognitive and metacognitive strategies, for instance,
in a problem-solving activity. Gibbons (2003), p. 249 defines the ZPD as the cognitive
gap between what learners can do unaided and what they can do in collaboration
with a more competent other. To this end, learners can only perform successfully
in the presence of another participant, such as a teacher. Contingency consists of
the assistance required by the learner on the basis of moment-to-moment understanding
(Gibbons 2003, p. 267) i.e., teachers modulates the kind of support based on the learners
reaction of and attitudes towards this support. Scaffolding, however, mediates the learners
in acquiring new strategies to be able to finish the task independently (Kozulin & Garb
2002). This requires activation of the cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies to be able to
comprehend the listening input. An awareness of such strategies can be conducive to
success in language learning and assessment. In this regard, Vandergrift et al. (2006) note
that awareness of the listening strategies can have positive influence on language learners
listening development (p. 432) and by extension to accessing the test items easily. Such
awareness is a cornerstone in assessing LC dynamically. Adhering to DA both in teaching
and testing depends on the teaching experience, experience with language, motivation and
views of language and language learning.
The duality between dynamic and static assessment can in fact be blended together
with the goal of forming a comprehensive view about the LC ability of the test-takers.
Though complementary they might appear, static and dynamic assessment have
methodological differences. Since this type of assessment considers the learners
abilities as already matured i.e., fixed and stable across time (Leung 2007, p. 260), in DA,
such abilities are malleable and flexible (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002, p. 1). In addition,
while scores in SA may be praised for their objectivity, they nevertheless fail to infer much
about the learners cognitive processes. Hence, the importance of implementing DA.
SA focuses on the product of learning; however, in DA, much importance is given
to developing learning in that the main focus is attributed to the processes which lead to
the end product. Proponents of DA highlight the idea that such an assessment mode
should not lead to failure; rather it should be conducive to better linguistic attainment.
Most studies on DA (e.g., Ableeva 2008; Gibbons 2003; Lidz 2001) have shown that after
mediation takes place, learners can reach higher levels of much scaffolding. Because of its
receptive nature, listening test items should be processed dynamically.
Different studies have been carried out to address traditional or static LC from different
angles, such as the effects of background knowledge on listening performance (Jensen &
Hansen 1995), the use of LC cognitive processes to comprehend the listening input
(Buck & Tatsuoka 1998), effects of speech rate on item difficulty (Brindley & Slayter 2002),
the use of multiple-choice (MC) format and its impact on test scores (Yian 1998).
Ginther (2002) investigated the effects of content visuals on LC in the TOEFL test
in LC passages of different genres, such as dialogues, short conversations, academic
discussions and mini-talks. Also, Berne (1995) addressed the variation of pre-listening
activities and its impact on LC; while Rubin (1994) dealt with the effects of top-down and
bottom-up processes on comprehension of listening. However, compared to static
listening, few studies have investigated dynamic listening. For instance, Ableeva
(2008) addressed the effects of DA on comprehending listening. Ableeva and
Lantolf (2011), in a longitudinal qualitative study, highlighted the importance of using
DA in developing the mental processes of comprehending listening in French. In
addition, while research on testing has been concerned with the joint interactions
in language skills such as speaking (Fulcher 1996; Swain 2001), scant attention has
been allocated to such interactions between teachers and students in other language
skills, such as listening. One way of approaching alternative assessments to LC in
interactive patterns can be carried out through DA. To date, approaching both
modes of assessment in LC, i.e., static and dynamic, has received scant attention in
language testing research.
Assessment context and relevance of DA

In testing LC in Tunisia, test-takers have always been given an audio-taped passage to
listen to and then respond to a limited set of test items, such as wh-questions and
true/false statements; thus underrepresenting the LC construct which was supposed
to embrace as many LC test items as possible (Hidri 2010a, 2013a, 2013b, 2014).
By limiting testing to a very narrow range of skills, test designers may miss the target of
measurement. In the Tunisian context, testing has been marginalized in targeting a fair
measurement that would reflect the actual language ability of the learner (Hidri 2010b,
2014). This marginalization is even echoed in teaching given the eventuality of the teacher
being the resource.
In effect, the view of language learning consists of teachers doing most of the talking
in class. For instance, Helal (1997) addressed the use of the communicative competence
framework developed by Canale and Swain (1980) to the treatment of EFL learners er-
rors in Tunisia. Based on a questionnaire administered to teachers and cross-sectional
visits to some EFL classes in Tunisia, Helal found out that most of the teachers' atten-
tion during classroom interaction was geared towards the treatment of students' gram-
matical errors even in tasks calling for greater attention to communication, discourse
and sociolinguistic appropriateness. Especially relevant to this study is his conclusion
that this is not surprising in Tunisian classes given the fact that learners are studying to
pass exams which are still informed by structuralist and behavioral views of language
and language learning. This view of teaching of most of Tunisian teachers is also
reflected in testing. Further, there is an urgent call to reconsider and investigate the as-
sessment practices in Tunisia in that graduates and post-graduates of English who em-
bark on teaching at the vocational, primary, secondary and tertiary levels are not
offered any course in testing as part of the curriculum. They are not even trained in
how to carry out classroom-based assessment such as DA, nor are they exposed to de-
veloping effective teaching strategies that use scaffolding to help learners overcome
their listening difficulties. This is the current situation now. They learn test design out
of teaching experience.
There are three basic national exams at the primary, basic and secondary levels.
According to officials in the Ministry of Education and some ELT inspectors at the
secondary level in Tunisia, more than 77% of the Baccalaureatea students got
below the score of 9.99 out of 20 in the English exam for the year 2012b. Despite
the fact that there is no testing course, the assessment policy at the tertiary level
calls for administering 3 tests in all disciplines (2 progress and 1 achievement
tests) over a fourteen-week term. Students rarely study 14 weeks and they most
often tend to be absent from class even though there is a compulsory attendance
policy. Because of these tremendous difficulties these learners have been facing in
English, employing DA in a skill like listening may help such learners overcome
these learning difficulties or change their learning behaviour.
The purpose of this study was motivated by three basic issues the first of which was
the need to investigate the traditional and current assessment practices to determine
the key idea that DA is meant to promote the test-takers mental processing and their
capacity to learn. Second, despite the fact that listening holds a major importance in
learning and acquiring language, it has not been largely addressed in research
compared to reading, writing, and speaking (Alderson 2005). Finally, research on
testing has only been concerned with static listening. Perhaps, the lack of concern
for testing dynamic listening has been due to some practical issues, such as the
difficulty of testing dynamic listening in large-scale situations on the one hand,
and the scoring of the joint performance, on the other. There is a significant need
to address these shortcomings. It could be then stated that the test-takers listening ability
in such contexts would vary from one test type to the other and that even the
raters themselves would behave differently. It is in this context that it is crucial to
investigate how these three variables of rater, test-takers ability and item difficulty
impacted static and dynamic listening assessment. Therefore, the study addressed
the following research questions:
a. To what extent do estimates of test-taker ability and item difficulty vary across
static and dynamic listening?
b. Is there any bias interaction of rater by test type, rater by test-taker and test-taker
by test type?
c. What are the mediators and test-takers perceptions of both modes of assessment?
Methods
Participants
The 60 participants, who were selected to take part in this study, were first-year
students majoring in English from a university in Tunisia. Previously, they had
studied English as a required subject at school for seven years and were tested on
listening at least twice a year. However, in the Baccalaureate exam, they were
only tested on reading and writing. Students were admitted to university without
any placement or diagnostic test. Before 2007, these students had to study four
years to obtain their BA in English and they were supposed to teach English in
secondary schools; while others who excelled were selected to sit for the MA
program.
During the two first years of the curriculum at university, these participants had an
oral skills course that combined both listening and speaking. They also took four listening
exams, one in each term. Starting from 20062007, policy-makers initiated an ad
hoc change of the educational system in Tunisia, by reducing the university study
years from 4 to 3. This change also concerned courses and even the assessment
system. For instance, the first-year participants, in the licence, master, doctorat
(LMD c) system, were taught listening and speaking in two separate courses and
were also supposed to study for three years, instead of four, to get their licence.
All the participants were speakers of Tunisian Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic
(MSA), French and English and they ranged in age from 19 to 21, with 47 females
and 13 males.
All the 11 raters who took part in this study and who did both the mediating
and rating were involved in teaching as well as testing LC. They all had an MA
degree in applied linguistics, literature or culture studies and an English teaching
experience that ranged from 1 to 14 years. For the sake of standardizing the scoring
criteria, they all were engaged in training sessions in how to carry-out classroom-based
assessment, such as role-plays and group discussions in dynamic listening. Then, the
researcher met with these teachers in their regular classes and were observed in how to
carry out DA. After the course was over, the researcher evaluated the practicality of DA
for improvement purposes. This had the purpose of helping the mediators become
familiar with DA.
Data collection
There was a selection of a group composed of 60 test-takers. Test administration of the
dynamic part was carried out during regular class hours as a progress test; while the
static test was administered as a final achievement test, i.e., after one year of studying
listening. The progress dynamic test was divided into three testing phases which were
supposed to be dealt with in 45 minutes. It included 14 test items which were meant to
generate negotiation of meaning between two test-takers and two mediators who also
did the rating. The mediators offered support and guidance only in the pre- and while-
testing phases. However, they were instructed to reduce mediation in the post-testing
phase. The pre-testing phase, which lasted ten minutes included wh-, guessing and
matching items. The while-testing phase lasted 20 minutes and it contained two wh-
and summarizing items each, MC, true/false and guessing items. The raters were
instructed to mediate the test-takers in both phases. The post testing phase lasted
15 minutes and it included MC, picture reordering, summarizing and making inference
items.
In the one-hour achievement static test, the test-takers performed individually. This
test included 40 items (five tasks with eight items each: Gap-filling, MC, information
transfer, true/false statements and following instructions. This test was scored by 11
raters. The scores were analysed using the FACETS to account for ability estimates and
item difficulty. Both participants were administered an interview to probe into their
perceptions of and attitudes towards both parts of the test, particularly their degree of
agreement with the practicality of the dynamic test, procedures of implementing,
organizing the turn-taking of the joint interactions. In the static test, the raters were
referred to as raters, while in the dynamic test, they were referred to as mediators.
Table 1 reports the research design.
Methods of analysis
This study addressed a need to examine current assessments of LC of university
learners of English. To address this, the quantitative and qualitative analyses were
undertaken. Scores in the dynamic test were assigned once students finished providing
their final answers. The quantitative analysis, relied on the use of the FACETS
program (version 3.61.0) (Bond & Fox 2007) to analyse the scores of both parts of the test.
Analysing test scores using the FACETS was used in research (e.g., Lumely & McNamara
1995; McNamara 1996, Kondo-Brown 2002). FACETS provides estimates of test-taker
ability, item difficulty as well as biased interactions between elements of the different facets
(e.g., rater by test type, rater by test-taker and test-taker by test type). Interview data were
examined to identify patterns and themes in mediators and test-takers responses in
relation to their perceptions of the dynamic test, its qualities, and feasibility of its use in a
classroom-based assessment context.
Table 1 Research design

Research questions Participants Data Analysis
a. To what extent do 60 test-takers who sat for a. A one-hour achievement Quantitative
estimates of test-taker both tests: Static and static LC test analysisAnalysis of
ability and item difficulty dynamic test scores:
vary across static and
dynamic listening?
b. Is there any bias 11 raters who scored both Forty items (5 tasks with 8 - FACETS: Ability
interaction of rater by tests (in the static test, items each) Item type: Gap estimates and item
test type, rater by test- raters are referred to as filling, MC, information difficulty
taker and test-taker by raters; while they are transfer, true/false
test type? referred to as mediators in statements and following
the dynamic test. instructions
c. What are the mediators b. A forty-five minute - Bias analyses of
and test-takers percep- progress dynamic test rater by test type,
tions of both modes of rater by test-taker
assessment? and test-taker by
test type
Fourteen items Pre-testing
phase (10 minutes): Wh,
guessing, matching
While-testing phase Qualitative analysis
(20 minutes): Wh (x2),
summarizing (x2), MC, true/
false, guessing
Post-testing phase Analysis of the
(15 minutes): MC, picture interview data
reordering, summarizing,
making inference
c. Interview with raters and - Interview analysis:
test-takers in both test Perceptions of and
modes attitudes towards
the dynamic test
Results and discussion

The first part of this section addresses the FACETS analyses of test-taker ability and
item difficulty reports. The second part reports the bias interaction of a) rater by test
type, b) rater by test-taker and c) test-taker by test type. All these patterns were com-
pared in both parts of the test to account for the sources of variability among the dif-
ferent facets.
Test-taker ability and item difficulty

To probe into the nature of the test-taker ability and item difficulty, the following ques-
tion was addressed:
a. To what extent do estimates of test-taker ability and item difficulty vary across
static and dynamic listening?
Table 2 describes the test-taker ability in both parts of the test. The ability logit value
of the candidates in the dynamic part ranged from 3.19 to -.21 with candidate 37 being
the most able (3.19 logits) and candidate 15 the least able (.-21 logits). The ability
estimate mean for all the test-takers was 1.61. However, the ability values of the
static test showed that there were less able test-takers, ranging from 2.48 to -.49
Table 2 Test-taker measurement report in both parts of the test

Dynamic Static
Test-taker Ability SE Infit MnSq Test-taker Ability SE Infit MnSq
37 3.19 .76 1.00 23 2.48 .40 1.45
27 3.13 .76 1.02 22 2.41 .38 1.17
57 2.66 .64 .93 2 1.60 .30 1.77
5621 2.44 .57 .87 37 1.27 .27 1.39
1.55 .49 .77 29 .40 .24 1.85
60 1.24 .48 1.63 56 1.12 .26 .95
23 1.22 .48 2.21 60 1.04 .26 .78
6 1.09 .47 1.96 57 .73 .25 .64
16 1.07 .47 1.08 18 .26 .24 .84
20 .88 .47 2.40 16 -.48 .24 .61
15 -.21 .46 1.68 19 -.49 .25 .67
N = 60 N = 60
Mean 1.61 .53 1.00 Mean .78 .26 1.03
SD .82 .07 .40 SD .66 .04 .31
Notes: Reliability of separation index = .53; fixed Notes: Reliability of separation index = .84; fixed
(all same) chi-square: 137.8 d.f.: 59 significance: p < .00 (all same) chi-square: 308.5 d.f.: 59 significance: p < .00
with an ability mean of .78. The infit mean square was 1.00 with a SD of .40 and a
mean of 1.03 with a SD of .31 in the dynamic and static tests respectively. The
consistency value, according to McNamara (1996), can be set using the mean with 2
SD in both directions. For instance, SD was .40 and the mean was 1.00 (.402 = .80 +
1.00 = 1.8), candidates 23, 6 and 20 in the dynamic and candidates 2 and 29 in the static
parts were identified as misfitting. Misfitting candidates in the dynamic test might
mean that the test mediators offered much supportive comments which led the candi-
dates to perform better on the test items. However, the misfitting candidates in the
static test could be due to, as McNamara (1996), p. 177 pointed out, failure of atten-
tion in the test-taking process, guessing, anxiety, poor test item construction and the
like. The reliability of separation index in the dynamic test was .53 and the chi-square
of 137.8 with 59 d.f. was significant at p < .00. Also, the reliability of the separation
index in the static test of the test was .84 and the chi-square of 308.5 with 59 d.f. was
significant at p < .00. Therefore, the candidate ability estimates differed significantly in
both test modes.
Table 3 shows four statistics: Item number, item difficulty, standard error (SE) and
infit mean square of both tests. The difficulty mean value of the dynamic items was .00,
ranging from .33 to -.28. The SE mean was .25, ranging from .24 to .26 with a SD of
.01. In observing the static test, the difficulty mean value was .00 with a SD of .42,
contrary to the dynamic test, ranging from .77 to 1.71. The SE mean was .21, ranging
from .20 to 31. The most harshly scored item was item 108 (summarizing) with a logit
difficulty of .33. The most leniently scored item was item 103 (matching) with a logit
difficulty of -.28. The difficulty span of these two items was .61 (.33 + .28). In the static
test, the most harshly scored item was item 238 (following instructions), with a
difficulty value of .77. The most leniently scored item was item 205 (gap filling), with a
difficulty value of 1.71. The difficulty span was larger than the one of the dynamic
Table 3 Item measurement report in both parts of the test

Dynamic Static
Item Difficulty Error Infit MnSq Item Difficulty Error Infit MnSq
108 .33 .24 .95 238 .77 .20 1.23
106 .28 .24 .87 218 .50 .20 1.29
101 .22 .24 .90 237 .46 .20 1.31
111 .16 .24 1.17 222 .26 .20 .64
114 .10 .25 .80 212 .01 .21 1.37
109 -.02 .25 1.06 216 -.08 .21 .53
110 -.02 .25 1.01 202 -.26 .22 1.31
113 -.02 .25 .95 206 -.31 .22 .86
112 -.08 .25 1.13 210 -.31 .22 .63
102 -.15 .25 1.24 207 -.40 .22 1.04
104 -.15 .25 1.10 239 -.40 .22 .98
107 -.15 .25 .90 221 -.60 .23 1.01
105 -.21 .26 .99 209 -.66 .23 1.01
103 -.28 .26 .96 205 1.71 .31 1.21
N = 14 N = 40
Mean .00 .25 1.00 Mean .00 .21 1.01
SD .18 .01 .12 SD .42 .02 .21
Notes: Reliability of separation index = .00; fixed Notes: Reliability of separation index = .74; fixed
(all same) chi-square: 7.7 d.f.: 13 significance: p < .96 (all same) chi-square: 121.2 d.f.: 39 significance: p < .00
test. The infit mean square was 1.00, ranging from .80 to 1.24; while it was 1.01 with a
SD of .21 in the static test. This suggested that no item was identified as misfitting. The
reliability of the separation index of the dynamic part of the test was very low .00 and
the chi-square of 7.7 with 13 d.f. was significant at p < .96. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis that all the items were not equally difficult had to be rejected. In other words, the
items did not differ significantly in terms of difficulty. The reliability of the separation
index of the static part was .74 and the chi-square of 121.2 with 39 d.f. was significant
at p < .00. Therefore, the null hypothesis that all the items were difficult had to be
retained and confirmed.
Bias analyses
This section addressed the bias analyses of the interactions of rater by test type, rater
by test-taker and test-taker by test type. It basically tried to answer the following
question:
b. Is there any bias interaction of rater by test type, rater by test-taker and test-taker
by test type?
Table 4 presents the bias analyses of the interaction of rater by test type. The data, sorted
out according to the t value, column 9, revealed that there were 22 biased interactions out
of the total count of measurable responses of 3240. Recall that both tests, dynamic and
static, contained 14 and 40 items respectively (14 + 40 = 54x60 = 3240). Column 1 is the
rater ID, column 2 is severity. The next four columns 3, 4, 5 and 6, show the total score
Table 4 Bias analysis of rater and test type

Rater Severity Obsvd Exp. Obsvd Obs-Exp Bias Error t Infit Test
Score Score Count Average MnSq type
5 -.36 119 109.8 70 .13 -.47 .24 1.94 .9 Dynamic
6 .67 333 314.4 240 .08 -.20 .11 1.91 .9 Static
11 -.42 73 70.8 42 .05 -.22 -.33 -.67 .9 Dynamic
10 -.18 66 64.1 42 .05 -.14 .28 -.51 1.0 Dynamic
3 .10 237 234.0 140 .02 -.08 .17 -.51 1.3 Dynamic
7 -.51 95 93.1 56 .03 -.14 .27 -.51 1.1 Dynamic
4 -.13 129 126.3 84 .03 -.10 .19 -.51 .9 Dynamic
1 .22 286 283.1 200 .01 -.04 .12 -.34 1.2 Static
2 .43 149 147.4 126 .01 -.03 .14 -.22 .9 Dynamic
8 -.03 147 146.5 120 .00 -.01 .14 -.08 .9 Static
9 .20 77 76.8 56 .00 -.01 .21 -.04 1.4 Dynamic
9 .20 234 234.3 200 .00 .00 .11 .03 .9 Static
8 -.03 96 96.4 70 -.01 .02 .19 .08 .8 Dynamic
2 .43 275 276.9 280 -.01 .02 .09 .17 .9 Static
4 -.13 452 454.2 360 -.01 .02 .08 .19 1.0 Static
11 -.42 280 281.9 200 -.01 .03 .12 .22 1.1 Static
10 -.18 173 174.8 120 -.02 .04 .15 .28 .9 Static
3 .10 526 529.2 360 -.01 .03 .09 .29 1.1 Static
7 -.51 111 112.9 80 -.02 .06 .18 .34 1.0 Static
1 .22 107 110.0 70 -.04 .14 .21 .65 .8 Dynamic
5 -.36 327 335.7 240 -.04 .09 .10 .91 1.1 Static
6 .67 106 125.1 84 -.23 .59 .17 3.50 .4 Dynamic
Mean (count:22) 199.9 199.9 147.3 .00 -.02 .17 -.03 1.0
SD 124.3 124.3 96.5 .06 .18 .07 1.02 .2
Note: Fixed (all = 0) chi-square: 23.0 d.f.: 22 significance (probability): .40.
assigned by each rater in each test type (column 11), the total expected score that each
rater should have assigned (column 4), the observed count (column 5), and the average
value (column 6) between the observed (column 3) and expected (column 4) scores
divided by the observed count. The observed score for rater 5 was 119 and the
expected score was 109.8. For instance, for rater 5, the obs-exp average (column 6)
was .13 (119109.8 = 9.2/70). Columns 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the bias in logits, SE, t value
and the infit mean square respectively. The bias size ranged from -.47 to .59 and the error
ranged from .08 to -.33 with a mean of .17, which might be considerable. McNamara
(1996) pointed out that the t value should not go beyond the range of +2 to 2. The t
value varied from 1.94 to 3.5. In this case, rater 6 in the dynamic test was said to be
misfitting with a t value of 3.50. This meant that rater severity varied across test types. In
the infit mean square values of raters 6 and 9 in the dynamic test were at the two
extremes of the range with .4 and 1.4 respectively. In the observed and expected scores,
raters 6, 1 and 8 in static test and raters 5, 11, 10, 3, 7, 4, 2 and 9 in the dynamic test were
more lenient than expected. However, raters 8, 1 and 6 in the dynamic part and raters 9,
2, 4, 11, 10, 3, 7 and 5 in the static test were harsher than expected. The fixed chi-square
of 23.0 with 22 d.f. was significant at p < .40, suggesting that not all the raters were equally
severe and that the two test modes were relatively different in terms of difficulty.
Table 5 presents the bias interaction of rater (raters 8, 3, 6, 9 and 1) by test-taker in both
test modes. There were 89 instances of biased interactions. Raters 8, 3, 6, and 9 scored
candidates 41, 22, 54, 21, 20 and 42 respectively more harshly than expected. The data
revealed one case of significant misfit for rater 8 with a t value of 2.17. This meant that
rater severity varied across candidates. Also, the infit mean square showed that raters 6, 3,
and 1 were at the borderline of the range of misfit; while raters 3 and 9 were identified as
misfitting and therefore not consistent in their scoring. The fixed chi-square of 37.4 with
89 d.f. was significant at p < 1.00. Therefore, the null hypothesis that all raters were
equally severe had to be rejected.
Table 6 shows the bias interaction of test-taker by and test type. There were 120 bias
interactions of the total data of 3240. Candidates 23 up to 42 were scored more harshly
than expected; thus resulting in a negative value of the Obs-Exp average that ranged
from -.38 to -.02. There were cases of less leniently scored candidates, 2, 31, 11 and 27.
The SE, column 7, ranged from .24 to .74 with a mean of .38. This suggested that the
SE span was large. In observing the t value, there were 7 cases of significant fit all of
which stemmed from the dynamic test with candidates 23, 53, 31, 52 and 41 with a
significant misfit of 3.22, 2.60, 2.01, 2.30 and 2.17 respectively and other cases of
significant overfit, such as candidates 11 and 27 with a value of 2.02 and 2.12
respectively. The bias between candidates and test type indicated that the candidates
ability varied across test type and across test items. In the infit mean square, there were 7
cases of significant misfit having a value beyond the range of 0.4 and 1.60 in the dynamic
test for candidates 23, 53, 52, 51 and 20 and candidates 2 and 31 in the static test. There
were also 3 other cases that verged the borderline of the range for candidates 55, 21 and
42. The chi-square was 122.7 with 120 d.f. was significant at .42. Thus, the candidates
ability in both test modes differed significantly.
Findings from the interview

This section targeted the test-takers and raters perceptions of both modes of assessment.
It attempted to answer the following question:
c. What are the mediators and test-takers perceptions of both modes of assessment?
Table 5 Bias analysis of rater and test-taker

Rater Severity Obsvd Exp. Obsvd Obs-Exp Bias Error. t Infit Candidate
Score Score Count Average Size MnSq
8 -.03 18 22.5 14 -.32 .90 .41 2.17 .5 41
3 ,10 24 26.0 14 -.15 .82 .55 1.49 .9 22
6 .67 18 19.3 14 -.09 .23 .41 .56 .4 54
3 .10 44 46.2 40 -.06 .13 .24 .54 .4 21
9 .20 18 18.7 14 -.05 .12 .41 .29 1.9 20
8 -.03 17 17.2 14 -.02 .04 .41 .10 .4 42
3 .10 72 72.0 54 .00 .00 .22 -.01 1.7 29
1 .22 88 88.0 54 .00 .00 .26 .00 1.6 2
Mean (count:89) 49.4 49.4 36.4 .00 -.02 .32 -.01 1.0
SD 23.9 23.8 16.6 .09 .30 .13 .65 .3
Fixed (all = 0) chi-square: 37.4 d.f.: 89 significance (probability): 1.00.
Table 6 Bias analysis of Test-taker and test type

Candidate Ability Obsvd Exp. Obs-Exp Bias Model S. t Infit Test
Score Score Average Size E. MnSq type
23 2.13 20 25.3 -.38 1.40 .44 3.22 1.8 Dynamic
53 1.65 16 21.7 -.41 1.05 .40 2.60 .3 Dynamic
31 2.40 23 25.9 -.21 1.02 .51 2.01 .9 Dynamic
52 1.36 15 20.3 -.38 .92 .40 2.30 .2 Dynamic
41 1.14 18 22.5 -.32 .90 .41 2.17 .5 Dynamic
55 1.46 17 20.8 -.27 .69 .41 1.69 .4 Dynamic
51 1.23 16 19.6 -.26 .62 .40 1.55 .3 Dynamic
54 1.17 18 19.3 -.09 .23 .41 .56 .4 Dynamic
21 .60 44 46.2 -.06 .13 .24 .54 .4 Static
20 .59 18 18.7 -.05 .12 .41 .29 1.9 Dynamic
42 .11 17 17.2 -.02 .04 .41 .10 .4 Dynamic
2 1.89 65 63.7 .03 -.12 .30 -.39 1.8 Static
31 2.40 73 70.1 .07 -.41 .40 1.01 1.7 Static
11 .69 23 17.9 .36 1.03 .51 2.02 .8 Dynamic
27 .89 26 20.8 .37 1.57 .74 2.12 1.0 Dynamic
Mean (count: 120) 36.6 36.6 .00 -.02 .38 .02 1.0
SD 17.5 17.2 .14 .46 .13 1.01 .3
Fixed (all = 0) chi-square: 122.7 d.f.: 120 significance (probability): .42.
In their perception of the dynamic test, 6 out of 11 mediators showed that they man-
aged to organize the turn-taking among the test-takers; while 5 out of 11 pointed out
that one of the test-takers dominated the conversation. Even though the mediators (9
out of 11) found that working dynamically on the test was useful and appropriate for
their test-takers, 8 out of them agreed that they faced difficulties. All of them main-
tained that the test-takers were familiar with the static version of the test only, and,
therefore, suggested that it was preferable to design, administer, and score traditional
static tests. Scoring dynamic listening was likely to be subjective and not practical. Six
of the 11 mediators replied that exposing students to both modes of assessment would
be a better alternative for assessing LC ability, though they remained doubtful about
scoring the test-takers ability in an objective way. Some of them (n = 7) argued that it
was difficult to score their performance in the dynamic test, they did not tend to toler-
ate the test-takers grammar, pronunciation and coherence problems. Others added that
using DA is not fruitful on the grounds that students at university always tended to be
passive in many courses. However, two out of the 11 mediators argued that DA could
help learners overcome their language problems.
Concerning the static part of the test, the raters (n = 8) justified that the most given
variety of question types, whether in teaching or testing listening, was the MC,
wh-, yes/no items. One of the questions given in the static part of the test was on
following instructions. Four teachers strongly agreed that such a test item was
common to work on only in class and not in exams. A mismatch was found between what
was done in teaching and testing. Probably, the listening teachers stuck to the questions
in the textbook. In this study context, all the mediators agreed that most often
testing listening was designed with three main parts in the exam: True/False statements,
wh-questions and a third part dealing with gap filling (Hidri 2010b).
As for the test-takers, 80% of them noted that the division of the test into 3 parts
was very helpful, as they gradually felt more motivated. Generally, they claimed that the
interaction with their partners made them more relaxed and that they preferred to sit
for similar tests as official exams. Some test-takers (n = 18) assured that they liked to
interact with their colleagues in the exam to have good marks. Although 90% of the re-
spondents reported that the static test was more difficult than the dynamic one, nearly
67% of them indicated that they preferred to be tested in a static way basically for
practical reasons. That is, they strongly agreed that their partners dominated the con-
versation. Some test-takers felt nervous in the dynamic test as they were not familiar
with some mediators who, in some instances, did not manage to engage them to inter-
act with their partners. However, 27% pointed out that the mediators dominated the
conversation, and, therefore, influenced their answers. Others (n = 15) noted that the
mediators were not helpful, since they did not allocate them enough time to finish their
tasks.
All the respondents reported that they were never tested in a dynamic way as 100%
of them agreed that the only variety that was given to them was the static classical version.
Many test-takers (n = 41) suggested to sit for both test modes to have a comprehensive
view about their listening ability, while few test-takers (n = 8) preferred to work on the test
individually. All the test-takers reported that in class they were familiar with the questions
of the pre-, while-, and post- testing phases, with the exception of using pictures to
summarize a story. Seventy six percent of the test-takers agreed that their answers
reflected their language ability in English while 20% reported the opposite,
because their partners dominated the conversation. In addition, most of the test
takers (56%) agreed that they were both familiar with the question types of the
static test. Some test-takers (n = 21) assured that they felt nervous in the static
test, mainly because exams for them generally entailed stress and anxiety. As for
the kind of problems the test-takers had in both modes of assessment, the raters
emphasized that the test-takers generally faced some difficulties which were related to
making the appropriate inference, grammar, comprehension, and appropriateness
and relevance of the answer.
Conclusions
The purpose of the study addressed a need to examine and improve current
assessments of listening of Tunisian university EFL test-takers. The study addressed
the necessity to use DA in this context and at the same time it explored the clas-
sical mode of assessing LC. To this end, different methods of data collection
(FACETS analyses and interview data) were utilized. DA generally proved to be a
more effective mode of learning. Results of the study confirmed the findings of
other studies (e.g., Gibbons 2003; Poehner & Lantolf 2005) when they concluded
that learners perform better in joint activities. This finding is echoed in the
studies of Gibbons (2003) and Lidz (2002) who maintained that when learners are
engaged in a joint activity, they can be very helpful and insightful not only to overcome
the difficulty of the test items but also to reach the stage where they can construct
meaning in an autonomous way. This study on assessing listening dynamically yielded

the following:
There was an impact of the mediators use of support and guidance on the
students processing.
In some instances, the mediators lack of support in the post-testing phase resulted
in poor performance on the part of the test-takers.
First, this impact was shaped by the teaching experience, views of language and lan-
guage learning and involvement in and perception of DA. Second, apparently, some
mediators (n = 4) tended to score the test-takers pronunciation rather than appropri-
ateness of the answer. For instance, some mediators could not tolerate grammar and
pronunciation problems and, therefore, behaved accordingly (e.g., raters 2 and 6) even
though in the benchmarking sessions they were advised not to penalize students for
such language problems. Finally, the mediators less degree of involvement in the post-
testing phase did not help the learners to process the task.
DA practitioners have called for the necessity of test-takers benefitting from each
other. Yet, the interview feedback showed that generally the test-takers did not benefit
much and they did not even benefit from the mediators support. This was in part due
to the fact that mediators were not successful in organizing the turn-taking. It might be
important at this level to consider the teachers roles in class in this particular context
and to investigate perceptions of DA in helping the learners build up an independent
learning behavior. Generally, dynamic testing can be beneficial in making good progress
in learning. However, from the instances of interaction observed, there were occasions
where learning did not take place, especially when the interaction amounted to a par-
ticular type of dominance, like expert/novice or high versus low proficiency level stu-
dents. This led to different scores. Therefore, results of the FACETS analyses indicated
the following:
Generally, the test-takers ability estimates varied significantly in both test modes,
with more able students in the dynamic than in the static test. This high perform-
ance might be due to the accessibility of the test items, the lenient scoring behavior
and the joint interactions.
The raters behavior changed depending on the nature of the test in that the
scoring resulted in significantly higher scores in the dynamic than in the static test.
In fact, this reflected the raters views of language and language learning.
The raters behaved more harshly in the static test but were consistently lenient in
the dynamic test. This was echoed in the negotiation of meaning.
Although some raters, those who had a longer experience in teaching, had a higher
level of inter-rater agreement, they, nevertheless, did not have intra-rater agreement. It
is vital for the raters to undergo an intensive and continuous training in order to reduce
the measurement inconsistency. Another major discussion point worth mentioning is the
use of qualitative data through interviews. This use was very beneficial in probing into the
main attitudes towards both types of assessment. These instruments significantly helped
probe into the realities of classroom teaching, learning and assessment.
DA may loom beneficial for learners who are mediated to activate their cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to notice things. In classical standardized testing, however,
such mediation is not offered. DA may be at stake when validity and reliability are con-
cerned. These two notions have been largely addressed in psychometric standardized
testing. However, DA researchers have not managed to find reasonable arguments for
validity and reliability, except for Lantolf (2009) and Poehner (2011). In this study, DA
was not reliable in that when the same measurement procedures were repeated they
did not produce the same results, given the fact that the mediation context changed
from one learner to another and from one mediator to another. Lantolf (2009), p. 365
argues that DA makes a strong claim with regard to predictive validity. DA focuses
on changing the learner to better levels of linguistic attainment. Since the use of effect-
ive dynamic instructions leads the test-takers to perform better in the future, propo-
nents of DA (e.g., Lantolf & Poehner 2009) point out that this future success does in
fact echo predictive validity. Contrary to such studies, the test-takers in this study per-
formed well with mediation, but once they were left alone or once the mediators re-
duced help, they were indecisive and unable to continue processing the test items.
Engaging all the raters in training sessions might minimize rater inconsistency and pos-
sibly reach objective scoring. Yet, if some of the raters had a more or less similar ex-
perience in teaching and were involved in regular training sessions, the results of the
study might be different.
Implications
This study addressed a need to examine and improve current assessments of LC. It had
theoretical, pedagogical and methodological implications which could be addressed for
future research. First, in the theoretical implications, results of DA brought to light the
fact that there should be an interface between language learning and language testing.
This interface has been addressed in research (e.g., Alderson 2005; Bachman 1989;
Bachman & Cohen 1998; Douglas & Selinker 1985). This link integrates instruction
and assessment in class to help the learners meet their needs and reach the stage where
they can perform independently. DA is not an alternative to classroom assessment, nor
can it replace other types of assessment. Rather, it is integrated with classroom instruc-
tions to help test-takers overcome their testing difficulties by, for instance, developing
their cognitive and metacognitive processes. The findings of DA interactions can be
considered additional contributions to the link between assessment and learning. Like
other DA studies (e.g., Ableeva 2008; Ableeva & Lantolf 2011; Gibbons 2003), this
study showed that with supportive interactions, for instance, in the pre- and while-
testing phases, effective learning can take place and that targeting the activation of the
learners cognitive and metacognitive strategies to overcome the testing difficulties.
Second, the pedagogical implications addressed the different steps through which
teaching and testing can be improved. In this regard, assessing the learners in a pro-
gress dynamic test can help locate the areas of weaknesses in the language program or
in the learners cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Additionally, this assessment can
target the measurement of static listening as a final achievement test. In addition, grab-
bing the test-takers attention to notice things and praising them to overcome their dif-
ficulties are in fact at the heart of any learning process. Research on DA and learning
in general highlights this endeavor. Despite the threats to validity and reliability of the
test, assessing learners in a dynamic way in the Tunisian context may be practical and
useful given the tremendous language problems these learners have. In terms of au-
thenticity, DA echoes the authentic tasks and activities that the learners are supposed
to meet in everyday life, not like psychometric standardized tests. In short, implement-
ing DA has the goal of changing the learners behavior in their perception of the differ-
ent courses undertaken at the university level in Tunisia.
Third, the methodological implications called for the importance of using qualitative
(interaction in the dynamic test and interview) and quantitative instruments (test
scores). Like other studies (Buck 1994), the use of qualitative and quantitative methods
played a crucial role in assessment. The feedback teachers suggested about the nature
of problems has immediate implications for teaching as well as for testing. In the light
of this feedback, the teachers can address and remedy these shortcomings in teaching,
and, therefore, in testing.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Scoring the joint performance of the dynamic test in an objective way posed many
challenges for the mediators who tended to be more lenient in the dynamic than static
test. The mediators kind of interaction with test-takers varied considerably from one
teacher to another and, therefore, resulted in different scores. The scoring led to inter-
rater and intra-rater agreement in terms of leniency in the dynamic test and inter-rater
and intra-rater agreement in terms of severity in the static test. This in fact had serious
threats to the validity and reliability of the test. In addition, unlike other studies on DA,
(e.g., Gibbons 2003; Lidz 2002), which were carried out through a four- to five-week
period of time, this study was carried out in a shorter period of time. While dynamic
learning stresses the idea of joint interactions between learners, it fails to account for
the pauses of silence where learners produced no output. That is, it may appear hard to
find explanations for the silence instances of the learners and to claim whether they
were signs of language processing or language problems. Other listening passages,
other well-trained raters who were familiar with DA, other candidates with a different
ability, another rating context, and other educational and research contexts might have
probably led to different results, yet not very divergent from the ones outlined in this
study.
There are possible orientations which can be considered for future research. First,
there is a need to investigate why raters tended to score dynamic performance more le-
niently. This could be addressed by investigating the rating experience, views of lan-
guage and language learning and assessment and their impacts on test scores. Much
more qualitative research can be carried out on the paired interactions of the test-
takers in DA throughout a longer period of time. Using think-aloud protocol to probe
into these silent instances might possibly yield more insights into the nature of acquir-
ing and processing listening. A further investigation into the nature of joint interaction,
whether in teaching or testing, and why mediators tend to be more lenient in DA,
should be highlighted and investigated. Teachers should address the dynamic nature of
tasks, whether in teaching or testing LC, and they should be encouraged to teach listen-
ing. Adhering to testing LC dynamically should be highlighted in the Tunisian context
given the poor test scores of the candidates in this skill and in the other language skills.
This is a research gap which needs to be addressed to tackle the matching between
teaching and testing through using DA. Overall, standardized tests are limited in unco-
vering the cognitive strategies of learners. At the same time, DA may put the validity
and reliability of the test at stake. Hence, assessing the LC ability using both assessment
modes might be important in reaching fair inferences on this ability.
Endnotes
a
The Baccalaureate exam is a compulsory national exam administered to all students
who finish their secondary education. It is the equivalent of the A-level. Students can
specialize in one of these disciplines three years before they sit for the baccalaureate
exam: Arts, mathematics, experimental sciences, economics, technical sciences or in-
formation technology.
b
Scores below 9.99 for these disciplines are the following: Arts, 77.67 (with 40.47
who got below the score of 4), mathematics (55.64), experimental sciences, 67.31, eco-
nomics 94.81 (with 52.45 who got below 4), technical sciences, 79.58 and information
technology 88.97.
c
The LMD is a newly implemented educational system in the Tunisian universities
that dates back to 2006/2007. It consists of reducing the number of study years from 4
to 3. This was done on the assumption that it would minimize cost effects and align
the Tunisian educational system with the European ones, since Tunisia has been receiv-
ing funds from Europe. Each university is responsible for designing and implementing
its own course degree that has to be approved by the Ministry of Higher Education.
Since 2006/2007, students, teachers, parents and some policy makers have been com-
plaining about the low level of the language ability of graduates of English. Still, no po.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback. I, however, remain fully responsible
for the contents of this article.
Received: 24 February 2014 Accepted: 17 April 2014

Published: 2 May 2014
References
Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In P Lantolf & ME Poehner (Eds.),
Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 5786). London: Equinox.
Ableeva, R, & Lantolf, JP. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension.
Assessment in Education, 18, 133149.
Alderson, JC. (2005). Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency: The interfaces between learning and assessment. London:
Continuum.
Bachman, LF. (1989). Language testing-SLA interfaces. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 193209.
Bachman, LF, & Cohen, AD. (1998). Language testing-SLA interfaces: An update. In LF Bachman & AD Cohen (Eds.),
Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berne, LE. (1995). How do varying pre-listening activities affect second language listening comprehension? Hispania,
78, 316329.
Bond, TG, & Fox, CM. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. mahwah. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brindley, G, & Slayter, H. (2002). Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 369394.
Buck, G. (1994). The appropriacy of psychometric measurement models for testing second language listening
comprehension. Language Testing, 11(2), 145170.
Buck, G, & Tatsuoka, K. (1998). Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing: Examining attributes of a
free response listening test. Language Testing, 15(2), 119157.
Canale, M, & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 147.
Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2003). Second language interaction: Current perspectives and future trends. Language Testing,
20, 369383.
Douglas, D, & Selinker, L. (1985). Principles for language tests within the 'discourse domains' theory of interlanguage:
Research, test construction and interpretation. Language Testing, 2, 205226.
Fulcher, G. (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13(1), 2351.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating Language Learning: Teacher Interactions with ESL Students in a Content-Based
Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247273.
Ginther, A. (2002). Context and content visuals and performance on listening comprehension stimuli. Language Testing,
19(2), 133167.
Helal, F. (1997). Error treatment in Tunisian EFL classes: An application of the communicative competence model. Tunisia:
Unpublished DEA thesis. University of Manouba.
Hidri, S. (2010a). Comparison of students performance in dynamic vs. static listening comprehension tests among EFL
learners. In paper presented as work in progress in the 32nd Language Testing Research Colloquium, April 1416, 2010
at the University of Cambridge, Crossing the threshold levels, domains and frameworks in language assessment.
Hidri, S. (2010b). Writing listening comprehension test items and tasks for learners of English at the tertiary level:
Biasing for the Test. In paper presented at the International Conference on English Language Teaching and Testing:
Developments and Challenges, 2223, April 2010, at the Higher Institute for Applied Studies in the Humanities,
Zaghouan, Tunisia.
Hidri, S. (2013a). Assessing Static vs. Dynamic Listening: Validation of the Test Specifications. In Published PhD
Dissertation. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
Hidri, S. (2013b). The effectiveness of assessment of learning and assessment for learning in eliciting valid inferences on
the test-takers listening comprehension ability. In article published in the Proceedings of the Nile TESOL Conference:
Revolutionizing TESOL: Techniques and Strategies (pp. 125). Egypt: The American University in Cairo. https://docs.
google.com/file/d/0B6bmHwcjFuVYX2FJZTFndGF0QzA/edit.
Hidri, S. (2014). Comparison of the students' performance in dynamic vs. static listening comprehension tests among
EFL learners. In article published in the Proceedings of the 19th TESOL Arabia Conference, From KG to College to Career
(pp. 5159).
Jensen, C, & Hansen, C. (1995). The effect of prior knowledge on EAP Listening-test performance. Language Testing,
12, 99119.
Karpov, YV, & Haywood, HC. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky's concept of mediation: Implications for
instruction. American Psychologist, 53(1), 2736.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance.
Language Testing, 19(1), 331.
Kozulin, A, & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International,
23(1), 112127.
Lantolf, P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching,
42(3), 355368.
Lantolf, JP, & Poehner, ME. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the pat into the future. JAL,
1(1), 4972.
Lantolf, JP, & Poehner, ME. (2006). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher's guide.
Pennsylvania: CALPER University Park.
Lantolf, JP, & Poehner, ME. (2009). The artificial development of second language ability: A sociocultural approach. In
WC Ritchie & TK Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 138159). Bingley, UK: Emerald
Press.
Lantolf, JL, & Poehner, ME. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language
development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 1135.
Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257278.
Lidz, CS. (2001). Multicultural issues and dynamic assessment. In LA Suzuki, JG Ponterotto, & PJ Meller (Eds.), Handbook
of multicultural assessment: clinical, psychological, and educational applications (2nd ed., pp. 523539). San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
Lidz, CS. (2002). Mediated learning experiences (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment. School
Psychology International, 23(1), 6884.
Lidz, CS, & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A Kozulin, VS
Ageev, S Miller, & B Gindis (Eds.), Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99116). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lumely, T, & McNamara, TF. (1995). Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing,
12(1), 5471.
McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. New York: Longman.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18, 333349.
McNamara, T, & Roever, K. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal
development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In JP Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language
learning (pp. 5178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poehner, ME. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through dynamic
assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21, 244263.
Poehner, ME, & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research,
9, 233265.
Poehner, ME, & van Compernolle, RA. (2011). Frames of interaction in Dynamic Assessment: Developmental diagnoses
of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 18(2), 183198.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning-focused interpretation.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 164189.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern Language Journal,
78, 199221.
Sternberg, RJ, & Grigorenko, EL. (2002). Dynamic testing. The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through dynamic dialogue. In JP Lantolf
(Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn
from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275282.
Tzuriel, D. (2011). Revealing the effects of cognitive education programmes through Dynamic Assessment, Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice (Vol. 18, pp. 113131).
Vandergrift, L, Goh, CCM, Mareschal, CJ, & Tafaghodtari, MH. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening
questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431462.
Vygotsky, L. (1981). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yian, W. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospective study of EFL test-takers performing a
multiple choice task. Language Testing, 15(1), 2144.
doi:10.1186/2229-0443-4-4
Cite this article as: Hidri: Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL
context. Language Testing in Asia 2014 4:4.
Submit your manuscript to a

journal and benet from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

Article Etc312 English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article Etc312 English

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

Article Etc312 English

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hidri Language Testing in Asia 2014, 4:4

RESEARCH Open Access

Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment

Assessment context and relevance of DA

Table 1 Research design

Results and discussion

Test-taker ability and item difficulty

Table 2 Test-taker measurement report in both parts of the test

Table 3 Item measurement report in both parts of the test

Table 4 Bias analysis of rater and test type

Findings from the interview

Table 5 Bias analysis of rater and test-taker

Table 6 Bias analysis of Test-taker and test type

meaning in an autonomous way. This study on assessing listening dynamically yielded

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Received: 24 February 2014 Accepted: 17 April 2014

Submit your manuscript to a

Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

You might also like