Intervention Analysis and Listening Comprehension Strategy Instruction : Insights from Clinical Supervision

The present study sought to investigate the effects of adapting the intervention provision framework put forward by John Heron, entitled Six-Category Intervention Analysis, into strategy instruction on listening comprehension performance of EFL learners. This model of intervention provision, having its genesis in clinical supervision, can regulate the verbal behavior and actual sentences used by teachers to intervene in language learning contexts. 175 Iranian intermediate level EFL learners participated in the study. The learners were divided into five 35-member groups including control; written mediation in which no oral intervention was provided; authoritative intervention in which the teacher suggested what had to be done, provided information, or confronted the students; facilitative, in which the teacher drew out ideas, solutions, or self-confidence; and synergetic authoritative-facilitative interventions. These groups received listening comprehension strategy instruction on three strategies of “guessing the meanings of unfamiliar words from the context”, “listening for gist”, and, “understanding cohesive devices”. Preliminary English Test was employed to assess the performance of language learners on their listening comprehension. Results indicated that the application of Six-Category Intervention Analysis while providing strategy instruction induced significant changes in the performance of the groups. In general, facilitative intervention and synergetic authoritative-facilitative intervention groups outperformed the control, written mediation, and authoritative intervention groups.


Introduction
The classroom language, teachers' verbal behavior and interaction within the class are key components that contribute to success of language learning.Despite their importance, it is not known why, to date, no structured oral/verbal framework has been put forward to provide learners with intervention and classroom language conducive to learning.Language learning and teaching contexts tend to be replete with intervention and mediation.Ellis (Lengeling, 2011) believes that language teaching is comprised of direct intervention referring to "attempts to actually teach learners specific linguistic properties" (2), and indirect intervention referring to the conditions built to facilitate language learning.Additionally, research has shown that being exposed to linguistic input is not, per se, sufficient to develop language proficiency (Lantolf & Throne, 2006;Swain 2000).Hence, provision of valid pedagogical and non-pedagogical intervention is a pressing need for nurturing the process of learning (Lai, 2012;Negueruela & Lantolf, 2006;van Compernolle, 2012).Furthermore, classroom climate is believed to be markedly determined by the dynamics of the learning group and its development over time (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003;Hadfield, 1992, as quoted in Galadja, 2012).In line with this, Widdowson (1990, p. 182) states: The classroom provides the context for the enactment of these roles: but the classroom should not just be perceived as physical surroundings but also conceived as social space.The difference is important and can be marked by a terminological distinction: setting for the physical context, scene for socio-psychological one.
All normal human beings are expert in the practical interpretation of talk.Most of our everyday life depends on skills in talking and making sense of the talk of others, as we work or trade or simply pass the time of day.
Six-Category Intervention Analysis (SCIA) has been put forward by Heron (1976).This conceptual framework, being originally based on counseling and clinical supervision studies, has been employed to educate and train professionals in health-related arenas.Recently, however, it has been used in various fields including management, medical education and counselling to promote interpersonal skills.(Chambers & Long, 1995;Cutcliffe & Epling, 1997;Fowler, 1996;Johns & Butcher, 1993).
Intervention in its both direct and indirect forms constitutes a major portion of the process of education.In language learning and teaching arenas, intervention has been attended to mostly in its former form.Indirect intervention, however, has not been considered in detail and with the necessary heed it deserves.In the following section, the paper discusses intervention from Heron's (1976) point of view and tries to elaborate on its two major categories, their respective six types, listening comprehension skill, along with language learning strategies.

Intervention
Intervention is "an identifiable piece of verbal and/or non-verbal behavior that is a part of the practitioner's service to the client" (Heron, 2001, p. 3).Despite the significance of non-verbal aspects of intervention, Heron (1976) notes by intervention he mainly refers to practitioner's verbal behavior.SCIA is proposed as a conceptual framework to understand interpersonal relationships and to analyse interactions between a client and a helper.
Whereas there exist a number of intervention models (Sloan & Watson, 2002), SCIA has been frequently used in fields that need to promote interpersonal skills (Ashmore, 1999;Chambers & Long 1995;Cutcliffe & Epling, 1997;Fowler, 1996;Johns & Butcher, 1993;Sloan & Watson, 2001).For practitioners, it can be used to improve the effectiveness of their communication skills in mentoring relationships.The two main categories of SCIA include authoritative and facilitative interventions which are briefly introduced here.

Authoritative Interventions
In this category, the practitioner suggests what should be done, provides information, or confronts the other person.This category includes three types: 1) Prescriptive: "…seeks to direct the behavior of the patient/colleague, client" (Heron, 2001, p. 5).For example, I would like you to discuss this issue with your classmates.In this intervention, the teacher or practitioner directly advises, proposes, recommends, or suggests to the client what to do due to a gap in their knowledge or skill when they are badly needed (Maggioli, 2012), 2) Informative: "…seeks to impart knowledge, information and meaning to the other person" (Heron, 2001, p. 5).For example, "It would be useful for you to know that…."Maggioli (2012, p. 112) notes that "these interventions present relevant information, provide personal interpretations, feedback or self-disclosure with the aim of helping the aspiring teacher cope with a specific situation, and 3) Confronting: "…to raise the awareness of the patient/colleague/person about some limiting attitude or behavior of which he/she is relatively unaware" (Heron, 2001, p. 5).For example, I notice this is the third time we have talked about this-and you have still not been able to act-I wonder what is going on.These are employed in cases where the clients "need to be pushed to reassess their actions, beliefs or attitudes because they are acting against the benefits of themselves, or the learners, and they are unable to see it" (Maggioli, 2012, p. 112).

Facilitative Interventions
In these, the mediator or the helper draws out ideas, solutions, self-confidence, and so on, from the other person, helping him or her to reach his or her own solutions or decisions (Heron, 2001).They include: 1) Cathartic: "… to enable the other person to discharge and express painful emotion, usually grief, anger or fear".For example, I notice that whenever you speak about your research, you look rather anxious, why don't you tell us your problem? 2) Catalytic: "…to elicit self-discovery, self-directed learning, and problem solving".For example, "What would you do in this situation?"3) Supportive: "…to affirm the worth and value of the other person, their qualities, attitudes and actions".For example, "It sounds like you handled that in a very mature and confident way, well done!" (Heron, 2001, p. 6).
Regarding intervention efficiency, Heron (2001) suggests that a valid intervention is "one that is appropriate to the client's current state and stage of development, and to the developing practitioner-client interaction" (Heron, 2001, p. 10).Heron further continues that …to say that it is appropriate, is to say that: (a) it is in the right category; (b) it is the right sort of intervention within that category; (c) its content and use of language is fitting; it is delivered in the right manner; and (e) it is delivered with good timing.
A degenerate intervention is one that "fails in one, and usually several, of these respects, because the practitioner lacks personal development, or training, or experience, or awareness or some combination of these" (Heron, 2001, p. 10).On the other hand, "a perverted intervention is one that deliberately malicious, that intentionally seeks to do harm to another person" (ibid).

Listening Comprehension
A chronologic look at the history of developments in listening skill indicates that the skill was formerly viewed as a passive skill like reading.Its instruction was similar to reading comprehension instruction.Later, applied linguists defined the role of listening input and interaction in language acquisition, highlighting the role of listening and input (Chaudron, 1988;Krashen, 1985;Long, 1985;Pica, 1994).In the 1980s, terms the popular dichotomies of active-passive skills were replaced with productive-receptive.An interesting categorization has been presented by Brown (2011), considers reciprocal and non-reciprocal forms for listening, with taking part in a conversation as an example of the former and listening to radio or a lecture of the latter.The approaches to teaching listening comprehension started off by text-oriented instructions as for audio-lingual, communication-oriented instruction as for communicative approach, and learner-oriented instruction as in strategy instruction (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).

Research Design
There were a number of reasons lying behind the necessity of conducting this study.With the attention most generally paid to instances, methodologies of catering for direct interventions in language learning arena, the field of indirect interventions was considered less probed and hence, requiring a study with its rapt attention devoted to indirect intervention.As previously mentioned, indirect intervention in Ellis's view (Lengeling, 2011) are the ones addressing the conditions created to facilitate the second language acquisition process.One of the most important contributors to these conditions, in our view, is the classroom language employed by language teachers while intervening in a variety of learning conditions.Since, to our knowledge, there has been no specific framework to regulate and provide a solid structure to the classroom language or teachers' verbal behavior.Heron (1976) puts forward a framework for delivering intervention within a helping paradigm.Whereas the SCIA, mainly based upon studies in counseling and clinical supervision, has been employed to and train health education professionals, it has recently been used in a wide range of professions including managers, supervisors, coaches, and consultants to promote intervention within interpersonal relationship frameworks (Chambers & Long, 1995;Cutcliffe & Epling, 1997;Fowler, 1996;Johns & Butcher, 1993).This framework, to the researchers, could be adopted and utilized in the language instruction contexts to promote the interpersonal relationships so as to make language learning a more successful experience through provision of valid interventions.
To conduct the study, the following research question and its three minor research questions were addressed: Does strategy instruction along with various forms of intervention, i.e., authoritative, facilitative, or synergetic authoritative-facilitative significantly affect EFL learners' listening comprehension?
The second research question comprised three minor research questions each focusing on one of the three instructed strategies.These include: a.Does instruction of "activating and using background knowledge" have significant effects on EFL learners' listening comprehension differently when applied within four forms of intervention?b.Does instruction of "generating and asking questions" have significant effects on EFL learners' listening comprehension differently when applied within four forms of intervention?c.Does instruction of "making inferences" have significant effects on EFL learners' listening comprehension differently when applied within four forms of intervention?

Participants
The participants of this study included a homogenous sample of 175 (90 males, and 85 females) intermediate level Iranian EFL learners with an age range of 22 to 24 (Table 1).

Instrumentation
The first set of instruments used in the present study included Preliminary English Test (PET).There were four versions of PET used in this study.One was used as a homogeneity test to screen the participants based on their language proficiency.A second version of PET test was used to act as the pretest and posttest of the study.The other two versions' listening sections were used in the course of the study.
The second set of instruments was mediation sheets.Strategy instruction sheets were three pages each of which included one of the strategies or micro-skills necessary for successful completion of listening comprehension test items.These mediation pages were distributed among language learners during the three listening comprehension tests.The mediation pages provided systematically coordinated assistance to language learners.These pages included a brief introduction to the strategy, an example how to employ the strategy and an explanation why the strategy may be useful.

Procedure
The first step in the procedure was teacher recruitment and briefing.Three qualified teachers (one MA holder, Male, 40, 17 years of experience) one MA student (female, 32, 10 years of experience), and one BA (Male, 35, 14 years of experience) (in TEFL), all with advanced proficiency levels, were invited to cooperate in the study.Two of the groups were taught by the primary researcher himself, i.e., FI and SFA.The teachers participating in the study attended a workshop run by the primary researcher aiming at clarifying categories of Heron's SCIA.
Teachers were briefed about intervention, its categories, and their intentions.In addition, verbal examples which could bring about the intended impact of the intervention, along with other related issues to how to run the classes based on the intervention frameworks presented.
The second step was screening and grouping the participants.The participants of the study were screened based on the results of their proficiency test.The proficiency test was a genuine version of PET.Language learners who scored one standard deviation below and above the mean were included in the study (Table 2).The homogeneous 175 participants were grouped into five major groups (Table 1).The proficiency level of the participants was intermediate.
Selecting three listening strategies was the next step that the study went through.At this stage, a comprehensive review of the related literature (Brown, 2007;Ellis, 2008) was done to select three of the highly needed strategies for listening comprehension.Hence, the following listening strategies were selected to be taught within experimental groups of the study.Strategies included 1) Activating and using background knowledge, 2) Generating and asking questions, and 3) Making inferences.These strategies were selected to be taught in three listening comprehension classes according to the order mentioned order.
Next, a genuine version of PET (Cambridge, 2010) was administered and the results were tabulated and collected to serve as the pretest of the study.
Having administered the pretest, we started the main phase of the study, i.e., treatment.The whole treatment course took five complete sessions, each ninety minutes.The instructors, including the primary researcher himself, went through listening comprehension sessions subsequently.
In a typical listening comprehension session in the four experimental groups, the language learners started working on a part of a listening comprehension test (PET).After about ten minutes, a mediation page highlighting one of the three selected strategies was provided to the students.This mediation page included a simplified explanation of the related strategy.After a few minutes of discussion and ensuring that the strategy under-instruction was fully understood by the learners, the students continued answering the listening comprehension test items.They were allowed to make changes to their answers.It should be noted that during the 1st session, only one single strategy was practiced and taught.The other two strategies were worked on in the subsequent sessions.
In spite of the similar scaffolding and treatment these experimental groups received, the types of intervention provided in these four groups were different.In the control group (CG), the students received no instruction on listening comprehension strategies.The number of sessions was identical with those of the experimental groups.
In the first experimental group, entitled Written Mediation (WM), the language learners received strategy instruction intended to address the problematic areas language learners faced while taking the listening comprehension tests.The difference between this group and the other three experimental groups was that the instructor of this group did not provide any oral intervention during the mediation time.In other words, he merely provided the students with the written mediational pages.This was meant to create a distinguishing feature between this group and the other three experimental groups.
In the second experimental group, entitled Authoritative Intervention or (AI), the language learners received similar treatments through strategy instruction on their listening comprehension.However, in this group, the teacher mainly presented the interventions through an authoritative framework.In other words, the intervention was provided through verbal language examples which could well fit into the three categories of prescriptive, informative and confronting interventions.The following examples are presented here: Prescriptive: • I suppose we (you) need to make more sentences with this structure to completely master it.
• I want you to review this part one more time. Informative: • Which is not used to refer to humans."Who" is the right choice.
• I think she should have used simple present tense for talking about plane schedules. Confronting: • Did you notice you talked about this matter three times?Supportive: • Well done!I am really proud of you.
• Wow!That was a perfect sentence.Thanks!
In the fourth and final experimental group of the study entitled the Synergetic Authoritative-Facilitative Intervention (SFA), the instructor, the primary researcher, adopted a synergetic approach towards using intervention categories.He strived to attain and preserve an optimum balance regarding the types and categories of interventions provided to language learners.This was determined based on the dynamics of the class, session, and the language learners.
Running the post-test was the last step we followed in our study.Besides the main posttest run and administered in the end of the experiment, in each session of the experiment, the performance of the language learners on listening comprehension tests were recorded as posttests 1, 2, and 3.This was done to investigate the effect of single strategies presented through various types of interventions.The final posttest, however, was a version of PET listening paper the language learners took in an unassisted manner.This test was the same version used in the pretest.

Results and Data Analysis
This section of the study explored the effect of strategy instruction on listening comprehension ability of EFL learners.The data were analyzed using multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) which has three main assumptions: normality, homogeneity of covariance matrices and homogeneity of variances.The latter two assumptions are reported within the same report.The data enjoyed normal distribution.As is displayed in Table 3, the values of skewness and kurtosis were below +/-2 (Bae & Bachman, 1998).The multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was run to compare the four groups' means on the three listening comprehension tests each of which was measured after receiving a separate strategy.Before discussing the results, it should be mentioned that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met.The results of Levene's tests were all non-significant, i.e., p > .05.The assumption of homogeneity of covariance matrices as probed through the Box's M test was met (Box's M = 105.70,p = .004)..004 The Box's M test should be tested at α = .001(Filed, 2013, p. 656) The results of MANOVA (F (18, 399) = 11.29,p = .000,partial η2 = .33representing a large effect size) indicated that there were significant differences between the means of the four groups on the overall listening tests.Therefore, teachers' awareness of SCIA had statistically significant effects on EFL learners' performance on listening comprehension tests.Table 7 displays the means of the four groups on the three listening comprehension tests.As previously mentioned, the research question comprises three minor research questions with which we deal separately.

Research Question 1. a. Does instruction of "activating and using background knowledge" have significant effects on EFL learners' listening comprehension differently when applied within four forms of intervention?
Based on the results displayed in Table 8 (F (3, 136) = 9.19, p = .000,partial η2 = .179representing a large effect size) it can be concluded that there were significant differences between the four groups' means on the first listening comprehension test (LC1).

b: Does instruction of "generating and asking questions" have significant effects on EFL learners' listening comprehension differently when applied within four forms of intervention?
Based on the results displayed in Table 10 (F (3, 136) = 7.07, p = .000,partial η2 = .145representing a large effect size), it can be concluded that there were significant differences between the four groups' means on the second listening comprehension test (LC2).As is displayed in Table 4.15, the FI group (M = 24.85)had the highest mean on LC2.This was followed by SFA (M = 24.25),AI (M = 22.54) and WM (M = 21.68).The results of post-hoc Scheffe's tests (Table 7) indicated that first, the FI group (M = 24.85)significantly outperformed the WM group (M = 21.68) on LC2 (MD = 3.17, p = .001).Second, the FI group (M = 24.85)significantly outperformed the AI group (M = 22.54) on LC2 (MD = 2.31, p = .027).Third, the SFA group (M = 24.25)significantly outperformed the WM group (M = 21.68) on LC2 (MD = 2.57, p = .010).However, there were not any significant differences between any other pairs of means.

c. Does instruction of "making inferences" have significant effects on EFL learners' listening comprehension differently when applied within four forms of intervention?
According to the results shown in Table 11 (F (3, 136) = 7.43, p = .000,partial η2 = .141representing a large effect size), it can be concluded that there were significant differences between the four groups' means on the third listening comprehension test (LC3).

Discussion
The results of the present study indicated that firstly, strategy instruction via various intervention provision models on listening comprehension yielded statistically significant results.Three listening comprehension strategies including activating and using background knowledge, generating and asking questions, as well as making inferences were instructed.It was concluded that the strategy instruction within test procedures has significant effects on the listening comprehension ability of the EFL learners.Our results noting of success of strategy instruction in the study are in line with the outcomes of a number of studies in which strategy instruction was attempted and proved statistically significant (Birjandi & Rahimi, 2012;Carrier, 2003;Vandergrift, 1997).
Secondly, the results indicated that the teachers' knowledge, familiarity, and awareness of SCIA categories, along with their effective implementation in the language learning settings had as statistically significant effect on the performance of the language learners on listening comprehension tests.As Heron (2001) holds, learning SCIA means "acquiring a set of analytic and behavioral tools to shape his or her own method of practice" (p.9).However, learning the SCIA is not a question of starting from scratch with some whole new system.Many of the interventions simply name and describe behaviors which have already been practiced by instructors.Increased awareness of the SCIA, however, to the researchers, promotes teachers' confidence and command in their use and boosts their ability in establishing, maintaining and sustaining the necessary balance in the process of intervention provision.
It should be noted that most of the studies which have employed SCIA are concerned with clinical supervision.For example, Chambers & Long (1995) emphasize the facilitative category, especially supportive interventions.
While agreeing with Heron that none of the intervention categories is better than any other, they tend to attach more significance to facilitative types and make no reference to the authoritative categories.Sloan (2006) used the framework to carry out secondary analysis of supervisor-supervisee interactions.He concluded that catalytic, informative, and supportive interventions were used most often while cathartic and confronting interventions were rarely observed during supervision sessions.Burnard & Morrison (2005) used SCIA to evaluate nurses' perceptions of their interpersonal skills.They reported that a majority of nurses considered themselves as having more authoritative than facilitative in their interpersonal style.Few studies have used SCIA in language teaching-related arenas.Hamid & Azman (1992) attempted to adapt the SCIA to promote facilitative type supervisory feedback in teaching practice.Their overall perspective was influenced by the values and assumptions of person-centered, non-prescriptive, and humanistic approaches to supervision, supervisory intentions and supervisory feedback in teaching practice in preservice language teacher education.They concluded that in such approaches, the supervisor should not only be a person who enjoys a substantial element of professionalism, but be a person who is particularly concerned with the well-being of his trainees and the goings on in the language classroom.Yurekli's ( 2013) study employed Heron's SCIA to discuss the importance of the post-observation session in teacher development.Her study mainly looked at the intervention types that observers employ in comparison to the intervention types that the observed teachers prefer.She concluded that observers including coordinators, administrators, or teacher trainers engaged in facilitative intervention modes when they provided feedback in the post-observation period.In other words, they tended to avoid authoritative types of interventions as much as possible.However, teachers also preferred to be provided with informative intervention which is inherently authoritative.
The results of our study also demonstrated that in language learning classes and contexts in which purely authoritative intervention is provided without proper concern for creating the balance between authoritative and facilitative categories, the learning atmosphere may be replete with negative feelings, debilitative anxiety, and therefore, poorer performance by the language learners.Therefore, building learning contexts which tend to promote positive and healthy interactions can motivate students to channel their energies and desires to reach their goals, hence making improvement in their learning process.Considering the teacher, not the students, to be the main variable in classroom (Whitaker, 2004), teachers are required to promote their interpersonal skills and expertise.

Conclusions
In conclusion, it can be said that the present research strived to shed some light on the issue of teachers' verbal behavior and intervention provision methods based on SCIA used in language learning settings.It was observed that teachers' awareness of the SCIA, its details, procedures for presenting valid interventions considerably contributed to the success of language learners.In addition, it was also found out that the majority of EFL learners in our study, were rather unwilling to receive purely authoritative types of interventions particularly challenging and prescriptive ones.
The relative success of the two groups in which facilitative, and synergetic facilitative-authoritative interventions were used indicated that the language learners in the context of our study, preferred their teacher to play supportive, cathartic and catalytic role in their learning.
Besides, the relative success of language learners in the synergetic facilitative-authoritative group indicated that whereas students were unwilling to receive authoritative interventions in their rigid sense, they were more willing to accept those interventions when presented in a synergetic manner with facilitative ones, particularly if offered with good timing, manner, and presentation.Also, via learning to appropriately use the SCIA, teachers can obtain a set of analytic and behavioral tools to shape their own method of practice.This could be somehow enlightening to our teachers to act in a more cautious way while intervening in their classrooms.Our learners tend to perceive less stress-plagued classes as better places to make decisions to communicate, to practice, and to learn.

Limitations of the Study
Similar to any study which attempts to investigate the efficiency of a particular instruction on one of the skills in language learning, provision of instruction on listening comprehension strategies is a daunting business.In essence, the differences caused between groups may not necessarily be due to the teaching strategies.In addition, measuring a complicated skill like listening comprehension may always be exposed to error, no matter how hard one tries or how highly qualified and standardized test be.These pitfalls, however, are to some extent controllable.Besides, the present study is introducing SCIA into actual language teaching-learning contexts, and this, per se, adds to the complexity of the issue due to lack of previously conducted studies in the real language 2. Informative Interventions: a. "Which" is not used to refer to humans."Who" is the right choice.
b.These are some rules and cannot be violated.Listen carefully!c.I think she should have used simple present tense for talking about plane schedules.d.Your lecture seems very nice, so why are you so anxious?
e. Well, friends, presenting a lecture is not so difficult.You don't need to worry about it.Just be well-prepared.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Development of listening instruction

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. First listening comprehension test by groups

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Second listening comprehension test by groups

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Third listening comprehension test by groups d.It is best to use simple present tense when we are talking about train, plane, or subway schedules.e.When you have a prior decision, use I am going to …… 3. Challenging (Confronting) Interventions: a. Did you notice you talked about this matter three times?b.How many times have I told you not to forget the 3 rd person's'?! c.Pay attention!One more mistake in using the tenses and you will lose 2 points!d.Haven't I explained this three times, friends?e.Why don't you ever try to pay more attention to what I say?Facilitative Intervention Samples 4. Cathartic Interventions (Releasing tension) a.You don't look Ok today.What is the problem?b.Do you like to tell me your problem? c.Don't worry.Many other students have this problem.This is quite normal.

5.
Catalytic Interventions (a step towards learning autonomy) a.What would you do to solve the problem?b.How do you deal with a difficult classmate?c.My friend David has some problems with….. How would you act if you were him?d.Let's see how you try to solve this problem.e.Which one do you prefer?Talking on the phone or writing emails?6. Supportive Interventions a. Well done!I am really proud of you.b.It sounds like you handled that in a mature and confident way.c.I have noticed you are making good progress.Good job! d.Wow!That was a perfect sentence.Thanks!e.I am glad you have written far better essays this time.

Table 1 .
Schematic view of the participants of the study

Table 2 .
Descriptive statistics of the PET homogeneity test

•
How many times have I told you not to forget the 3rd person's'?!In the third experimental group, entitled Facilitative Intervention (FI), the situation was similar to that of AI group; however, the dominant type of verbal intervention was facilitative, including cathartic, catalytic, and supportive interventions.Some examples of this category of intervention are brought below.Further examples are provided in the Appendix A. You don't look Ok today.What is the problem?• Don't worry.Many other students have this problem.This is quite normal.

Table 3 .
Testing normality assumptions for three listening tests

Table 5 .
Box's Test of equality of covariance matrices

Table 7 .
Descriptive statistics: listening tests by groups WM= Written Mediation, AI = Authoritative Intervention Dynamic Assessment, FI = Facilitative Intervention and SFA = Synergic Facilitative and Authoritative.

Table 8 .
Tests of between-subjects effects

Table 9 .
Multiple comparisons: first listening test by groups * The mean difference is significant at the .05level.

Table 10 .
Multiple comparisons: second listening test by groups

Table 11 .
Multiple comparisons: third listening test by groups