EFL institute teachers

Teachers play a pivotal role in the instruction-assessment process. Knowing EFL teachers’ conceptualizations of the role of assessment as well as their own role in the implementation of assessment is very critical. Accordingly, the current study aimed to compare Iranian EFL public high school teachers’ literacy and perceptions of dynamic assessment with those of English language institute teachers. In so doing, 45 (23 high school, 22 institute) English teachers, teaching in Lahijan, Iran were selected according to convenience sampling method. The teachers were invited to cooperate and participate in the study and fill out the questionnaire sent via social network like WhatsApp and Telegram. In addition, nine teachers (five high school, four institute teachers) were selected through purposive sampling to participate in a semi-structured interview with five questions posed through the above-mentioned social networks. A researcher-adapted questionnaire with 23 items in a Likert-type scale was utilized to collect data. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were achieved through experts’ opinion and Cronbach Alpha, respectively. Having collected the data, descriptive and inferential statistics of the findings showed that although both groups of teachers had a realistic view about the application of dynamic assessment due to its practicality and social acceptance, the teachers in two different contexts of teaching had different rates of literacy and perceptions of dynamic assessment. Furthermore, the difference in the two groups of teachers’ perceptions of dynamic assessment practicality was significantly different. The institute teachers enjoyed a higher average of both literacy and perceptions of dynamic assessment practicality in their classrooms. This study echoes the teachers’ voices, and as in the wake of new forms of curricular policy in many parts of the world, teachers are increasingly required to be agents of change that would hopefully encourage change at the discipline and in the institutional level.