Impact of Mediation Types on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Strategies

Document Type: Research Article


Islamic Azad University, Tehran Branch, Iran


The sociocultural theory holds the idea that knowledge to be acquired should be mediated. It underscores the presence of mediation as a crucial factor in internalization of abilities. Given this, the present research was an attempt to examine the effect of mediation on learners’ reading comprehension strategy in light of 2 approaches of response-based (RB) mediation (Vygotsky) and task-based (TB) mediation (Bruner) to intervention. To this end, the Reading section of the First Certificate in English (2010) and 1 cognitive and metacognitive questionnaire (Phakiti, 2003) were administered to 104 Iranian lower-intermediate EFL learners who were selected by convenience sampling. The questionnaire was given to the participants before and after the mediation session. MANOVA results revealed that not only had the learners’ monitoring metacognitive strategies changed by interventions, but also the participants in the TB mediation group outperformed those in the RB mediation group. 


Abbott, S. P., Reed, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1997). Year-long balanced reading/writing tutorial: A design experiment used for dynamic assessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(3), 249-263.

Alptekin, C, & Ercetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 235-266. 

Anderson, N. J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 41-66.

Balazic, J. (1997). Dynamic assessment of reading abilities. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario, Toronto.

Bednar, M. R., & Kletzien, S. B. (1990). Dynamic assessment procedures: A validation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, 40th Annual Meeting, Miami, Florida, November 29th to 1st December. ERIC Accession NO. (ED329921).

Bialystok, E. (1991) Achieving proficiency in a second language: A processing description. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 63-78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bickhard, M. H. (2005). Functional scaffolding and self-scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 166-173.

Birjandi, P., Estaji, M., & Deyhim, T. (2013). The impact of dynamic assessment on reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Iranian high school learners. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 3(2), 60-77.

Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (1999). Vocabulary in dynamic reading assessment: Two case studies. Reading Psychology, 20(3), 213-236.

Brozo, W.G. (1990). Learning how at-risk readers learn best: A case for interactive assessment.  Journal of Reading, 33(7), 522-527.

Clausen, A. R. (1968). Response validity: Vote report. The Public Opinion Quarterly32(4), 588-606.

Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies. In A. D Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 29-46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies and processes in test taking and SLA. In L. F. Bachman & D. Cohen (Eds.), Interface between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 90-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cook, V. (2001) Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Arnold.

Cross, J. (2009). Effects of listening strategy instruction on news videotext comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 151-176. 

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in L2 learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Grenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In A. D Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 9-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The zo-ped. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the zone of proximal development: New directions for child development (pp. 45-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guterman, E. (2002). Toward dynamic assessment of reading: Applying metacognitive awareness guidance to reading assessment tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 283-298.

Hamers, J. H. M., & Resing, W. C. M. (1996). Learning potential assessment introduction. In J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars, Learning Potential Assessment: Theoretical, methodological, and practical issues (pp. 23-42). Amsterdan: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Harris, V. (2003) Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance learning context. TESL-EJ,7(2). Retrieved January 10, 2016, from the World Wide Web:

Hatch, E. M., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York: Newbury House.

Hayes, D. J. (2011). Assessing vocabulary in context using graduated prompting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Houtveen, A. A. M.,  & van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Effects of metacognitive strategy instruction and instruction time on reading comprehension, school effectiveness and school improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 18(2), 173-190.

Juffer, K.A. (1993) The first step in cross-cultural orientation: Defining the problem. In R. M. & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (2nd ed.; pp. 201-218). Yarmouth: Intercultural Press.

Keshavarz, M. H., & Assar, M. (2009). Reading comprehension ability and metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among high, mid and low ambiguity tolerance EAP students. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 71-108.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. Paper presented at the Ninth Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Fribourg, Switzerland.

Lidz, C. S. (1997). Dynamic assessment: Psychoeducational assessment with cultural sensitivity. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 6(2), 95-112.

Little, D. (1996). Strategic competence considered in relation to strategic control of the language learning process. In H. Holec, D. Little, & R. Richterich (Eds.), Strategies in language learning and use (modern languages): Studies towards a common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching (pp. 11-37). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Luria, L. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31(1), 1-16.

Macaro, E. (2001). Analyzing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classroom: theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 531-548.

Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 90-119.

McGuire, K. L., & Yewchuk, C. (1996). Use of metacognitive reading strategies by gifted learning disabled students: An exploratory study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 293-314.

McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Self-explanation and metacognition: The dynamics of reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 60-82). New York: Routledge.

Meyers, J., Lytle, S., Palladino, D., Devenpeck, G., & Green, M. (1990). Think-aloud protocol analysis: An investigation of reading comprehension strategies in fourth-and fifth-grade students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(2), 112-127.

Naeini, J., & Duvall, E. (2012). Dynamic assessment and the impact on English language learners’ reading comprehension performance. Language Testing in Asia, 2(2), 22-41.

Nunn, B. (2001). Task-based methodology and sociocultural theory. Retrieved March 2, 2016, from the World Wide Web:

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. MA: Heinle.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56.

Pishghadam, R., & Barabadi, E. (2012). Constructing and validating computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 73-95.

Poehner, M. E. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through L2 dynamic assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21 (2), 244-262.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. 

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 1-20.

Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273-295.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D. R., & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1). Retrieved April 2, 2016, from the World Wide Web: salataci.html

Savignon, S. J., & Sysoyev, P. V. (2002). Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of cultures. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 508-524.

Spector, J. E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 353-363.

Takac, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition. Toronto: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Takeuchi, O, Griffiths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual situational, and group differences. In A. D Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 69-93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Yang, Y.-F. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27(4), 313-343.

Zoghi, M., & Malmeer, E. (2013). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ intrinsic motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 584-591.