Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language

Studies

ISSN: 1607-3614 (Print) 1727-9461 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rall20

Dynamic assessment to improve students’

summary writing skill in an ESP class

Lutfi Ashar Mauludin

To cite this article: Lutfi Ashar Mauludin (2018) Dynamic assessment to improve students’
summary writing skill in an ESP class, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies,
36:4, 355-364, DOI: 10.2989/16073614.2018.1548296

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548296

Published online: 18 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rall20
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2018, 36(4): 355–364 Copyright © NISC (Pty) Ltd
SOUTHERN AFRICAN LINGUISTICS
AND APPLIED LANGUAGE STUDIES
ISSN 1607-3614 EISSN 1727-9461
https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548296

Dynamic assessment to improve students’ summary writing

skill in an ESP class

Lutfi Ashar Mauludin

Department of Business, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Dynamic assessment is one kind of assessment that integrates the process of interaction
within the implementation. The method is based on Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development theory
which mentions that the students need guidance in a learning process before they can solve the problem
individually. The use of dynamic assessment has been proved to be effective in improving the students’
skill in teaching of English as a foreign language (TEFL) settings. This study aims to investigate the
role of dynamic assessment in improving the students’ summary writing skill in an English for specific
purposes (ESP) class. The method used was quasi-experimental in design. The subjects were 22
students of a public library technician programme in a public university in Indonesia. They were divided
into two groups; an experimental group, and a control group. The experimental group received the
treatment of dynamic assessment, while the control group did not. The data were gathered through
pre-tests and post-tests. The data of pre-test and post-test were tabulated and analysed using the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The result showed that the implementation of dynamic
assessment is effective in improving the students’ skill in summary writing.

Introduction
In teaching English as a foreign language settings, assessment plays a significant role. It is one of
the most significant objects that is able to motivate the students’ learning goals (Derakhshan and
Kordjazi 2015). An assessment consists of several procedures to test and measure the students’
ability, and which functions to support the process of teaching and learning. Assessment is also a
tool to find out systematic information of individuals or students, based on several procedures (Alemi
2015). Assessment can also be said to be an information-gathering activity (Poehner 2008). In this
study, the students’ abilities are investigated to find the insights of the students’ level of knowledge.
By doing this, the teacher can recognise the improvement or the obstacles that the students have
while learning the target language.
The problem related to assessment occurs when it is viewed as an instrument that causes anxiety
and nervousness to the students. This is caused by the fact that the assessment results are viewed
as a high-stakes situation (Poehner 2008). Thus, the students’ future depends on the results of
assessments. Several countries conduct national examinations which demand that the students
achieve some standardised scores to pass. This phenomenon is actually not aligned with the
fundamental objective of assessment which is to help the students master the relevant knowledge.
The process-oriented assessment is supported by Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
theory (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev and Miller 2003), which mentions that the students need guidance to
solve problems before they can solve it themselves. In this case, teachers’ immediate support to the
students before they can perform the skills independently is important. In short, an integrated activity
is crucial to support their development. Therefore, dynamic assessment has emerged as a process-
oriented assessment that can support the students’ skills development.
Dynamic assessment is considered to be one of the most popular alternative assessments in the
context of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL). The aim of dynamic assessment is to
mediate and give assistance to the students during the testing process (Lantolf and Poehner 2011).
The focus of this approach is to help students improve their skills. Dynamic assessment emphasises

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and
Informa UK Limited (trading as Taylor & Francis Group)
356 Mauludin

the connection between testing and instruction, which means that the testing is part of the teaching
and learning activities, and its main role is to solve the problems that occur in the classroom.
EFL (English as a foreign language) students are expected to master four skills of language:
speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The writing skill, especially, is viewed as one of the most
difficult skills to master since it incorporates many interrelated language skills. To acquire this skill,
students need proper assistance and instruction to achieve the expected goal.
In the case of ESP (English for specific purposes), the challenge is bigger. ESP classes focus on
teaching English skill which is specific to certain disciplines of study (Basturkmen 2010). Different
from general English classes, ESP classes are designed to identify certain skills needed in specific
professions. ESP classes require teachers to use more varieties of the language. These varieties
include technical terms in different contexts. The real challenge of teaching skills in ESP classes is
the fact that the students do not have much exposure to an English learning environment. English
is only a subject that is in support of their general skills, which means their class time is shorter
compared to those who learn English as their major. Thus, a specific treatment or approach is
needed to help them acquire the necessary language skills.
Looking at the importance of dynamic assessment during the EFL learning process, the current
study will focus on the implementation of dynamic assessment to enhance the students’ summary
writing skills in ESP classes. As mentioned earlier, in ESP classes, the main problem is the students’
understanding in a specific topic. In this class, the students received a limited amount of English
instruction since the English subject is only taught in a limited time. Therefore, the students’ ability
to write a summary is hindered. To solve the problem, a specific instruction that actively supports
the students’ learning process is needed. Thus, this study attempts to find what the role of dynamic
assessment in enhancing the students’ summary writing skills is.

Literature review

Basic concept of dynamic assessment

Dynamic assessment is a framework that conceptualises the integration of the teaching process
and the assessment practice as a united activity (Poehner and Lantolf 2005). In this process, the
teacher actively supports the students’ development in performing the testing. Dynamic assessment
is a model that replicates the teachers’ interpretation about the dynamic assessment in a particular
classroom context. Thus, dynamic assessment is not a pre-specified method of testing that should
be followed in a set manner, but is actually a reconceptualisation of teaching, assessment, and
development. Therefore, its practices should be based on the classroom context.
The root of dynamic assessment is Vygotsky’s notion of a zone of proximal development (ZPD).
The theory mentions that proper guidance or assistance needs to be given to the students during
teaching (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev and Miller 2003). Specifically, this theory emphasises that before
the students can independently solve a problem, guidance from an expert such as a teacher or more
experienced peers is required. In other words, the guidance should be beyond what students can
do individually (Davin and Donato 2013). The assistance or guidance should be within the scope of
students’ development which means that the students cannot solve the problem if the guidance is
not given. The process of guidance is a part of the stages of student development during problem
solving. That means if the guidance is unnecessary, the potential development does not occur.
In dynamic assessment, the testing and instruction should be conducted together (Hashemnezhad
and Fatollahzadeh 2015). If the teacher has the purpose to witness how the students develop
their ability or to investigate how they make progress in a classroom, the assessment should not
focus on the final achievement. Instead, the main focus should be on their achievement process
with the guidance of teachers or peers. The process of teachers’ or peers’ guidance reflects the
internalisation process which aims to give enough knowledge to the students to be able to solve the
problem independently.
The guidance in the dynamic assessment is called mediation. It refers to a process that
the students engage in in order to obtain the aim of the study (Shrestha and Coffin 2012). The
mediation permits the teacher to interact and collaborate with the students to solve the assessment
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2018, 36(4): 355–364 357

task. There are two kinds of approach of mediation in dynamic assessment: interventionist, and
interactionist. Interventionist dynamic assessments are considered as more formal, standardised
procedures (Poehner 2008). In this approach, during the testing, when the examinees find difficulties,
pre-fabricated hints are given to help solve the problem. In this approach, the speed of learning
is emphasised since the purpose is to help the students quickly and efficiently. Meanwhile, in
the interactionist approach, the focus is in dialoguing. The approach provides an opportunity for
interaction between the mediator and the students. This approach is highly influenced by the
Vygotsky’s ZPD theory in that immediate guidance was given during the assessment process.
Furthermore, the format of mediation is divided into two: sandwich, and cake. In the sandwich
format, there are three stages/layers; pre-test–mediation–post-test (Poehner 2008). In this activity,
first the pre-test is conducted by asking the students to complete pre-test activities. Then, a series of
instructions is given to adjust the learners’ understanding about the initial test. Finally, a post-test is
conducted to find out how much improvement the students have made. In this format, the mediation
can be conducted individually or in groups. As for the cake format, the mediation is administered
during the process of assessment. Usually, it is performed when the problem arises. In this format,
the examinees completed test activities item by item. If they could not solve the item, the examiners
offer a hint of instruction. In other words, the examinees are provided with instruction during the
testing. This format is considered to be effective to support the students in identifying and overcoming
their errors in each test item.
To support the mediation of the learning process, the components of dynamic assessment are
needed: intentionality, reciprocity, and transcendence (Mehrnoosh and Rassaei 2015). Intentionality
is the situation where the mediator asks questions and give hints or clues to help the students solve
the problem. In this process, the mediator can easily find the detailed information about the potential
ability of the students. Therefore, immediate guidance can be given to enhance their development.
Reciprocity is the students’ response to the mediator’s instruction. It is related to the students’ ability
to react to the mediation that permits the instructor to determine the amount of mediation needed to
solve the problem. This component emphasises the three factors that influence the process, which
are the instructor, the students, and the mediation. The mediation should be well constructed so
that the students can respond positively. It also should be direct in order to catch and keep the
students’ attentiveness. Some features are needed, such as asking questions, making suggestions,
gesturing, and making adjustments, to maintain participation. Finally, transcendence is the process
of broadening the interaction between the instructors, the students, and the mediation. This is the
eventual goal of mediated learning which proposes to improve cognitive development.

Dynamic assessment versus non-dynamic assessment

Traditionally, there are two kinds of assessment: summative, and formative (Bachman 1990).
Summative assessment is an assessment that is administered at the end of a periodic learning
activity. The function is to measure the students’ ability at the end of a series of instructions. In other
words, this assessment is focused on the product of the learning. In reality, summative assessment is
considered to be a decision-maker for the students’ future. On the other hand, formative assessment
is an assessment that is conducted before the course is completed. The function of this assessment
is to provide feedback to the students to improve their ability.
In the case of summative assessment and formative assessment, they are considered not to be
effective in enhancing the students’ ability (Poehner and Lantolf 2005; Lantolf and Poehner 2011).
Summative assessment is said to not help the students’ skill development since it only focuses on
the results of the learning, ignoring the process of learning. Formative assessment – although it
is more effective than summative assessment – is being criticised since it does not integrate the
instruction and assessment practices during the learning process (Poehner and Lantolf 2005). In
most practices, formative assessment separates the elements of assessment and instruction. This
causes concern since in the teaching and learning process, the integration between both elements
is needed to enhance the students’ ability. Traditional assessment, or static assessment, focuses on
the actual development of the students in relation to the materials that have been learned. This type
of assessment does not consider the learning process of the students (Hessamy and Ghaderi 2014).
358 Mauludin

Thus, process-oriented assessment emerged to counteract this limitation. In this form of assessment,
the focus is on the process of students’ development to produce and demonstrate their own learning.
What makes dynamic assessment different from static assessment or traditional assessment is
that it is focuses on the process of learning instead of the product of learning (Shresta and Coffin
2012). The process of dynamic assessment assists the students’ current abilities to overcome the
problems that occur during the test administration as well as to recognise their potential. Dynamic
assessment prioritises the role of intervention and mediation that can improve the understanding of
the students. Mediation is needed to enlighten the problem that occurs to foster their development
(Shakki 2016). In short, it provides the interaction between examiners and examinee through hints,
prompts, and model or leading questions when the students face difficulties during instructional
activities (Amiri and Saberi 2016). This is different from static assessment, which considers that any
interaction during assessment is intolerable or is cheating (Hessamy and Ghaderi 2014). In dynamic
assessment, assistance and intervention during the testing or assessment is considered to be an
important process to discover the students’ ability. The focus is on the specific form of feedback and
mediation during the assessment process.
Specifically, the difference between dynamic assessment and non-dynamic assessment consists
of three things (Sternberg and Grigorenko 2002). Firstly, non-dynamic assessment is focused
on the already acquired skills and on the product-oriented approach in the assessment goals.
Meanwhile, dynamic assessment refuses any product-oriented approach and does not conclude
a result based on pre-existing skills. Secondly, dynamic assessment provides feedback during
the test administration, while non-dynamic assessment prohibits giving feedback during the test.
Finally, dynamic assessment considers students as active participants and the examiner functions
as motivator to make positive cognitive changes for the learners. Non-dynamic assessment refrains
from any interaction between examiner and participants during the process.

Previous studies
Several studies have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of dynamic assessment in
improving students’ writing skills (Xiaoxiao and Yan 2010; Shresta and Coffin 2012; Miao and Lv
2013; Aghaebrahimian, Rahimirad and Ahmadi 2014; Alemi 2015; Davoudi and Ataie-tabar 2015;
Hashemnezhad and Fatollahzadeh 2015; Sadek 2015; Amiri and Saberi 2016; Khoshsima, Saed and
Mortazavi 2016). In terms of academic writing development, it is found that dynamic assessment can
help to identify and respond to the students’ individual needs (Shresta and Coffin 2012). In this study,
dynamic assessment serves as support in the process of interaction between a tutor/teacher and
the students through various forms of draft assignments. The process of interaction can be various.
It can be a direct dialogue between the teacher and the students; it also can be via e-mail or other
message devices. Similarly, dynamic assessment improves the students’ motivation as they consider
the teacher as their assistant in completing the task (Sadighi, Jamasbi and Ramezani 2018). The
positive attitude of the students towards the instruction is a significant factor in fulfilling the students’
needs in the teaching and learning process. Dynamic assessment also supports the improvement of
the students’ awareness about the criteria of writing evaluation (Alemi 2015). The writing evaluation
is essential in building the students understanding about the organisation of writing. Most of the
students who do not understand the organisation of the text found it difficult to compose a text.
Thus, the intensive interaction between the teacher and students is supportive to help solve the
problem. Furthermore, through mediation, the students are able to assess their own writing abilities.
This is done by asking the students to evaluate their own ability through self-rating evaluation in a
dynamic assessment-based course. This activity significantly helps the low-level students to get
more accuracy in the self-assessment.
Dynamic assessment has also proved to effectively evaluate various writing skills by constructing
more effective evaluation and assessment (Amiri and Saberi 2016; Sadek 2015). It is found that the
mediation activity helps the students focus on of the studies that dynamic assessment has several
benefits in writin their individual weaknesses. By focusing on these weaknesses, the guided treatment
from the instructor can be immediately given during the testing process. In Sadek’s study (2015),
dynamic assessment is proven to help the students overcome the problems related to a standardised
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2018, 36(4): 355–364 359

test. Dynamic assessment also can create a long-lasting effect on the progression of learning
(Aghaebrahimian et al. 2014). It assists the students to improve their performance automatically.
This also allows the teachers to provide more reliable sources of assessment since the students
are supported with suitable and levelled feedback during the evaluation process. Furthermore, the
process of mediation between teachers and students provides a viewpoint of the students’ potential
to be developed (Miao and Lv 2013). By collecting accurate insights into the students’ potential,
the obstacles of learning can be overcome and reduced through mediation and intervention, peer
collaboration, and the students’ active involvement. Therefore, the treatment to improve the specific
skill can easily be developed.
A study shows that the dialogic way of teaching in dynamic assessment is also considered to be
a massive support in improving the students’ interest in writing as well as enhancing their writing
competence (Xiaoxiao and Yan 2010). Dynamic assessment provides an opportunity to improve
the creativity in providing instructions for the students. The improved instructions are beneficial in
assisting the students to overcome the problems that arise during the learning process. One of the
problems in composing writing is grammatical accuracy. In this case, dynamic assessment was also
proven to be effective in improving the grammatical accuracy in composing writing (Ramazanpour,
Nourdad and Nouri 2016). Moreover, providing feedback through dialogue and negotiation provides
the students more opportunities to understand their own problems and find the solutions to improve
them (Khoshsima et al. 2016). The direct interaction gives an opportunity for the students to revise
their performance immediately, which enhances the students’ eagerness to participate in the class
activity (Azarian, Nourdad and Nouri 2016). An interactive learning environment also contributes to
the development of the four major sub-skills of writing (Davoudi and Ataie-tabar 2015). Thus, it is
important to create materials that provide a dynamic evaluation process that assists the students with
suitable and interactive engagement in the learning process.
It can be concluded from some of the studies that dynamic assessment has several benefits in
writing skill development. Firstly, it provides the interactions between the teacher and the students
to create a ZPD (Hessamy and Ghaderi 2014). Secondly, the mediation provided in dynamic
assessment offers an opportunity to track the students’ development by providing information about
their current writing skills so the needed amount and quality of support can be stipulated (Shresta
and Coffin 2012). Thirdly, the interaction between the teacher and the students can help to match the
accuracy of teachers’ rating and the students’ self-rating (Alemi 2015). Finally, dynamic assessment
can help students to overcome their non-intellective factors such as a lack of motivation, fear of
failure, and anxiety through a friendly learning environment (Mehrnoosh and Rassaei 2015).
While research has been previously conducted to study various applications of dynamic
assessment to enhance writing skills, the focus of the use of this method in ESP classes has not
been emphasised. Furthermore, different from previous studies that applied dynamic assessment
in general writing, this study will focus on the students’ skill in summary writing. Summary writing
focuses on finding the general idea or key points of the existing writing to be paraphrased or to be
rewritten in simpler form. Therefore, this study aims to implement dynamic assessment as an activity
to improve the students’ summary writing skills in an ESP classroom.

Methodology
The method of the study was quasi-experimental. This method was used since the subjects of the
study were students on which random sampling could not be performed.
The participants of the study were 44 diploma students studying to be library technicians in an
ESP class. The ESP class is where the students learn English as supplementary material to their
major. The students learn English as a foreign language. The students were in the intermediate
level of English proficiency and ranged in age from 16 to 18 years old. They were at level 2 of the
ESP class in the second semester. In previous semesters, the students had already learned about
basic vocabulary and the grammatical form of writing. Thus, they have a general knowledge about
summary writing. The class was held once a week for one and a half hours.
The study was conducted over four weeks. The students were divided into two groups, namely a
control group and an experimental group (22 students in each group). In the first week, both groups
360 Mauludin

were assigned a summary based on a text about libraries. They were given the instruction to write a
summary of the text. Their summary writings were then calculated as pre-test dynamic assessment.
In the second week, the students in the control group were taught summary writing skills using the
traditional method. The traditional method here means that the teacher only gave them explanations
about how to write a summary. Then, they were given a test involving summarising. They needed to
summarise a text. During the process of summarising, there was no interaction or mediation between
the teacher and the students.
Meanwhile, in the experimental group, dynamic assessment was used after the pre-test. The
dynamic assessment format that was used is the ‘sandwich’ format. In this format, the mediation was
given after the pre-test and before the post-test. After the explanation of how to summarise a text,
the students were given a test to check their understanding. During the test, the students were given
the mediation which included hints, explanations, prompts, suggestions, and leading questions.
In this test, the teacher looked around and observed each student to gauge their progress. When
the teacher found a student having difficulty in summarising the text, the teacher gave some hints
and explanations on how to solve the problem. In some cases, the teacher found the students had
incorrectly written the summary, so the teacher immediately gave some corrections and suggestions
on how to correct the errors. At the end of the meeting, the teacher asked the students to gather
in groups and discuss the difficulties they had found. Those difficulties were evaluated in order to
improve their next writing.
In the third week, the students were given another text to summarise. In the control group, the
method was the same as the previous week. The teacher gave them the tests and no intervention. In
the experimental group, however, mediation was done. Slightly different from the previous week, this
week, the teacher required the students to ask questions individually when they found difficulties. In
the previous meeting, the teacher only observed the students and tried to find the errors or mistakes
that the students made. In this meeting, the teacher not only observed the students, but let them ask
some questions about the summarisation. The hints, suggestions, leading questions, and prompts
were given by the teacher to different students. In the fourth week, a post-test was administered to
both groups.
The results of the pre-tests and post-tests were evaluated using the ESL composition profile
(Jacobs et al. 1981) to avoid any subjectivity. Two independent raters evaluated each result. The
collected data were then analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Results and discussion

To investigate the effect of dynamic assessment implementation on the students’ summary writing
skills, the homogeneity test was run first. Based on the homogeneity test, the paired sample t-test for
both the control and experimental groups was then run to find out the effectiveness of the treatment.
Finally, an independent t-test was run to investigate which group had more significant improvement.
The results of the pre-test descriptive statistics for both control and experimental groups are
presented in Table 1.
Table 1 shows the mean score for the control and experimental groups before the treatment. The
results indicate that the students’ scores before any treatment were not that significant. The mean of
the control group is 57.68, while the experimental group is 58.05. Meanwhile, the standard deviation
of both the control and experimental groups are 6.520 and 9.494 respectively. Although it shows
that the experimental group has a higher mean than the control group, it can be seen that there was
little difference between the control group and the experimental group in terms of their initial ability
in summary writing.
After the treatment, the post-test was conducted and the scores were then tabulated. The results of
the post-test descriptive statistics for both control and experimental group are presented in Table 2.
It can be clearly seen that the experimental group has a higher mean score compared to the control
group. The scores are 68.41 and 59.23 respectively. As for the standard deviation, the control group
is 6.611 and the experimental group is 6.154. Based on the mean scores, it shows that there was a
considerable difference between the control and experimental groups in terms of overall proficiency
in summary writing.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2018, 36(4): 355–364 361

Furthermore, to investigate the significant improvement of students’ ability before and after receiving
treatment, paired sample t-test analysis was conducted. The results of the paired sample t-test based
on the pre-test and post-test for the control and experimental groups are presented in Table 3.
Here it is shown that there is a significant improvement in the control group, with the p value equal
to 0.023 (p < 0.05). Similarly, the experimental group also experienced considerable improvement,
with the p value equal to 0.000 (p < 0.05). Comparing both results, it can be seen that the students’
proficiency in summary writing improved in both groups.
Since both groups experienced a significant improvement, further tests needed to be conducted
to find out which group performed better. An independent t-test analysis was then conducted. The
results of the independent sample t-test based on the post-test for the control and experimental
groups are presented in Table 4.
The results of independent sample t-test analysis indicate that the difference of the post-test
scores between the experimental group and the control group was statistically significant since the
p value equals 0.000 (p < 0.05). Therefore, it can be said that there was a statistically significant
difference between the students who received the dynamic assessment treatment and those who
did not. Although both groups experienced significant improvement, the group that had dynamic

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of pre-test for the control and experimental groups

Group Mean N Std. deviation Std. error mean

Control 57.68 22 6.520 1.390
Experimental 58.05 22 9.494 2.024

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of post-test for the control and experimental groups

Group Mean N Std. deviation Std. error mean

Control 59.23 22 6.611 1.410
Experimental 68.41 22 6.154 1.312

Table 3: Paired sample t-test for the control and experimental groups

Std. Std. Sig.

Group Mean df
deviation error mean (2-tailed)
Control −1.545 2.956 0.630 21 0.023
Experimental −10.364 5.242 1.118 21 0.000

Table 4: Independent sample t-test for the control and experimental groups

Levene’s Test
for Equality of t-test for equality of means
Variances
95% confidence interval of
Sig. Mean Std. error
F Sig. t df the difference
(2-tailed) difference difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
assumed 0.221 0.640 −4.768 42 <0.001 −9.18182 1.92567 −13.06797 −5.29567
Post-test
score Equal variances
not assumed −4.768 41.786 <0.001 −9.18182 1.92567 −13.06856 −5.29508
362 Mauludin

assessment for the treatment performed better. Thus, it can be concluded that dynamic assessment
is effective in improving students’ skill in summary writing.
This result is aligned with some previous studies that conducted the research using the same
method. In their study, Khoshsima et al. (2016) found that the students who were exposed to the
dynamic assessment approach performed better compared to those who were not. Their findings
emphasised that providing feedback and discussion during the negotiation process allows students
to understand the problems better and improve their skills to solve them. Furthermore, dynamic
assessment provides opportunities for the students to have interactions with the teacher by engaging
in the discussion to solve the problem in the writing process (Shresta and Coffin 2012; Hessamy
and Ghaderi 2014; Alemi 2015). The interaction provides the information for the teacher to help
the students overcome the problems in writing summaries. This opportunity gives the students
more chance to develop their skills by recognising their own weaknesses (Alemi 2015). The direct
interaction also permits the students to correct and revise their performance instantly, which is
important in enhancing the students’ eagerness in completing the task (Azarian et al. 2016). The
self-rating of the students about their weaknesses is also significant to find out the right solution to
their problems (Sadek 2015; Amiri and Saberi 2016). During the study, the students were mostly
afraid to ask for help when they had difficulty. However, with the active mediation of the teacher
by asking about the problems individually, the students gained confidence in consulting about their
problem. This shows that their improvement is strongly influenced by the process of mediation during
the learning process.
In the process of summarisation, the students need to understand the text first. In this case, the
students who were lacking in vocabulary suffered the most. Most students tried to solve the problem
by looking up words in a dictionary. However, since in ESP setting the vocabularies were mostly
specified in certain technical terms, the meaning could not be found in the dictionary. At this moment,
the role of mediation is needed. Hints and clues, as well as leading questions were considered to be
effective in helping the students understand more about the text (Xiaoxiao and Yan 2010; Hessamy
and Ghaderi 2014). The next problem encountered is the use of correct grammar in summary writing.
Since ESP classes learn English only once a week, their exposure to English structure is limited
and, thus, hinders their ability to recognise the correct grammatical form. In these circumstances,
the clues and suggestions are really helpful to assist the students to improve their grammatical
accuracy (Ramazanpour et al. 2016). By providing guidance, such as leading questions and hints,
the students can solve the problem immediately. These interactions show that the learners’ ability
to find their mistakes after receiving the prompts is the indicator of students’ ability to recognise
their problems (Emadi and Arabmofrad 2015). In this case, the teachers are able to discover the
level of the students’ mastery in summary writing. Thus, the component of intentionality in dynamic
assessment is well performed in these circumstances.
After understanding the text, the students need to write an accurate summary of the text. The
students’ difficulty in this case is mostly to find synonyms or simplified meanings. Since summary
writing requires several rules of organisation, the teacher provides the modelling for students who
have difficulty in understanding the rules. Not only the teacher, but some of the students’ peers
were also actively engaged in the mediation process. In group discussions, the students asked
their peers to solve the problem. This condition creates a ZPD among the students, which is a
peer guidance that emerged in the learning process. Furthermore, this activity actually shows the
ability of dynamic assessment to act like formative assessment, which focuses on the process of
students’ improvement in mastering the skill instead of focusing on the results (Mohamadi 2018).
However, unlike formative assessment, dynamic assessment gives the opportunity for the teacher
to look closely at the students’ zone of development as it provides mediation in the implementation
(Mehri and Amerian 2015). The teacher is able to merge the process of teaching and evaluation. By
conducting both activities at the same time, the teacher is able to permeate the actual and potential
of students’ zones of development. In other words, the teachers are able to teach the things that
the students do not know by directly observing and investigating them while they are completing the
task. Thus, the application of dynamic assessment effectively supports the implementation of the
ZPD theory.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2018, 36(4): 355–364 363

Since ESP classes consists of non-English department students – which means they do
not use English all the time during the learning process of their subjects other than English –
the challenge is real for them. Their main problem is usually related to the feeling of shyness,
fear, and anxiety to perform English. The application of dynamic assessment is really helpful
for them to eliminate the anxiety and fear, and boost their confidence in doing the assignment
(Mehrnoosh and Rassaei 2015; Yang 2017). Specifically, dynamic assessment is able to improve
the students’ motivation in completing the task as they consider the teacher as the assistant the
help them solve the problem (Sadighi et al. 2018). By relying on their teacher as their supporter,
this activity lowers the students’ anxiety levels and improves their interest (Yang 2017). Creating
learners’ positive attitude is a significant factor in the process of teaching and learning as it
reduces the obstacles in transferring knowledge. By possessing a positive mindset, the students
can perform the test better.
In short, the implementation of dynamic assessment in this study shows similar results to the
previous studies in the context of writing skills. Different from previous studies that focused on writing
skills in general, this study tried to investigate the specific kind of writing found in summary writing.
However, the results show that dynamic assessment is not only effective in improving writing skills
in general, it also contributes positively to the development of students’ summary writing skills,
especially in an ESP class.

Conclusions
The analysis of t-test has indicated that there is a significant improvement both in the control and
experimental groups. However, the experimental group, who received intensive mediation during the
assessment process, benefited more significantly compared to the control group who received the
non-dynamic assessment treatment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the application of dynamic
assessment improves the students’ summary writing skills in ESP classes significantly. However, this
study only investigated the effectiveness of dynamic assessment using a pre-test and a post-test.
Since the conditions and the contexts of learning are varied, further studies need to be conducted
to discover other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of dynamic assessment in improving
students’ summary writing skills.

ORCID
Lutfi Ashar Mauludin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1144-5614

References
Aghaebrahimian A, Rahimirad M, Ahmadi A. 2014. dynamic assessment of writing skill in advanced
EFL Iranian learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 98: 60–67. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.389
Alemi M. 2015. The impact of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL students ’ writing self-assessment.
Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature (Iran) 9(1): 145–169.
Amiri F, Saberi L. 2016. Dynamic assessment : The effect of mediated learning experience on Iranian
EFL learners’ writing skills. International Academic Journal of Humanities 3(2): 1–9.
Azarian F, Nourdad N, Nouri N. 2016. The effect of dynamic assessment on elementary EFL learners’
overall language attainment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6(1): 203–208. https://doi.
org/10.17507/tpls.0601.27
Bachman LF. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Basturkmen H. 2010. Developing Courses in English for Specific Purposes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davin K, Donato R. 2013. Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic
assessment : A Complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals 46(1): 1–32.
Davoudi M, Ataie-tabar M. 2015. The effect of computerized dynamic assessment of L2 writing on
Iranian EFL learners’ writing development. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication
3(2): 176–186. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v3n2a16
Derakhshan A, Kordjazi M. 2015. Implications of dynamic assessment in second/foreign language
contexts. English Linguistics Research 4(1): 41–48. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v4n1p41
364 Mauludin

Emadi M, Arabmofrad A. 2015. Individual dynamic assessment: an analysis of Iranian EFL learners’
listening comprehension errors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 5(12): 2599–2605.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.22
Hashemnezhad H, Fatollahzadeh F. 2015. The immediate and delayed effect of dynamic assessment
on the improvement of iranian efl learners’ writing performance. International Journal of Language
Learning and Applied Linguistics World 8(February): 193–209.
Hessamy G, Ghaderi E. 2014. The role of dynamic assessment in the vocabulary learning of
Iranian EFL learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 98(1990): 645–652. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.463
Jacobs HJ, Zinkgraf SA, Wormuth DR, Hartfiel VF, Hughey JB. 1981. Testing ESL Composition: A
Practical Approach. Rowley: Newbury House.
Khoshsima H, Saed A, Mortazavi M. 2016. The impact of interactionist dynamic assessment on
explanation writing ability of intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Language and
Linguistics 4(5): 183–189. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.13
Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev V, Miller S. 2003. Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural
context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975
Lantolf JP, Poehner ME. 2011. Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for
second language development. Language Teaching Research 15(1): 11–33. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362168810383328
Mehri E, Amerian M. 2015. Challenges to dynamic assessment in language learning. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies 5(7): 1458–1466. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0507.19
Mehrnoosh L, Rassaei E. 2015. Dynamicassessment : From underlying constructs to implications for
language teaching. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English 4(2): 119–132.
Miao T, Lv M. 2013. Dynamic assessment in the ESL writing classroom. International Conference
on Education Technology and Management Science. International Conference on Education
Technology and Management Science (ICETMS 2013), 8–9 June 2013. https://doi,org/10.2991/
icetms.2013.1
Mohamadi Z. 2018. Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL
student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation 59(July 2017): 29–40.
Poehner ME. 2008. Dynamic Assesment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting
L2 Development. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9
Poehner ME, Lantolf JP. 2005. Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching
Research 9(3): 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
Ramazanpour G, Nourdad N, Nouri N. 2016. Gender differences in the effect of dynamic assessment
on grammatical accuracy of writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6(1): 90–96. https://
doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0601.12
Sadek N. 2015. Dynamic assessment (DA): Promoting writing proficiency through assessment.
International Journal of Bilingual & Multilingual Teachers of English 2(2): 59–70. https://doi.
org/10.12785/ijbmte/030201
Sadighi F, Jamasbi F, Ramezani S. 2018. The impact of using dynamic assessment on Iranian’s
writing literacy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 8(9): 1246–1251. https://doi.org/10.17507/
tpls.0809.21
Shakki F. 2016. The interplay between language skills and dynamic assessment. International
Journal of Linguistics 8(2): 141–157. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i2.9221
Shresta P, Coffin C. 2012. Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development.
Assessing Writing 17(1): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003
Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL. 2002. Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning
potential. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Xiaoxiao L, Yan L. 2010. A case study of dynamic assessment in EFL process writing. Chinese
Journal of Applied Linguistics 33(1): 24–40.
Yang X. 2017. Dynamic assessment in English pronounciation teaching: From the perspective
of intellectual factors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 7(9): 780–785. https://doi.
org/10.17507/tpls.0709.10