View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry
Language: English
Authors: Rezai, Afsheen (ORCID 0000-0001-9010-0168), Ashkani, Parisa, Ismail, Sayed M.
Source: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. Oct 2023 52(5):1345-1370.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Second Language Learning, English (Second Language), Evaluation Methods, Teaching Methods, Metacognition, Listening Comprehension, Foreign Countries, Language Tests, Scores, Achievement Gains, Instructional Effectiveness, Student Evaluation, Alternative Assessment
Geographic Terms: Iran
DOI: 10.1007/s10936-023-09934-7
ISSN: 0090-6905
Abstract: Although a range of studies has explored the effectiveness of group-dynamic assessment (G-DA) and process-based instruction (PBI) in second language (L2) learning, no study has compared the effects of G-DA and PBI on EFL learners' metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening comprehension (LC). Thus, this study aimed to explore the effects of G-DA and PBI on fostering EFL learners' metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening comprehension (LC) in Iran. For this purpose, a total of one hundred and sixty intermediate EFL learners were selected through a convenience sampling method at Iran Language Institute (ILI) and were homogenized using the Key English Test (KET). The EFL learners whose scores fell around the mean score were chosen and randomly allocated as G-DA group (n = 30), PBI group (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). Afterward, they went through a pre-test, interventions (lasting 16 one-hour sessions held twice a week) and a post-test. The interactions in the classes were also meticulously recorded. The collected data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and a microgenetic development approach. Findings evidenced that the G-DA group and PBI group outperformed the control group concerning the gains in MA and LC. However, the findings evidenced that G-DA was more effective than PBI to foster the EFL learners' MA and LC. Additionally, the complementary qualitative results documented that the proper feedback offered in line with the principles and procedures of G-DA and PBI contributed to developing the participants' MA and LC. The study ends by offering some implications for the relevant stakeholders.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1393609
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFSKCMA-wWV9Ak7Y2yEl5GVAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDECcdn4OQT_NynK36wIBEICBmueLSWo2OxklQ7UytBGNBRgVBgkNoU8sOaPyieiAdiN190vOEt8nagvsrJ-kY9Ou7VB7Puh0SMpUHj5o3kCjUn9-m4SMCZOSEfQWewMZEF2m19abi7AwD1D4Mwh4UaUtpZq8HpRebmyK-7UBqFebAdTz6Gp-v_9K3iNt8qXlmcHMBAKbQ6-CGvQqKUN9LZv9OLIqBpCbtLhrJUw=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0172328441;41p01oct.23;2023Sep27.06:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0172328441-1">Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry </title> <p>Although a range of studies has explored the effectiveness of group-dynamic assessment (G-DA) and process-based instruction (PBI) in second language (L2) learning, no study has compared the effects of G-DA and PBI on EFL learners' metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening comprehension (LC). Thus, this study aimed to explore the effects of G-DA and PBI on fostering EFL learners' metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening comprehension (LC) in Iran. For this purpose, a total of one hundred and sixty intermediate EFL learners were selected through a convenience sampling method at Iran Language Institute (ILI) and were homogenized using the Key English Test (KET). The EFL learners whose scores fell around the mean score were chosen and randomly allocated as G-DA group (n = 30), PBI group (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). Afterward, they went through a pre-test, interventions (lasting 16 one-hour sessions held twice a week) and a post-test. The interactions in the classes were also meticulously recorded. The collected data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and a microgenetic development approach. Findings evidenced that the G-DA group and PBI group outperformed the control group concerning the gains in MA and LC. However, the findings evidenced that G-DA was more effective than PBI to foster the EFL learners' MA and LC. Additionally, the complementary qualitative results documented that the proper feedback offered in line with the principles and procedures of G-DA and PBI contributed to developing the participants' MA and LC. The study ends by offering some implications for the relevant stakeholders.</p> <p>Keywords: Group-dynamic assessment; Process-based Instruction; Metacognitive awareness; Listening comprehension; A mixed-methods design; EFL learners</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Different learning theories have proposed different views toward human learning. One of these influential learning theories is sociocultural theory (SCT). It is predicated on the assumption that development occurs as learners are actively involved in dialogic interactions. One of the pedagogical approached built on the tenets of SCT is dynamic assessment (DA) (Lantolf & Poehner, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref1">37</reflink>]). DA emphasizes the integration of assessment and instruction, aiming at recognizing the fully-developed abilities and underdeveloped abilities. It other words, DA, teachers try to maximize the effectiveness of the instruction by considering students' zone of proximal development (ZPD). It is construed as "the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). From this perspective, learning is fundamentally a social activity in which learners constantly engage in dialogic interactions to acquire, internalize, and self-regulate teach (Rezai et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref2">53</reflink>]). Thus, by providing ZPD-sensitive mediations, a teacher can help students perform beyond their present level of independent functioning (Vygotsky, 1986). However, DA has been criticized on the ground that it is particularly suitable for one-to-one interaction. As Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref3">49</reflink>]) states, this issue has presented itself as a challenge in the implementation of DA in L2 classrooms. Hence, a whole-class ZPD should be considered in which teachers and students jointly co-construct knowledge—what Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref4">49</reflink>]) termed Group-Dynamic Assessment (G-DA). That is, teachers attune their mediations to the whole group's ZPDs.</p> <p>One of teaching approaches that has received huge attention over the last decades is process-based instruction (PBI) (Ashman & Conway, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]). It encourages L2 learners to design "plans and revise those plans as learning needs change" (Hay, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]; p. 2). PBI has been built on the assumptions of three lines of educational thinking: educational psychology, social psychology, and cognitive psychology. The educational psychology emphasizing planning and coding in learning (Das et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]). The social psychology prioritizing the significance of positive classroom climate (Fraser, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]). And, the cognitive psychology underscoring self-instruction to promote retention and recall of information (Hughes & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]). In a sense, self-instruction adopted the perspectives of cognitive constructivists, positing that "learners actively select, organize, and integrate incoming experiences and knowledge with existing knowledge and that this processing involves problem-solving and reflection" (Hay, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref11">31</reflink>], p. 2). In PBI, the primary focus is on the processes leading to the final product.</p> <p>Listening comprehension (LC) has always been a demanding skill for L2 learners. To help L2 learners with the complex processes of LC, strategy instruction has been always emphasized (Mahdavi & Miri, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]; Mendelsohn & Rubin, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]). The primary reason for this emphasis is to make L2 learners be able to use strategies and control the comprehension processes over time and across contexts (Goh & Hu, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]). Additionally, L2 listening instruction has witnessed a radical shift from the product-oriented view of comprehension with a significant focus on a thorough understanding of the listening text toward the cognitive-process view of comprehension, which mainly focuses around instructing strategies and developing L2 learners' knowledge about this (Bermillo & Aradilla, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]; Cross, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]; Goh, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]; Vandergrift & Goh, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref19">64</reflink>]; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref20">66</reflink>]). From the process-oriented instruction, it is assumed that developing metacognitive awareness (MC) is necessary to make the way for L2 learners to self-control their LC through orchestrating appropriate strategies (Cross, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]; Goh, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]; Vandergrift & Goh, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref24">64</reflink>]; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref25">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the importance of MA and LC for L2 learners, it is essential to conduct experimental studies to disclose if new approaches in L2 instruction, such as G-DA and PBI significantly contribute to their development. In spite of this urgent call, it is interesting to note that to date, no study has explored the contributions of G-DA and PBI to developing L2 learners' MA and LC concurrently in the EFL context of Iran. Therefore, the present study aimed at disclosing the contributions of G-DA and PBI to fostering Iranian EFL learners' MA and LC from quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It is hoped that the findings of the present study can further the understanding of EFL teachers of the processes leading to improved MA and LC.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0172328441-4">Group Dynamic Assessment</hd> <p>One of the most influential theories in the literature of applied linguistics has been SCT (Lantolf & Poehner, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref26">37</reflink>]). Rooted in Vygotsky's (1978) studies of human mental development, it considers human learning as a dynamic social activity. SCT maintains that an individual's cognition is socially formed and higher mental abilities are mediated by tools and signs or, to use Vygotsky's word, "cultural artifacts." (Lantolf & Poehner, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref27">37</reflink>]). In other words, Vygotsky (1978) posits that higher mental abilities are mediated through social interactions with the help of physical and symbolic artifacts. One of the pedagogical applications of SCT for education, in general and second language education, in particular has been dynamic assessment (DA) (Lantolf, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>]). DA is predicated on the assumption that instruction and assessment can be integrated into one learning activity in which teachers scaffold students through mediations. (Abdolrezapour, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]; Lantolf & Poehner, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]). As underscored by Poehner and Wang ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref31">51</reflink>]), through contingent mediations in dialogic interactions, students can co-construct the required knowledge to mediate their thoughts and the surrounding environment. In the literature, three prominent features have been highlighted for DA: including assessing the fully-developed abilities and under-developed abilities, identifying effective teaching strategies, and guiding students' needs (Rezai et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref32">53</reflink>]). It can be defined as "process-oriented approach in which assessment and learning are considered as integrally connected rather than separate" (p. 99). In contrast to static assessment, it is an instructional approach which is "process-concerned, future-oriented, interactive, and ZPD-sensitive instruction" (Ghahderijani et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>DA rests on some key concepts, including scaffolding, ZPD, and mediation. Scaffolding is perceived as the help given to students to accomplish a learning tasks which beyond their present learning capabilities (Poehner & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref34">52</reflink>]). Upon being able to control the learning task independently, teachers withdraw gradually their support. ZPD, as defined by Vygotsky (1978), is "the difference between actual developmental levels as indicated by autonomous problem-solving and prospective developmental levels as indicated by problem-solving under adult helps or in cooperation with more competent peer" (p. 86). He adds that there are three types of zones for development. The first zone includes the abilities that students can do independently. The second zone entails the abilities that students can accomplish if they be scaffolded by capable peers. The third zone consists of the abilities that cannot be performed even by being scaffolded by capable peers. Mediation refers to the assistance provided to students in the form of questioning look, pause, question, hints, and explanations to help them co-build knowledge. Lantolf and Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref35">37</reflink>]) stress that to make mediations effective, they should be offered from implicit to explicit. That is, if implicit mediations do not work, the explicit ones are offered.</p> <p>Despite this robust theoretical underpinnings, DA has received a mass of criticism around the world due to its inapplicability in large classes (Ghahderijani et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]; Mowla et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]; Rezai, et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref38">53</reflink>]). This limitation encouraged Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref39">49</reflink>]) to introduce G-DA as an alternative approach. He posits that based on the conceptualization ZPD (Vygotsky, 1987) and group (Petrovsky, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref40">47</reflink>]), it is plausible to co-build a group's ZPD by offering contingent and congruent mediations. He opines that if a group be scaffolded appropriately, both primary interactants and secondary interactants can be beneficiary. That is, as a teacher acaffolded a student to accomplish the learning activity in hand, they both are considered as primary interactants. However, as the other students are exposed to the interaction perceived as secondary interactants. Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref41">49</reflink>]) maintains that G-DA can be implemented in the form of concurrent or cumulative. In the case of the former, as the addressed student cannot respond to the teacher's prompts, the interactions is directed to a secondary interactant. This procedure continues until the problem is selected and rectified. In contrast, in the cumulative-G-DA, the teacher scaffolds the addressed student so much so that he/she could take control of the learning task in hand. To put it simply, "concurrent GDA is to promote each individual by working within the group's ZPD but cumulative GDA promotes the group through co-constructing individuals' ZPDs" (Poehner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref42">49</reflink>], p. 476). It should be mentioned that both approaches were employed in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-5">Process-Based Instruction in L2 Learning</hd> <p>In recent years, PBI has received noticeable attention (Graham & Sandmel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref43">29</reflink>]; Gua et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]; Mahdavi & Miri, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>]). As defined by Silva and Matsuda ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref46">59</reflink>]), PBI is construed as a teaching approach focusing on the learning processes to pave the ground for L2 learners to plan their own voices, determine their own topics, monitor their own learning, and evaluate their own achievement. In simple terms, as Nordin and Mohammad ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref47">44</reflink>]), it focuses on the processes of learning rather than the final product. In PBI, L2 learners go through a cycle of three-phase processes. In the first phase, planning, they are encouraged to generate ideas, organize and set their goals. In the second phase, generating, they produce some pieces of L2. In the third phase, reviewing, they review and revise their production (Gua et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref48">30</reflink>]). Of particular note is that instead of being linear in time, these processes have a complex and recursive nature (Flower & Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Some advantages have been highlighted for PBI in the literature. First, it encourages and guides L2 learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate which are of paramount importance to gain a correct understanding of the learning processes (Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>]; Rijlaarsdam & Van den Bergh, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref51">55</reflink>]). Second, it can meet L2 learners' needs and bolster their performances (Graham & Sandmel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>]). Due to its emphasis on responsibility, personal attention, and cooperation, it enhances L2 learners' motivation (Graham & Sandmel, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref53">29</reflink>]). On the other side of the coin, according to Sharp ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref54">57</reflink>]), there are some disadvantages with PBI. For example, it sticks to a prescribed process and is narrow, inflexible, and rigid.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-6">Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in L2 Learning</hd> <p>Three types of listening instruction have been identified: <emph>text-oriented</emph>, <emph>communication-oriented</emph>, and <emph>learner-oriented</emph> (Vandergrift & Goh, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref55">64</reflink>]). Metacognition is germane to the learner-oriented listening instruction. Using PBI, L2 learners are trained on how to listen in this approach. One of the best ways to equip L2 learners to take control of the complexities of LC is metacognitive instruction (Goh, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]). It is perceived as a process-based approach implemented to make L2 learners aware of the learning processes and the ways to facilitate them to reach the utmost incomes. According to Flavell ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]), it is defined as:"one's knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them. Metacognition refers, among other things, to active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or objective." (p. 232).</p> <p>Put it simply, it is 'thinking about thinking'. Additionally, Flavell ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref58">20</reflink>]) draw a distinction between metacognitive knowledge (or awareness) and metacognitive regulation (or control). The former refers to the dimensions of knowledge concerned with cognitive factors and often consists of three variables: person, task, and strategy. As noted by Goh and Taib ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]), as learners strengthen these three aspects, they can effectively evaluate their learning and choose the appropriate strategies to bolster their performances. In contrast, the latter affords L2 learners to have conscious control over their listening process through active planning, monitoring, problem-solving, and evaluation. The previous studies (e.g., Goh, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>]; Mahdavi & Miri, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref61">40</reflink>]; Pei & Suwanthep, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref62">46</reflink>]) demonstrated the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy instruction in improving LC.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-7">Significance of L2 Listening Comprehension</hd> <p>LC is viewed as the heart of L2 learning, because the development of other skills is tightly entangled with it (Rost, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref63">56</reflink>]; Vandergrift, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref64">62</reflink>]). After demonstrating the crucial role of comprehensible input (Krashen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref65">34</reflink>]), LC was put at the heart of learning activities in the classroom. It was widely assumed that if L2 learners received enough comprehensible input, L2 development would occur. More recently, the researchers have evidenced that the mere exposure to comprehensible input is not enough. What is important is how L2 learners process the input they receive (Mahdavi & Miri, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref66">40</reflink>]). In a sense, the primarily attention has shifted to the challenges and the strategies employed by L2 learners to resolve these challenges (Cross, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]). LC is perceived demanding for L2 learners because they have to focus on the processes, leading to comprehending the input to which they are exposed. By the same token, a major part of this difficulty lies in the fact that L2 learners need to consider linguistic and nonlinguistic factors and interpret the incoming input quickly (Buck, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]). One possible reason for L2 learners' inability to overcome these challenges may be ascribed to the pedagogical activities focusing on the product rather than the process of LC. One solution to mitigate this thorny situation is adopting teaching approaches, such as G-DA and PBI (Mahdavi & Miri, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref69">40</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-8">Effects of DA and PBI on L2 Listening Comprehension and Metacognitive Awareness</hd> <p>A mass of studies has inspected the effects of DA approaches (i.e., one-on-one DA, G-DA, and computerized-DA) and PBI on L2 learners' LC. A range of them is critically reviewed to pave the ground for the present study. Ableeva ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>]) scrutinized the impact of DA on fostering French learners' LC in the U.S.A. The results of the microgenetic development approach supported the efficiency of DA in raising the participants' French LC because the ZPD-sensitive mediations let both recognition of the actual level of abilities and the potential level of listening development. In addition, Alavi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref71">6</reflink>]) examined the applicability of G-DA on boosting Iranian EFL learners' LC in a qualitative study. The results of the microgenetic development analysis disclosed how collective scaffolding paved the ground for the EFL learners to pool their cognitive and linguistic resources to take control of the listening tasks in hand. Moreover, the effectiveness of DA and schema theory in bolstering EFL learners' LC was compared by Farangi and Kheradmand Saadi ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]) in Iran. Their findings demonstrated that whereas DA and schema theory approach exerted positive effects on the participants' LC, the participants instructed based on the tenets of schema theory gained much better scores on the post-test. Besides, Khodabakhsh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref73">33</reflink>]) explored the effects the interactionist DA and the interventionist DA on improving Iranian EFL learners' language awareness and metacognitive strategy use. Their findings both DA approaches led to improving the EFL learners' learners' language awareness and metacognitive strategy use. Additionally, Barabadi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>]) studied the effects of interventionist and interactionist DA on improving Iranian EFL learners' LC. They unveiled that the approaches were useful to foster the participants' LC. Further, the applicability of interventionist and interactionist G-DA approaches in boosting EFL learners' LC was explored by Ahmadi Safa and Beheshti ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>]) in Iran. The results indicated that while both approaches significantly developed the participants' LC, the interactionist G-DA group outperformed the interventionist G-DA group. Finally, the effects of computerized-DA on improving Iranian TOEFL candidates' LC were inspected by Pileh Roud and Hidri ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref76">48</reflink>]). They uncovered that computerized-DA significantly contributed to improving their participants' control of dialogue and monologue tasks.</p> <p>Concerning the effects of PBI on L2 learners' LC and MA, Li and Liu ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref77">38</reflink>]) inspected the impact of strategy-based instruction on EFL learners' LC in China. They found that the intervention significantly enhanced the EFL learners' LC. Moreover, Ai-hua ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]) carried out a study to look into the effects PBI on Taiwanese EFL learners' perceived listening problems. Their results advocated the effectiveness of the instruction on the EFL learners' perceived listening problems such that they became aware of rapid speech, unfamiliar vocabulary, and linking sounds between words. Plus, Moradian and Kogani Baharvand ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref79">42</reflink>]) explored the potential of PBI in developing Iranian EFL learners' MA and LC. They uncovered that the participants' EFL learners' MA and LC significantly developed owing to the positive effects of the instruction. Likewise, the impact of metacognitive PBI and Iranian EFL learners' LC and MA was investigated by Maftoon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref80">39</reflink>]). Their findings disclosed the instruction played a positive role in developing the EFL learners' LC and MA. Finally, Bermillo and Aradilla ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>]) scrutinized the potential of PBI in cultivating L2 learners' LC and MA. Their findings supported the potential of the intervention in cultivating the learners' LC and MA.</p> <p>The review above indicates that the studies suffered from two limitations. First, there has been a lack of study to explore the contributions of G-DA and PBI to MA and L2 LC concurrently. Second, they have not looked into the contributions of G-DA and PBI to MA and L2 LC from quantitative and qualitative perspectives. To respond to this lacuna, this study aimed at disclosing the contributions of G-DA and PBI to developing MA and LC from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. It is hoped that the gained results can further our understanding of the processes involved in the development MA and LC. Further, the findings can be beneficial for pertinent stakeholders to pave the way for improving EFL learners' MA and LC. In line with these objectives, the following research questions were explored:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> RQ1 </bold> Does group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction significantly foster Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> RQ2 </bold> Does group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction significantly foster Iranian EFL learners' metacognitive awareness?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> RQ3 </bold> How do group dynamic assessment and process-based instruction improve Iranian EFL learners' metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0172328441-9">Research Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0172328441-10">Research Design</hd> <p>The researchers adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to conduct the present study. That is, quantitative findings were complemented by qualitative findings. The primary reason for choosing this kind of mixed-methods design was to reach triangulation. As underscored by Riazi ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref82">54</reflink>]), triangulation is a useful strategy to delve into the different perspectives of a research topic using different data collection approaches. To meet this purpose, the researchers implemented a true-quasi experimental design for the quantitative part and adopted a microgenetic development approach for the qualitative part. Overall, the researchers implemented the mixed-methods design to disclose the effects of G-DA and PBI on fostering Iranian EFL learners' LC and MA.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-11">Setting and Participants</hd> <p>The researchers conducted this research at the setting of Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Khorramabad City, Iran. It is a non-profit language institute with lots of branches across the country. The researchers selected intermediate EFL leaners (n = 160) using a convenience sampling method. Considered as a type of non-probability sampling method, it is used to select the participants from a population easy to reach or contact (Riazi, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref83">54</reflink>]). Due to the single-gender education system in Iran, the participants were all females and their ages ranged from 15 to 25. They were attending their classes four hours per week and were leaning English as a foreign language, where their opportunities to converse in English was confined to inside of the institute. To homogenize the participants, the researchers administered Key English Test (KET) and the participants whose scores fell around the mean score were selected. Then, they were randomly assigned to G-DA group (n = 30), PBI (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). It is worth noting that the first researcher gained the consent of the principal of ILI and the willing EFL learners signed a written consent form (in Persian). The researchers announced that participation in the study was voluntary and the participants were free to withdraw from the study as they wished. Moreover, they assured confidentiality of the participants' performances during the study and ensured to inform the participants about the final findings. The first researcher who had a comprehensive understanding of the research topic ran the interventions. The present study was monitored and confirmed by the committee for ethics in research at Ayatollah Ozma University Borujerdi.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-12">Instruments</hd> <p>The researchers employed some data gathering instruments in this study. The first instrument included KET employed to homogenize the participants in terms of language proficiency. Due to logistical limitations, its reading and writing parts were administered. The reading part includes thirty items and test-takers need to read different kinds of texts, such as brochures, signs, magazines, and newspapers and answer follow-up questions in multiple-choice. And, the writing part comprises two writing tasks in which test-takers need to write about daily life and educational topics one hundred words in length. Responding to the reading and writing parts takes sixty minutes.</p> <p>The second instrument was Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ). As its name suggests, the MALQ assesses the extent to which L2 learners are aware of and can regulate the processes of LC (Vandergrift et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref84">65</reflink>]). As a self-assessment instrument, it can be used by L2 learners to report their awareness of the processes of listening and to reflect on the strategies they use during LC. It includes 21 Likert scale items, ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 6 (= strongly agree<emph>).</emph> It measures five sub-components of metacognition, including problem-solving (e.g., "I use the words I understand to guess the meaning of the words I don't understand."), planning and evaluation (e.g., "Before I start to listen, I have a plan in my head for how I'm going to listen."), mental translation (e.g., "I translate in my head as I listen."), person knowledge (e.g., "I find that listening to English is more difficult than reading, speaking, or writing in English."), and directed attention e.g., (e.g., "when my mind wanders I recover my concentration right away."). The instrument was used before and after the treatments.</p> <p>The third instrument included two teacher-made listening comprehension tests (LCTs). The researchers recruited two EFL teachers with over ten teaching experience years. They went through IELTS, TOEFL, KET and Oxford Quick placement tests available at the market, selected, and modified the items which were appropriate for the purposes of the present study. The teacher-made tests measured the EFL learners' ability to listen for basic interpersonal and instructional objectives. During the test administration, the EFL learners were asked to listen to recordings of different monologues and dialogues. Then, following each audio, they read a multiple-choice question or some questions about what they just heard. As the tests included forty items, the students' scores fell from 1 to 40. Of particular note is that the LCTs administered prior to and after the interventions to gauge the EFL learners' LC.</p> <p>It is worth to be noted that prior to the main study, the researchers got the instruments translated into Persian by two professional translators. Next, they measured their reliability and validity in a pilot study. For the former, the researchers administered it to 30 EFL leaners who were similar to the participants of the main study in terms of gender, L2 proficiency, and age. The results of Cronbach Alpha yielded 0.95 for KET, 0.86 for MALQ, and 0.79 for LCTs, respectively, meeting the purposes of the current study. For the latter, validity, the researchers adopted the experts' judgment strategy. For this purpose, they had the instruments two university professors in Applied Linguistics at Lorestan University to assess them in terms of face and content. While they offered some minor language and content comments, they approved that the instruments were sufficiently valid.</p> <p>The last instrument included a conversation pamphlet of English conversions accompanied by audio files. To compile the pamphlet, the researchers recruited a panel of EFL teachers. They went through the best-selling conversation books at the market (e.g., Interchange, TopNotch, American files, and TouchStone) and piled up the conversations attuned to the purposes of this study. It was used as the educational material in the intervention phase.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-13">Data Collection Procedures</hd> <p>The researchers took some steps to carry out this study. In the first step, they ran a pilot study to measure the reliability and validity of the instruments. In the second step, they administered the KET to homogenize the participants. As pointed out above, the participants whose scores fell around the mean score were chosen and allocated as G-DA group (n = 30), PBI group (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). In the third step, they administered the MALQ and the MLCT to measure the participants' LC and MA before the interventions. It is worth mentioning that the participants took the pre-test prior to the MALQ to reduce the practice effect of the MALQ on raising their MA of listening. In the third step, the interventions were offered as a circular-program. They lasted 16 forty-five-minute sessions held twice a week. For G-DA group, to apply metacognitive strategies of LC through G-DA, at the start of each instructional session, the participants received a piece of paper divided into three sections: 1) pre-listening; 2) while-listening; and 3) post-listening. The instructor asked the EFL learners to verbalize their thoughts and to write them down regarding the strategies and activities used during these stages. At the beginning of each session, the instructor emphasized that active engagement and contribution to the class discussion were of paramount importance to construct the target knowledge. Moreover, she stressed that the lack of participation in the discussion would be regarded as a sign of inability in understanding English. The reason for this was to encourage the EFL learners to willingly attend the dialogic interactions. In the pre-listening stage, the instructors asked the EFL learners to write down in Persian what they might have understood by looking at some relevant pictures. Having completed this part, they took turns to read aloud their notes on their preliminary reflections. As each EFL learner expressed her notes, the instructors, as a mediator, provided them with the graduated prompts tailored to their notes and needs in a dialogic format within their ZPDs. Sticked to the procedures by Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref85">49</reflink>]), the instructors scaffloded the EFL learners with congruent and contingent prompts. Put it exactly, when the EFL learners made an error and they could not take control of it, the instructor afforded them with contingent prompts so much so that they could co-build the required knowledge. Of particular note is that the instructor shifted the dialogic prompts between the primary interactants and secondary interactants as one EFL learner's question or comment set the stage for another's contribution. In this way, the instructors could dialogue with the entire group and they could pool their linguistic and cognitive resources together to move beyond their solo abilities. Following Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>]), the scaffolding entailed hints, prompts, questions, suggestions, and explanations determined by the mediator's recognition of the learners' needs and lacks. In this phase, the instructor guided the EFL learners to focus on the topic, think of, or guess the keywords in the listening input before listening, as well as to pay meticulous attention to the relationship between the interlocutors through the tone of the voices employed to address each other.</p> <p>In the while-listening phase, the audio file was played for the EFL learners three times. After the first listening, the participants were asked to note down what they had understood. Similar to the first phase, the instructor scaffolded the participants with graduated prompts to co-build the required knowledge of the strategies leading to the successful LC. That is, as the class was not able to apply the appropriate strategy to take control of the listening task at hand, the instructor offered them ZPD-sensitive prompts to make it manageable. Afterward, the EFL learners were afforded another opportunity to listen to the conversation for the second and third times to compensate what they missed at the first time. The instructor strived to motivate the EFL learners to remove the sources of incomprehensibility, highlight the parts requiring careful attention, and verify the points of earlier disagreement.</p> <p>In the post-listening phase, upon completing the listening task, the instructor asked the class to reflect individually on how they completed it. The participants individually wrote down their reflections on the procedures they took to comprehend the conversion in 15 min. Then, in light of the earlier discussion of the strategies used to compensate for what was not understood, they wrote goals for the next listening task (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref87">66</reflink>]). This stage was regarded as an immediate retrospection allowing the EFL learners to report their mental processes before forgetting (Færch & Kasper, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]). This explicit sequence of listening tasks was aligned with sharing, discussion, and evaluation, suggested by Goh and Taib ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref89">28</reflink>]). For this purpose, the instructor called out randomly one of the EFL students to read out their refection. In the case of a problem, she scaffolded the class using contingent prompts to co-form the needed knowledge and go beyond their current understanding of listening strategies.</p> <p>For PBI group, the instructor divided them into fifteen pairs to afford them opportunities to talk in English in the form of discussion. In other words, the pairs followed the pedagogical sequence, suggested by Vandergrift ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref90">63</reflink>]). Unlike the G-DA group, in which the EFL learners received MA in line with the tenets of G-DA, the participants were generally informed about the topic and text type. The instructor encouraged them to predict the types of information and the possible words they might hear. After that, the instructor played the listening file three times, and asked the EFL learners to listen to it completely, referred to as the first, second, and third verification stages. In the first verification stage, the instructor gave the EFL learners time to verify their initial hypotheses, correct them if needed, note additional information, and compare what they have understood/written with peers. Then, they tested earlier points of disagreements, made corrections, and marked them. Additionally, the EFL learners participated in class discussions to reconstruct the text's main points. In the ultimate verification stage, they listened specifically to the information shared in the class discussion. In the last stage, the reflection stage, they wrote down their aims for the next listening activity according to the earlier discussion of strategies to redress the gaps in their initial understanding.</p> <p>In contrast, for the control group, the instructor played the audio files three times and answered the EFL learners' questions without offering any mediations or points of metacognitive strategy. If they could not understand the conversation and answer the follow-up questions, the instructor present the correct answer without any explanation. In the final step, the researchers administered the MALQ and the MLCT to measure the participants' LC and MA after the interventions. It is worthy of note that all the dialogues in both classes were audio-recorded and stored for the qualitative part.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-14">Data Analysis Procedures</hd> <p>Given the fact the study adopted a mixed-methods design, the collected data were analyzed though quantitative and qualitative procedures. Concerning the quantitative part, the researchers employed SPSS, version 22. At First, they calculated the descriptive statistics, such as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). Then, they ran two one-way ANOVAs to disclose the effects of G-DA and PBI on Iranian EFL learners' LC and MA.</p> <p>Regarding the qualitative part, the researchers used a microgenetic development approach. It is used by SCT scholars to track "the moment-to-moment co-construction of language and language learning" (Gánem Gutiérrez, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref91">23</reflink>], p. 2). As such, the researchers used it to track the moment-to-moment changes in the participants' learning when they were engaged in co-constructing the intended knowledge in the dialogic conversations (Lantolf, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref92">35</reflink>]). To accomplish these objectives, the first researcher transcribed carefully the interactions between the instructors and the EFL learners recorded during the interventions. Then, she went through the transcriptions so much so that she became familiar with them. Next, she examined closely the transcriptions to identify and record the interactions demonstrating the signs of changes and development. Afterward, the researchers invited an associated university professor at Teheran University who wrote extensively about SCT and microgenetic development approach to examine the transcriptions and the extracted episodes. He confirmed that the procedures had been taken properly.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-15">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0172328441-16">Quantitative Results</hd> <p>As pointed out, the first research question explored if G-DA and PBI significantly fostered Iranian EFL learners' LC. The researchers ran a one-way ANOVA to respond to it. Before that, they examined the assumptions for running it. First, as the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p. 0.08 > 0.05) evidenced, the collected data were normally distributed. Second, the results of Levene's test (F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref94">90</reflink>) 4.21, p 0.35 > 0.05) documented that the equality of variances assumption was also met. Third, as the participant attended just one class, the independence of the observations assumption was not violated. After ensuring that the assumptions were met, the researchers employed a one-way ANOVA. Table 1 reports the calculated descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics results of listening comprehension pre-test of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>N</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. deviation</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. error</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% Confidence interval for mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Max</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Group dynamic assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.4667</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.99117</p></td><td align="left"><p>.54611</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.3497</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.5836</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.2333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.55536</p></td><td align="left"><p>.46654</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.2791</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.1875</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.9333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.91173</p></td><td align="left"><p>.53161</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.8461</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.0206</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.2111</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.80246</p></td><td align="left"><p>.29541</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.6241</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.7981</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 1 informs, M (9.46) and SD (2.99) for the G-DA group, M (9.23) and SD (2.55) for the PBI group, and M (9.21) and SD (2.80) for the control group were calculated, respectively. As it is evident, there were not substantial differences among the groups' Ms. Accordingly, the researchers utilized a one-way ANOVA to reveal if the differences were statistically significant. Table 2 reports the results.</p> <p>Table 2 One-way ANOVA results comparing the listening comprehension pre-test scores the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Sum of squares</p></th><th align="left"><p>df</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean square</p></th><th align="left"><p>F</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sig</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Between groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.289</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.144</p></td><td align="left"><p>.269</p></td><td align="left"><p>.765</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Within groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>694.700</p></td><td align="left"><p>87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.985</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>698.989</p></td><td align="left"><p>89</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 2 presents, there did not exist a statistical significance difference among the three groups concerning LC on the pre-test: F (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>, 87) = 0.269, p ˃ 001. Afterwards, the researchers employed another one-way ANOVA to disclose the contributions of the interventions to the EFL learners' LC on the post-test. Table 3 presents the results of the descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics results of the listening comprehension post-test of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>N</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. deviation</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. error</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% Confidence interval for mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Max</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Group dynamic assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>30.6000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.19018</p></td><td align="left"><p>.94759</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.6620</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>32.5380</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.1000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.76325</p></td><td align="left"><p>.68707</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.6948</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.5052</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.8000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.95250</p></td><td align="left"><p>.53905</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.6975</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.9025</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.8333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.72199</p></td><td align="left"><p>.91938</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19.0065</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22.6601</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 3 reports, M (30.60) and SD (5.19) for the G-DA group, M (20.10) and SD (3.76) for the PBI group, and M (11.80) and SD (2.95) for the control group were calculated, in turn. As it is clear, there were substantial differences among the groups' Ms. As a result, the researchers ran a one-way ANOVA to disclose if these differences were statistically significant. Table 4 displays the results.</p> <p>Table 4 One-way ANOVA results comparing the listening comprehension post-test scores of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Sum of squares</p></th><th align="left"><p>df</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean square</p></th><th align="left"><p>F</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sig</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Between groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5325.800</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2662.900</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>160.360</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Within groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1444.700</p></td><td align="left"><p>87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.606</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6770.500</p></td><td align="left"><p>89</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 4 reveals, there was a statistically significant difference among the groups concerning scores of the post-test (F (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>, 87) = 160.3, <emph>p</emph> = 0.000). That is, the G-DA group and the PBI group gained much better scores on the post-test. Then, the researchers used a Post-hoc Scheffe Test, Multiple Comparisons to uncover where these differences lain. Table 5 reports the results.</p> <p>Table 5 Multiple comparisons results of listening comprehension post-test scores of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>(I) Groups</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>(J) Groups</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean difference (I-J)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. error</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sig</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% Confidence interval</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Group dynamic aassessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.50000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05216</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.8796</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.1204</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.80000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05216</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.1796</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.4204</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group-dynamic assessment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 10.50000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05216</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 13.1204</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 7.8796</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.30000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05216</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.6796</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.9204</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Control group</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group-dynamic assessment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 18.80000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05216</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 21.4204</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 16.1796</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 8.30000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05216</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 10.9204</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 5.6796 </p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>*<emph>p</emph> < 0.05</p> <p>As Table 5 indicates, as the value of the obtained Sig (0 = 00) were less than the value of the significance level (0.05), the researchers concluded that there existed a statistically significant difference between the G-DA group and the control group, between the PBI group and the control group, and between the G-DA group and the PBI group. That is, while the G-DA group and the PBI group outdid the control group, the G-DA group outperformed the PBI concerning the gains in LC.</p> <p>As pointed out, the second research question explored if G-DA and PBI significantly fostered Iranian EFL learners' MA. The researchers used a one-way ANOVA to answer it. Prior to it, they checked the assumptions for using it. First, as the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p. 0.12 > 0.05) documented, the normality assumption was met. Second, as the results of Levene's test (F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref98">90</reflink>) 3.79, <emph>p</emph> 0.32 > 0.05) indicated, the equality of variances assumption was also met. Third, because no participant attended more than one class, the independence of the observations assumption was meet, as well. After ensuring of the assumptions, the researchers ran the one-way ANOVA. Table 6 reports the results of the descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Table 6 Descriptive statistics results of metacognitive awareness Pre-test of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>N</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. deviation</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. error</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% Confidence interval for mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Max</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Group dynamic assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.5000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.77613</p></td><td align="left"><p>.50685</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.4634</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.5366</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.8000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.59176</p></td><td align="left"><p>.47319</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.8322</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.7678</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.8667</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.47377</p></td><td align="left"><p>.45165</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.9429</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.7904</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.0556</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.60665</p></td><td align="left"><p>.27477</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.5096</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.6015</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 6 shows, M (8.50) and SD (2.77) for the G-DA group, M (7.80) and SD (2.59) for the PBI group, and M (7.86) and SD (2.47) for the control group were calculated, respectively. As it is clear, there were not substantial differences among the groups' Ms. Accordingly, the researchers utilized a one-way ANOVA to uncover if the differences were statistically significant. Table 7 reports the results.</p> <p>Table 7 One-way ANOVA results comparing the metacognitive awareness pre-test scores the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Sum of squares</p></th><th align="left"><p>df</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean square</p></th><th align="left"><p>F</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sig</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Between groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.956</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.478</p></td><td align="left"><p>.654</p></td><td align="left"><p>.523</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Within groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>595.767</p></td><td align="left"><p>87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.848</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>604.722</p></td><td align="left"><p>89</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 2 presents, there did not exist a statistical significance difference among the three groups concerning MA on the pre-test: F (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>, 87) = 0.654, p ˃ 001. Next, the researchers used another one-way ANOVA to disclose the contributions of the interventions to the EFL learners' MA on the post-test. Table 8 presents the results of the descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Table 8 Descriptive statistics results of the metacognitive awareness post-test of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>N</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. deviation</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. error</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% Confidence interval for mean</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Min</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Max</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Group dynamic assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.1667</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.76329</p></td><td align="left"><p>.32193</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.5082</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>18.8251</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.1667</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.71755</p></td><td align="left"><p>.49615</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.1519</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.1814</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control group</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.8333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.47864</p></td><td align="left"><p>.45254</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.9078</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.7589</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td align="left"><p>90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.7222</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.81902</p></td><td align="left"><p>.40256</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.9223</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.5221</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 8 informs, M (18.16) and SD (1.76) for the G-DA group, M (15.16) and SD (2.71) for the PBI group, and M (10.83) and SD (2.47) for the control group were calculated, respectively. As it is obvious, there were noticeable differences among the groups' Ms. Accordingly, the researchers used a one-way ANOVA to clarify if these differences were statistically significant. Table 9 displays the results.</p> <p>Table 9 One-way ANOVA results comparing the listening comprehension post-test scores of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Sum of squares</p></th><th align="left"><p>df</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean square</p></th><th align="left"><p>F</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sig</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Between groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>815.556</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>407.778</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>73.527</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Within groups</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>482.500</p></td><td align="left"><p>87</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.546</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1298.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>89</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 4 reports, there a statistically significant difference existed among the groups concerning scores of the post-test (F (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>, 87) = 73.52, p = 0.000). That is, the G-DA group and the PBI group outperformed the control group on the post-test. Afterward, the researchers employed a Post-hoc Scheffe Test, Multiple Comparisons to reveal where these differences lain. Table 10 reports the results.</p> <p>Table 10 Multiple comparisons results of metacognitive awareness post-test scores of the three groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>(I) Groups</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>(J) Groups</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean difference (I-J)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. Error</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sig</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% confidence interval</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower Bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper Bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Group-dynamic assessment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.00000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.60806</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.4856</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.5144</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control Group</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.33333<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.60806</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.8190</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.8477</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group-dynamic assessment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 3.00000<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.60806</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 4.5144</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 1.4856</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Control Group</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.33333<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.60806</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.8190</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.8477</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Control group</p></td><td align="left"><p>Group-dynamic assessment</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 7.33333<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.60806</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 8.8477</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 5.8190</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Process-based instruction</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 4.33333<sup>*</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>.60806</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 5.8477</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 2.8190</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table @5 informs, as the value of the obtained Sig (0 = 00) were less than the value of the significance level (0.05), the researchers found that there existed a statistically significant difference between the G-DA group and the control group, between the PBI group and the control group, and between the G-DA group and the PBI group. That is, while the G-DA group and the PBI group outdid the control group, the G-DA group outperformed the PBI concerning the gains in MA.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-17">Qualitative Results</hd> <p>The third research question examined how G-DA and PBI affected the Iranian EFL learners' LC. A microgenetic development analysis was employed to answer this research question. To track the impact of interventions on the EFL learners' LC and MA some episodes are presented below. As Excerpt 1 shows, there are multiple EFL learners' responses to the first part of the task (i.e., the pre-listening phase). They also proposed their attitudes and typical interpretations of various phases of LC. Incidentally, these data also represent how, through co-constructing the meaning concurrently, a whole class ZPD is formed. In the transcripts, the EFL learners were identified by the abbreviation S followed by a number. T also represents the instructor who acted as the mediator, as well. Also, enclosed words and phrases in parentheses represent the non-verbal behavior or the author's extra explanations. In order to avoid any misunderstanding and ascertain comprehension on the EFL learners' part, the mediation sessions were held in the learners' mother tongue, Persian. Moreover, Swain and Lapkin ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref101">60</reflink>]) underscored the effectiveness of L1 in interaction which is likely to assist in understanding and management of task requirements. Although, for readers' convenience, the translated utterances have been presented here.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In the beginning, S1 appears to be not aware of the very initial phase of listening, and she demonstrates this lack of awareness through a cognitive statement, "I don't do anything" (line 2). Drawing S1's attention to the work she most properly does, the instructor points out to the paper that is the planning strategy for listening. In line 4, S1 accepts the prompt and adds that she prepares herself by bringing out the pencil. This can demonstrate that she is now more focusing on what she usually does before listening. However, by talking about mundane activities, such as 'bringing my pen,' the class demonstrates that they are not still able to notice listening strategies in the pre-listening phase. The extract shows that the whole class is collaborating on the task, and there is evidence to suggest that the developmental activity is taking place at the moment. At a new level of mediation, the instructor tries to convey to the class that there is a reason for looking at their book before listening and aims to guide them to the predicting strategy. Collaboratively, S4 confirms and co-constructs the instructor's implicit mediation via drawing the attention of the class to the pictures that are related to the recorded audios they were supposed to hear (Line 13). Likewise, this co-construction of knowledge shows the origin of the EFL learners' development in awareness of preparation for listening. In the pre-listening phase, the instructor typically tries to activate the background knowledge of the subject matter prior to listening by discussing the theme of the listening and, on some occasions, through pre-teaching vocabulary. Yet, prior to this aim, she tries to draw the EFL learners' attention to think about what they usually do before listening and what they should do. Within G-DA, the entire class is the target of the mediation, and the instructor engages the whole ZPDs.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-18">The Tenth Session (While-Listening Part)</hd> <p>In the following episode, the class discusses one of the EFL learners' problems in the while-listening phase. The class demonstrates an active engagement in pooling opinions and thoughts together to co-construct a whole ZPD. As the nature of G-DA entails, the interaction and assessment are not focused on one single individual, but it actively and rapidly shifts among the class participants.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Upon asking 'why did you jot down new vocabularies,' the instructor scaffolds S1 to notice the strategy, she used during this phase (line 3). Consequently, S1 successfully justifies the rationale behind this action, which is her aim to compare her accurate predictions and strategies with her partner's, and shows signs of MA. Additionally, note-taking as an effective strategy was recommended during previous treatment sessions. According to Oxford ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref102">45</reflink>]), it demonstrates the EFL learners' understanding of the content of what is heard and not the writing per se. In the while-listening phase, the EFL learners can verify their initial hypotheses and revise them if needed, and note additional information understood. In this stage, the learners somehow compare what they have understood/written with the whole class. In line 9, S3 expresses her misunderstanding of a word, and other speakers, as well as the teacher over rapid turn changes try to help her co-construct a ZPD via recommending some strategies. In this phase, the EFL learners modify their thoughts and writings as required. Sometimes, they decide on the important details that need a closer focus. During the current episode, the EFL learners show different levels of understanding of strategic listening. For instance, in line 13, S1 tries to scaffold her peer by guiding her to another listening strategy, guessing the word in context. In line 14, through a confirmation check, the instructor aims to lead the class as a whole to get the guessing strategy from the context in which it is located. Not only does the instructor explicitly direct whole ZPDs to this strategy (lines 14), but collaboratively S2 gives another clue to the class that is likely to spark up more successful guessing. This final collaboration manifests the listeners' understanding (i.e., strategy awareness) and can be an indication of microgenetic development. The presented extracts evidence the listeners make greater use of metacognitive strategies (i.e., strategies that promote their comprehension, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating) (Goh, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref103">25</reflink>]; Vandgergrift, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref104">61</reflink>]; Vandergrift et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref105">65</reflink>]). As it is clear, the mediation on strategic listening offered to students follows those of Aljaafreh and Lantolf ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref106">7</reflink>]) which means that the instructor's suggestions, leadings, and further explanations move from the most implicit to the most explicit.</p> <p>In the PBI group, the participants received metacognitive instruction. The scaffolding was informed by Vandergrift's ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref107">63</reflink>]) metacognitive pedagogical cycle. At first, the instructor encouraged the EFL learners to go through the planning, first listening, second listening, and third listening. Then, she asked them to reflect on their learning, the strategies they used, and evaluate their learning. They also demonstrated signs of development due to the positive effects of the teacher- and peer-led discussion. Some examples of their reflections are presented below. The following episodes have been selected from the first and second sessions of treatment wherein the EFL learners were initiating to gain awareness of their weaknesses, problems, and ways of listening more cautiously.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>In this phase, the learners are given some time to make their initial hypotheses and predictions on what they are going to hear. As it is clearly portrayed in this extract, the listeners try to predict what the text will be about. They make some guesses, and through reasoning, they omit those ones which are not logical (e.g., lines 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8). The pair separately brainstormed to guess what they were going to hear through evidence and pictures. Planning and guessing as the most appropriate strategies were employed by each pair. It is worthy of mention that the pairs did the task independently and with different quality and quantities.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-19">The First Session (While-Listening/First, Second, and Third Listening Part)</hd> <p>After the pre-listening phase, the class was invited to discuss the problematic issues they encountered during some listening phases. In fact, the teacher encouraged them to share their understanding as well as their questions with peers in groups, this time with an eye on assisting them in constructing a firm and more conscious understanding of listening strategies.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>As it is evident from the turns, the flow of interaction and discussion is determined by the students, wherein the teacher plays a less active role in guiding them. They mainly express the lack of knowledge of vocabulary as the main rationale behind their lack of LC and come to an agreement to ask the teacher to let them know the new vocabularies before listening to the audio file (from line 6 on). The teacher does the least aid and involvement during class discussion, and repeatedly beforehand, she emphasized that they should manage it themselves. But rarely and only when directly addressed does she answers the students (lines 8 & 12). Overall, the results of the mocrogenetic development analysis of both G-DA and PBI groups demonstrated the superiority of the former approach over the latter, which reinforces the quantitative results of the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-20">Discussion</hd> <p>As mentioned above, the first research question inspected if G-DA and PBI significantly fostered the Iranian EFL learners' LC. The results of the one-way ANOVA indicated that both approaches significantly fostered the EFL learners' LC. However, the findings evidenced that G-DA was more effective than PBI to foster the EFL learners' LC. Aligned with the findings, it may be argued that as the two approaches provided useful feedback on the lacks and needs of the EFL learners, they could significantly bolster their LC. However, the superiority of G-DA may be ascribed to the view that it might detect better the lacks needing improvement, and accordingly, let the instructor offer appropriate mediations. That is, the ZPD-sensetive prompts offered through the dialogic interactions might have afforded the instructor both to diagnose the actual level of abilities and to verify the potential level of development concurrently (Albeeva, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref108">3</reflink>]; Rezai et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref109">53</reflink>]). The gained findings lend credence to those of the previous studies (e.g., Ableeva, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>]; Alavi et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref111">6</reflink>]; Farangi & Kheradmand Saadi, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref112">19</reflink>]; Pileh Roud & Hidri, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref113">48</reflink>]), reporting that DA/G-DA significantly bolstered the EFL learners' LC. Additionally, the findings are in line with those of the previous studies (e.g., Ai-hua, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref114">5</reflink>]; Li & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref115">38</reflink>]), offering strong evidence in support of the applicability of PBI in cultivating EFL learners' LC.</p> <p>The second research question explored if G-DA and PBI significantly fostered the Iranian EFL learners' MA. The results of the one-way ANOVA documented that both approaches significantly contributed to developing of the EFL learners' MA. However, the results demonstrated the participants instructed through G-DA gained better results compared with the participants trained via PBI. Along with the findings, it may be argued that G-DA and PBI might develop their knowledge of MA as they received appropriate feedback from the instructors. That is, the feedback might have assisted the EFL learners to gain the required knowledge to plan, monitor, and evaluate their LC. However, the superiority of the G-DA group might be attributed to this view that the prompts offered by the instructor might have helped the EFL learners to put their resources together to co-construct the intended knowledge (Bahramlou & Esmaeili, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref116">10</reflink>]). That is, the given prompts might have assisted the EFL learners to move beyond their current level of abilities and take good control of the metacognitive strategy in hand. The gained findings are congruent with those of the previous studies (e.g., Birjandi et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref117">13</reflink>]; Khodabakhsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref118">33</reflink>]; Shobeiry, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref119">58</reflink>]), revealing that DA/G-DA was beneficial to develop L2 learners' MA. Plus, the obtained results are keeping with those of the past studies (e.g., Bermillo & Aradilla, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref120">12</reflink>]; Maftoon & Fakhri Alamdari, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref121">39</reflink>]). They evidenced that PBI can be implemented to develop EFL learners' MA.</p> <p>The third research question explored how G-DA and PBI improved the Iranian EFL learners' MA and LC. The results demonstrated that when different forms of explicit and implicit feedback are provided for the EFL learners, they could redress the gaps in their knowledge. The episodes related to the G-DA group showed that collective scaffolding can be useful for both primary interactants and secondary interactants (Poehner, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref122">49</reflink>]). The dialogic interactions with the G-DA group created a social space in which all the EFL learners could mutually take advantage of the other's contributions.</p> <p>A plausible reason for the contribution of G-DA to fostering the EFL learners might be the dialogic interactions. That is, along with Lantolf and Poehner ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref123">37</reflink>]), it may be argued that they might have changed the learning tasks at social activities in which all the EFL learners might have benefited from the collective scaffolding. By receiving mediations from the instructors, the EFL learners' might have attempted to construct the required ZPD such that they could manage the learning activity in hand (Rezai et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref124">53</reflink>]). To further discuss the findings, it can be referred to the tenet of SCT posting that as the EFL learners were scaffolded with contingent and congruent mediations trailered to their ZPDs, not only might the instructor have gained real insights into their potential level of development but she might have recognized their lacks and needs (Poehner & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref125">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>To justify the findings of the study, as Poehner and Infante ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref126">50</reflink>]) note, as the EFL learners in G-DA group were afforded with contingent and congruent feedback attuned to their lacks and needs, they might have co-shaped essential knowledge to go beyond their solo capabilities. This argument receives support from this fundamental tenet of SCT posting that knowledge first is co-built on the social level and later is internalized with the help of appropriate mediation from capable peers (Poehner & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref127">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>A reason for the findings of the study showing that PIB contributed to improving the EFL learners' LC and MA strategy may be ascribed to the view that it might have assisted them to plan, monitor, and evaluate effectively their LC processes and move forward their listening development. That is, along with Goh ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref128">25</reflink>]), it may be argued that PBI might have been useful for the EFL learners to construct and improve their knowledge about the required listening processes, and, accordingly, might have allowed them to manage their LC efficiently. Further, in line with the obtained results, it may be argued that PBI might have established a learning environment in which the EFL learners could gain a deep awareness of the learning and the listening processes and develop a correct understanding of the proper use of the strategies (Maftoon & Fakhri Alamdari, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref129">39</reflink>]). Additionally, a further line of discussion of the findings may be ascribed to the benefits of PBI that might have brought about for the EFL learners. In other words, as PBI could enhance affect in the listening processes, bolster the EFL learners' self-confidence, motivation, and positive attitudes, and relieve their anxiety, it might have assisted them to take control of the listening tasks in hand.</p> <p>Concerning the findings reported for the control group, they may be ascribed to the instruction they received. That is, as they received non-dialogic feedback, they could not construct the required knowledge of LC and MA. This might be due to the fact that the given feedback was not attuned to the EFL learners' ZPD. Thus, it could not make it possible for the instructor to gain correct insights into their fully-developed abilities and the underdeveloped abilities. Consequently, the non-ZPD sensitive feedback could not effectively pave the way for their independent development.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>As pointed out above, this research purported to inspect the contributions of G-DA and PBI to fostering Iranian EFL learners' LC and MA. The gained results uncovered that both G-DA and PBI significantly contribute to developing the participants" LC and MA. Additionally, the findings revealed that the G-DA group outflanked the PBI group concerning the gains in LC and MA. Complementary with the quantitative findings, the qualitative results documented the ways through which G-DA and PBI improved the EFL learners' LC and MA. The gained findings imply that if EFL learners are offered graduated mediations tailored to their ZPDs, not only can they detect the gaps in their abilities but they can also redress them substantially. To put it simply, if EFL teachers are to push EFL learners to move beyond their current level of abilities, they need to scaffold them with congruent and contingent mediations.</p> <p>Some pertinent stakeholders may benefit from the obtained findings. The first beneficiary of the results may be education officials. They can gain insights into the applicability and efficiency of G-DA and PBI in large classes and hold pre-service and in-service workshops to familiarize EFL teachers with them. Additionally, material developers may benefit from the findings by considering the tenets of G-DA and PBI in educational materials. For example, they can design listening tasks in which EFL learners are afforded opportunities to receive feedback from peers or teachers. Moreover, the findings may be beneficial for teacher-educators to incorporate G-DA and PBI in their syllabuses. They can draw teacher-students' attention to the effectiveness of G-DA and PBI in improving L2 learners' achievement with the hope of applying them in their future classes. Likewise, EFL teachers can take advantage of the results of the study by accommodating G-DA and PBI in their instructions. They can further their understanding of the effectiveness of graduated feedback in constructing the required knowledge and skills. Finally, EFL learners can be beneficiary of the gained findings to notice that involving in dialogic interactions plays a pivotal role in fostering their MA and LC.</p> <p>Some limitations imposed on the current study paving the way for further research. First, as this study explored the effects of G-DA and PBI in a short time of period, longitudinal studies are needed to trace the effects of G-DA and PBI on fostering EFL learners' LC and MA over a more expanded time. Second, as this study just included female EFL learners, future studies need to recruit EFL male learners to uphold the credibility of the gained findings. Third, as this study was conducted in the setting of a non-profit language institute (ILI), interested researchers can replicate the study in other settings like state schools and universities to generalize the findings. Fourth, because the present study focused on the contributions of G-DA and PBI to fostering EFL learners' MA and LC, more studies are need to inspect if G-DA and PBI are beneficial to promote psycho-emotional constructs, motivation, learning anxiety, self-efficacy, anger and the like. Last but not least, as the study used the microgenetic development approach to reveal how G-DA and PBI improve EFL learners' LC and MA, other data collection instruments, such as interviews and observation can be used to further our understanding of the research topic.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-22">Funding</hd> <p>This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University Project Number (PSAU 2023 /R/1444).</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-23">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-24">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0172328441-25">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The corresponding author declares that there is no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-26">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This study was approved by the Ethical Board of Iranian English language Institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-27">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>All the participants provided written informed consent and they were fully understood the study purpose.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-28">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0172328441-29">Abbreviations</hd> <p></p> <hd1 id="AN0172328441-30"> • G-DA </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Group-dynamic assessment</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0172328441-31"> • PBI </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Process-based instruction</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0172328441-32"> • LC </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Listening comprehension</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0172328441-33"> • MA </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Metacognitive awareness</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0172328441-34"> • KET </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Key English test</item> <p></p> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0172328441-35"> • SCT </hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Sociocultural theory</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0172328441-36">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0172328441-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdolrezapour P. Improving L2 reading comprehension through emotionalized dynamic assessment procedures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2017; 46; 3: 747-770. 10.1007/s10936-016-9464-9. 27909852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref70" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ableeva R. Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. 2010; The Pennsylvania State University</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref108" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ableeva R, Lantolf J. Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2011; 18; 2: 133-149. 10.1080/0969594X.2011.555330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref75" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmadi Safa M, Beheshti S. Interactionist and interventionist group dynamic assessment (GDA) and EFL learners' listening comprehension development. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research. 2018; 6; 3: 37-56. 10.30466/ijltr.2018.120600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref78" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ai-hua C. EFL listeners' strategy development and listening problems: A process-based study. Journal of Asia TEFL. 2013; 10; 3: 1-23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref71" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Alavi SM, Kaivanpanah Sh, Shabani K. Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills. 2012; 3; 4: 27-58</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref106" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Aljaafreh A, Lantolf JP. Negative feedback as regulation and learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal. 1994; 78: 465-483. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ashman AF, Conway RN. Cognitive strategies for special education. 1989; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Ashman AF, Conway RN. Using cognitive methods in the classroom. 2017; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315271019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bahramlou K, Esmaeili A. The effects of vocabulary enhancement exercises and group dynamic assessment on word learning through lexical inferencing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 2019; 48; 4: 889-901. 10.1007/s10936-019-09638-x. 30903423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barabadi E, Khajavy GH, Kamrood AM. Applying interventionist and interactionist approaches to dynamic assessment for L2 listening comprehension. International Journal of Instruction. 2018; 11; 3: 681-700. 10.12973/iji.2018.11346a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bermillo J, Aradilla FJ. Developing students' listening comprehension and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive process-based listening instruction. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 2022; 4; 1: 84-93. 10.32996/jeltal</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Birjandi P, Estaji M, Deyhim T. The impact of dynamic assessment on reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Iranian high school learners. International Journal of Language Testing. 2013; 3; 2: 60-77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buck G. Assessing listening. 2001; Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732959</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross J. Metacognitive instruction for helping less-skilled listeners. ELT Journal. 2011; 65; 4: 408-416. 10.1093/elt/ccq073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross J. Metacognition in L2 listening: Clarifying instructional theory and practice. TESOL Quarterly. 2015; 49; 4: 883-892. 10.1002/tesq.258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Das JP, Kirby JR, Jarman RF. Simultaneous and successive cognitive processes. 2013; Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Færch C, Kasper G. From product to process: Introspective methods in second language research. Introspection in Second Language Research. 1987; 30: 5-23</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farangi MR, Kheradmand Saadi Z. Dynamic assessment or schema theory: The case of listening comprehension. Cogent Education. 2017; 4; 1: 1312078. 10.1080/2331186X.2017.1312078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flavell JHResnick LB. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence. 1976; Lawrence Erlbaum: 231-235</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flower LS, Hayes JR. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition & Communication. 1981; 32: 365-387. 10.2307/356600</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser BJ. Classroom environments. 1986; Croom Helm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gánem Gutiérrez A. Microgenesis, method and object: A study of collaborative activity in a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. Applied Linguistics. 2008; 29; 1: 120-148. 10.1093/applin/amm032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghahderijani BH, Namaziandost E, Tavakoli M, Kumar T, Magizov R. The comparative effect of group dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners' speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Language Testing in Asia. 2021; 11; 1: 1-20. 10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh CCM. Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal. 2008; 39: 188-213. 10.1177/0033688208092184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh CC. Metacognition in second language listening. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. 2018. 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh CCM, Hu G. Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness Journal. 2014; 23: 255-274. 10.1080/09658416.2013.769558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh CCM, Taib Y. Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal. 2006; 60: 222-232. 10.1093/elt/ccl002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Sandmel K. The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Educational Research. 2011; 104; 6: 396-407. 10.1080/00220671.2010.488703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo W, Bai B, Song H. Influences of process-based instruction on students' use of self-regulated learning strategies in EFL writing. System. 2021; 101: 102578. 10.1016/j.system.2021.102578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hay I. Cognitive strategies in the secondary school: Investigating process-based instruction and students' perceptions of effective teaching strategies. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2000; 1; 2: 164-176. 10.1891/194589500787383634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes J, Hall R. Cognitive behavioural psychology in schools. 1989; Guilford</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khodabakhsh S, Abbasian GR, Rashtchi M. Incorporation of dynamic assessment models into developing language awareness and metacognitive strategy use in writing classes. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies. 2018; 5; 4: 55-79</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krashen SD. The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. 1985; Longman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lantolf JP. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. 2000; Oxford University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lantolf JPKaplan RB. Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. 2004; Oxford University Press: 104-114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lantolf JP, Poehner ME. Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. 2014; Rutledge. 10.4324/9780203813850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li Y, Liu Y. The impact of strategies-based instruction on listening comprehension. English Language Teaching. 2008; 1; 2: 128-134. 10.5539/elt.v1n2p128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maftoon P, Fakhri Alamdari E. Exploring the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on metacognitive awareness and listening performance through a process-based approach. International Journal of Listening. 2020; 34; 1: 1-20. 10.1080/10904018.2016.1250632</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahdavi N, Miri M. Co-shaping metacognitive awareness and developing listening comprehension through process-based instruction. International Journal of Listening. 2019; 33; 1: 53-70. 10.1080/10904018.2016.1260454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendelsohn DJ, Rubin J. A guide for the teaching of second language listening. 1995; Dominie Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moradian MR, Kogani Baharvand P. Exploring the role of process-based instruction in improving young EFL learners' metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension: A sociocultural perspective. Teaching English Language. 2017; 11; 1: 145-166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mowla M, Alibakhshi G, Kushki A, Bavarsad PS. Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): Concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2017; 3; 1: 1-24. 10.32601/ejal.461025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordin SM, Mohammad N. The best of two approaches: Process/genre-based approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher. 2017; 35: 75-85</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxford R. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. 1990; Newbury House</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pei T, Suwanthep J. Development of L2 Listening Metacognitive Awareness via Online Metacognitive Listening Practice. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET). 2021; 19; 4: 1-18. 10.4018/ijdet.286741</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petrovsky AV. Studies in psychology. The Collective and the individual. 1985; Progress</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pileh Roud LF, Hidri S. Toward a sociocultural approach to computerized dynamic assessment of the TOEFL iBT listening comprehension test. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26; 4: 4943-4968. 10.1007/s10639-021-10498-z. 33814957. 8007059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poehner ME. Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 2009; 43: 471-491. 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poehner ME, Infante P. Mediated development: A Vygotskian approach to transforming second language learner abilities. TESOL Quarterly. 2017; 51; 2: 332-357. 10.1002/tesq.308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poehner ME, Wang Z. Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language Teaching. 2021; 54; 4: 472-490. 10.1017/S0261444820000555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poehner ME, Yu L. Dynamic assessment of L2 writing: Exploring the potential of rubrics as mediation in diagnosing learner emerging abilities. TESOL Quarterly. 2021. 10.1002/tesq.3098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rezai A, Naserpour A, Rahimi S. Online peer-dynamic assessment: an approach to boosting Iranian high school students' writing skills: A mixed-methods study. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022. 10.1080/10494820.2022.2086575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riazi AM. The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. 2016; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315656762</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rijlaarsdam G, Van den Bergh HMacArthur C, Graham S, Fitzgerald J. Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. Handbook of writing research. 2006; Guilford: 41-53</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rost M. Teaching and researching listening. 2002; Logman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharp LA. Acts of writing: A compilation of six models that define the processes of writing. International Journal of Instruction. 2016; 9; 2: 77-90. 10.12973/iji.2016.926a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shobeiry M. The effect of dynamic assessment on Iranian IELTS students' metacognitive awareness for reading strategy and reading development. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics. 2021; 79: 8-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silva T, Matsuda P. On second language writing. 2001; Lawrence Erlbaum</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swain M, Lapkin S. Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research. 2000; 4; 3: 251-274. 10.1177/136216880000400304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandergrift L. 'It was nice to see that our predictions were right': Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review. 2002; 58; 4: 555-575. 10.3138/cmlr.58.4.555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandergrift L. From prediction through reflection: guiding students: Through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review. 2003; 59; 3: 425. 10.3138/cmlr.59.3.425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandergrift L. Listening to learn or learning to listen?. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2004; 24: 3-25. 10.1017/S0267190504000017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandergrift L, Goh C. Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. 2012; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandergrift L, Goh CC, Mareschal CJ, Tafaghodtari MH. The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning. 2006; 56; 3: 431-462. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandergrift L, Tafaghodtari MH. Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning. 2010; 60; 2: 470-497. 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 1978; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Afsheen Rezai; Parisa Ashkani and Sayed M. Ismail</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref126"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1393609
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rezai%2C+Afsheen%22">Rezai, Afsheen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9010-0168">0000-0001-9010-0168</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ashkani%2C+Parisa%22">Ashkani, Parisa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ismail%2C+Sayed+M%2E%22">Ismail, Sayed M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Psycholinguistic+Research%22"><i>Journal of Psycholinguistic Research</i></searchLink>. Oct 2023 52(5):1345-1370.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Metacognition%22">Metacognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Comprehension%22">Listening Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Tests%22">Language Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scores%22">Scores</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alternative+Assessment%22">Alternative Assessment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Iran%22">Iran</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10936-023-09934-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0090-6905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Although a range of studies has explored the effectiveness of group-dynamic assessment (G-DA) and process-based instruction (PBI) in second language (L2) learning, no study has compared the effects of G-DA and PBI on EFL learners' metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening comprehension (LC). Thus, this study aimed to explore the effects of G-DA and PBI on fostering EFL learners' metacognitive awareness (MA) and listening comprehension (LC) in Iran. For this purpose, a total of one hundred and sixty intermediate EFL learners were selected through a convenience sampling method at Iran Language Institute (ILI) and were homogenized using the Key English Test (KET). The EFL learners whose scores fell around the mean score were chosen and randomly allocated as G-DA group (n = 30), PBI group (n = 30), and control group (n = 30). Afterward, they went through a pre-test, interventions (lasting 16 one-hour sessions held twice a week) and a post-test. The interactions in the classes were also meticulously recorded. The collected data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and a microgenetic development approach. Findings evidenced that the G-DA group and PBI group outperformed the control group concerning the gains in MA and LC. However, the findings evidenced that G-DA was more effective than PBI to foster the EFL learners' MA and LC. Additionally, the complementary qualitative results documented that the proper feedback offered in line with the principles and procedures of G-DA and PBI contributed to developing the participants' MA and LC. The study ends by offering some implications for the relevant stakeholders.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1393609
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1393609
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10936-023-09934-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 1345
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Metacognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alternative Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Iran
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of Group-Dynamic Assessment and Process-Based Instruction on EFL Learners' Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rezai, Afsheen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ashkani, Parisa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ismail, Sayed M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0090-6905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 52
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1