Running head: DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 1
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT
Tianmei Yang
University of New Mexico
Abstract
More and more people are criticising traditional standardized testing for the negative perspective it brings to education. So researchers propose dynamic assessment to be a supplement testing. This paper defines Dynamic Assessment (DA), explains its conceptual bases, demonstrates its characteristics, presents its two general approaches and two formats, and finishes by describing the conditions, necessities and challenges for implementation.
Keywords: dynamic assessment, definition, conceptual bases, approaches, formats, conditions, necessities, challenges
Table of Content
Introduction
The Definition of Dynamic Assessment
Conceptual Bases of Dynamic Assessment
●The Zone of Proximal Development
●The Theory of Mediated Learning Experience
Characteristics of Dynamic Assessment
Two Approaches to Dynamic Assessment
●Interventionist DA
●Interactionist DA
Two Formats of Dynamic Assessment
●Sandwich Format
●Cake Format
The Conditions, Necessities and Challenges in the Use of Dynamic Assessment
Conclusion
Introduction
Almost everyone, including me, as Sacks (1999) observes, is “subjected to tests throughout their[1] life in order to be placed in an instructional program, graduated from high school, gain admittance to a university, prove proficiency in or mastery of a content area, apply for a job, or earn the right to drive a car” (p. 35).
That was the last year of high school in 2004 in China. Every one of us was going to take the entrance test of college; however, I had decided to quit before I even took the test. The experience was exhausting and depressing. I had no break at all from the crazy testing since I had 8 subjects to study at the same time and had to pass them all at a certain level. Moreover, when the result of a test came out and put up on the wall, it reminded me of how stupid I was by comparing myself to others if the test didn’t turn out well. It felt like a thorny whip whipped me all over me body, and I had nothing to cover the wound and nowhere to escape from people’s laughing eyes. Thus, I told my parents that I would take the test, but I wouldn’t do well and don’t expect that I would be able to go to college. As I expected, I failed in the test. My mom asked me after the test, “How did you know you were not going to make it?” I told her that I hated the tests and I wished there were some other tests which I could take and wouldn’t discourage me in learning because all it cared about was the scores which didn’t accurately show what I learned, so not even mention the process how I learned.
As I have experienced, the standardized test has been the premier form of assessment (Phoehner, 2008). It became increasingly popular in the 1900s when the USA began using tests of general intelligence to screen immigrants and to evaluate the abilities of Army recruits (Gould, 1996). Thus, “it is characterized by the standardization of procedures and instruments, and the statistical analysis of results” (Phoehner, 2008, p. 7) , which have raised four major complaints about its use, generalized by Phoehner (2008). First, it doesn’t provide the information about the learner’s learning process, potential to learn in the future and teaching strategies to facilitate the learning and develop the potential. Second, it misjudges the learner who performs low on the test, “especially those who come from disadvantaged background” (Phoehner, 2008, p. 2). Third, it categorizes the learner in general terms based on the scores they achieve, even though they are different individual. Fourth, it doesn’t count the non-intellective factors which have influence on the learner’s test performance, for example, the testing environment.
. Facing the problems of the traditional standardized test, many psychologists and researchers “have suggested the idea of assessment of processes rather than the end products of learning since the beginning of the twentieth century” (Tzuriel, 2001, p. 5). They propose dynamic assessment as the supplemental assessment.
Therefore, my paper will describe the definition of dynamic assessment, its two conceptual bases, characteristics, two approaches and formats, and the considerations, necessities and challenges in its implementation.
The Definition of Dynamic Assessment
The topic “dynamic assessment” is new to me, but when I search online, I realize that many people have interest in it, and it has been used for quite a while. According to Lantolf (2009), the term “dynamic assessment” (DA) was first introduced and coined in English by Luria (1961), who was Vygotsky’s colleague. The term was used in the research on children with learning disabilities. Then, Haywood and Lidz (2007) point out that dynamic assessment has been extended to use in diagnosing various adults’ maladies which are associated with aging, including dementia. In recent days, one can find that many educators are trying to implement it not only in special education, but also education in general, which includes second language teaching (Lantolf & Poehner 2004, 2008; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005).
Therefore, as the application of DA is used in more and more broadly, its definition also varies. Haywood and Tzuriel (2002) say, “DA is a subset of interactive assessment that includes deliberate and planned mediational teaching and the assessment of the effects of that teaching on subsequent performance” (p. 40). Sternberg and Grigorenko add, “DA is a procedure whose outcome takes into account the results of an intervention” (p. vii). Poehner & Lantolf (2005) explain,
The procedure emphasizes the learning process and accounts for the amount and nature of examiner investment. It is highly interactive and process-oriented. During the intervention, the examiner teaches the examinee how to perform better on individual items or on the test as a whole.The final score may be a learning score representing the difference between pretest (before learning) and posttest (after learning) scores, or it may be the score on the posttest considered alone. (p. 234)
Then, Phoehner and Lantole (2005) suggest, “DA is a pedagogical approach grounded in a specific theory of mind and mental development” (p. 260); Later, Poehner (2008) mentions that DA is a framework for conceptualizing teaching and assessment as an integrated activity of understanding learner abilities by actively supporting their development. He also reminds us that DA “refers not to a single methodology but rather to a range of approaches that incorporate mediation into the assessment procedure” (p. 69), and is “ an assessment of thinking, perception, learning, and problem solving by an active teaching process aimed at modifying cognitive functioning” (Poehner, 2008, p. 6). Moreover, DA is defined as “an interactive approach to conducting assessments within the domains of psychology, speech/language, or education that focuses on the ability of the learner to respond to intervention” (As cited in Haywood & Lidz, 2007). In short, DA is a procedure that incorporates teaching and assessment during which learner’s potential abilities are explored and measured through active mediation, intervention and problem-solving within a testing situation.
Conceptual Bases of Dynamic Assessment
In order to gain an accurate perception of DA and how it works, it is beneficial to understand its conceptual bases. According to Tzuriel (2001), the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) from Vygotsky, and the theory of mediated learning experience (MLE), introduced by Feuerstein, have been used “as the conceptual bases of most DA elaboration” (p. 7).
The zone of proximal development (ZPD)
In the early 1930s, Vygotsky defined ZPD as the difference between an individual’s level of independent functioning and the level at which they can function while engaged in social interaction. In other words, “ZPD underscores the developmental importance of providing appropriate support to learners to help them stretch beyond their independent performance” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, p. 11). What does it mean? Let’s look at Vygotsky’s Thinking and Speech to gain a better understanding about ZPD:
Psychological research on the problem of instruction is usually limited to establishing the level of the child’s mental development. The sole basis for determining this level of development is tasks that he solves independently. This means that we focus on what the child has and knows today. Using this approach, we can establish only what has already matured, we can determine only the level of the child’s actual development. To determine the state of the child’s development on this basis alone, however, is insufficient. The state of development is never defined only by what she matured. If the gardener decides only to evaluate the matured or harvested fruits of the apple tree, he cannot determine the state of his orchard. The maturing trees must also be taken into consideration. Correspondingly, the psychologist must not limit his analysis to functions that have matured; he must consider those that are in the process of maturation. If he is to fully evaluate the state of the child’s development, the psychologist must consider not only the actual level of development but the zone of proximal development. How can this be accomplished?
When we determine the level of actual development, we use tasks that require independent resolution. These tasks function as indices of fully formed or fully matured functions. How, then, do we apply this new method? Assume that we have determined the mental age of two children to be eight years. However, we do not stop with this. Rather, we attempt to determine how each of these children will solve tasks that were meant for older children. We assist each child through demonstration, through leading questions, and by introducing the initial elements of the task’s solution. With this help or collaboration from the adult, one of these children solves problems characteristic of a twelve year old while the other solves problems only at a level typical of a nine year old. This difference between the children’s mental ages, this difference between the child’s actual level of development and the level typical of a nine year old. This difference between the child’s mental ages and the level of performance that he achieves in collaboration with adult, defines the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 203-204; cited in Minick, 1987, p. 123)
As we can see, the contribution of the ZPD is: it is a method of accessing, a framework of providing the diagnosis of learner abilities and at the same time a procedure of “promoting the process of development rather than focusing on its product” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, p. 12-13). The core of the ZPD is mediation, which is the assistance the learner receives. The mediation is “between someone who has the knowledge or capacity to attain a goal and someone who does not” (Lidz, 1995, p. 148), and it “should not be directed at just ‘getting the learner through’ the task, but at preparing them for future tasks” (Phoehner & Lantolf, 2005, p. 257) because the learner’s mediation performance is “like a springboard for exploring the extent to which they were able to reduce the distance between their present and their future” (Phoehner & Lantolf, 2005, p. 259). Thus, the goal of working in the ZPD is not simply to help the learner to master a specific task but to help them to develop a principled understanding of the object of study that will enable them to transfer this understanding from the given activity to other activities. As Vygotsky (1978) puts it, “what the learner can do with assistance today” (p. 87), they probably will be able to do tomorrow independently”. Valinser and van der Veer (1993) also believe that "all development involves in the construction of distance between the present and the past, and overcoming the distance from the present and the future" (p. 266).
Therefore, as an assessment, it should not only assess what the learner has learned in the past and what they are capable of at the present, but also their potential of doing something with assistance or alone in the future, which is what DA provides since it originates from ZPD.
The theory of mediated learning experience (MLE)
After Vygotsky, Feuerstein was the person who continued the work of developing the concept and assessment of learning potential within a general theory of mediated learning experience(Brown, Campione, Webber & McGilly, 1992; as cited in Lidz & Elliott, 2000, p. 294). Like ZPD, the theory of mediated learning experience also emphasizes the importance of mediation and assistance in helping the learner to develop cognitive process and overcome common difficulties in learning. Here, Feuerstein (2013) defines, “Mediated Learning Experience (MLE)is a special type of interaction between a learner and a person, whom we shall call a ‘mediator’” (p. 558), and it is integrated in the process of DA. Feuerstein also points out that intentionality and reciprocity, transcendence, and mediation of meaning are the most important components of MLE (Phoener, 2008).
First, intentionality means the mediators are responsible for “initiating, maintaining, and terminating the interaction” and “regulating and refocusing the child’s attention and participation” (Lidz, 1991, p. 74-75). In other words, the mediator deliberately teaches, watches how the learner responds to instruction, and adjusts teaching accordingly because it is the mediator’s responsibility to do whatever it takes for the learner to learn new strategies that will help them continue learning (Fickeisen, 1996). Their responsibilities also include “pointing out significant features, asking questions, making suggestions, gesturing, and constantly reading the child’s responses and making adjustments and changes to maintain his engagement” (Feuerstein et al., 1988, p. 62-63). Reciprocity, according to Feuerstein (1988), means both participants are active during the interaction - “the child is no longer a passive recipient of knowledge but an active co-constructor of it” (Phoener, 2008, p. 58).
Second, transcendence refers to transformation. It means that the mediator is supposed to bring about the cognitive development required for the learner to move beyond the “here-and-now” demands of a given activity (Phoener, 2008, p. 59). As Feuerstein (2013) explains:
The mediator is not concerned with solving the problem at hand. Rather, the mediator is concerned with how the learner approaches solving the problem. The problem at hand is only an excuse to involve the mediator with the learner’s thinking process. The mediator concentrates on understanding and helping the learner understand how the learner is using his or her brain. The teacher does not pretend to know the answer as to how the learner should be thinking.The mediator interprets for the learner the significance of what the learner has accomplished. The mediator also mediates feelings of accomplishment.In various ways, the mediator causes the learner to reflect not just on the solution to the problem but also on how the solution was obtained and the generalizations that flow from it. Bridging between the experience and lessons learned in the current situation and new situations (p. 558-559).
Thus, the learner will become “self-directed and independent” (Fickeisen, 1996) on overcoming difficulties to learning.
Third, mediation of meaning takes place through collaboration between the mediator and
the learner. The mediator interprets the learner’s knowledge based on the learner’s interaction and response within a framework that asks the learner to pay attention to what they are learning, to participate in logical thinking, to find out the relationship between events and objects, and to develop the ability of comparing and categorizing (Lidz, 1991).
Phoener (2008) summaries the process as follows: intentionality describes the approach taken by the mediator to structure the experience, to schedule the stimulus, and to maintain the learner’s focus; transcendence refers to the goal of the MLE, which is the learner’s cognitive development; mediation of meaning can be considered as the glue that holds both of these together. Moreover, Feuerstein (2013) says if the theory of mediated learning experience is correct, then a learner’s modifiability can be “gauged through analysis of his interactions with an expert during a session of intensive mediation - a dynamic assessment”(Phoener, 2008, p. 56).
Characteristics of Dynamic Assessment
Based on the two popular conceptual bases above, the characteristics of DA can be easily identified.
First, “the most definitive feature of DA is its interactive nature” (Lidz, 1995, p. 143). In the traditional standardized test, examiner and examinee are not allowed to communicate. The examiner plays the role as a supervisor who watches the examinee taking the test and makes sure the examinee finishes the test on her or his own. The examinee is required not to ask any question related to the test. However, in DA, both the examiner and examinee become active.
The examiner takes part in “the assessment and functions as an assessment tool, responding to observations and inferences about the learner” (Lidz, 1995, p. 143-144). The examinee is encouraged to show their problems, ask questions and get feedback spontaneously from the examiner.
Second, Ehsan and Majid (2015) comment “DA has the learning part within itself”(p. 1459), which means DA focus on the learning process of the examinee (Lidz, 1995). During the interaction between the examiner and the examinee, the examiner pays attention to what the examinee knows about the question, what they need to figure the problem out, and what method they should be taught to work on that problem alone in the future. For this part, the examiner plays the role as a mediator whose aim is to facilitate the examinee’s cognitive development. As Lidz and Gindins (2003) comment, “DA in the Vygotskian tradition leads the child to the point of achievement of success in joint or shared activity” (p. 103).
Third, according to Dunn and Lantolf (1998), DA increases the quality of learning for the metacognitive awareness it arouses. As the examinee is being assessed, the examiner makes him or her become conscious of how the problem is solved, thus their ability of dealing with the similar problems increase.
Fourth, DA provides a negotiated mediation for the examinee to be successful in accomplishing tasks. Dowing and Chirchi (no date) point out that DA has the favor of transcendence which provides new skills for the examinee as a result of the mediator/learner interaction in order to perform in increasingly more difficult and complex relevant tasks (cited in Ehsan & Majid, 2015, 1459).
Feuerstein and colleagues (1988) also claim:
The more a child is subjected to mediated learning experiences, the greater will be his capacity to benefit from direct exposure to learning. On the other hand, a lack of MLE will produce an individual who will benefit very little from direct encounters with learning tasks (p. 58).