Item Details

Understanding the potential in elementary classrooms through Dynamic Assessment

Issue: Vol 1 No. 1 (2014)

Journal: Language and Sociocultural Theory

Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics

DOI: 10.1558/lst.v1i1.49


This paper reports on a research project aiming to investigate a Dynamic Assessment (DA) approach to the development of academic writing for 7-year-old new immigrant English language learners in elementary classrooms. The research design entailed a case study methodology focusing on the application of iterative cycles of DAs aimed at improving students’ writing abilities in relationship with the development of metalinguistic awareness in the native (Spanish) and target (English) languages. Two third-grade ELLs and their teacher participated in the case study presented in this article. Findings indicate that unlike more traditional types of assessment, the DA approach more readily enabled the teacher to recognize and access the ELLs’ zone of proximal development and thus to create instructional means to support their learning. Both students demonstrated significant gains in their ability to write in English at the end of the DA cycle. Findings suggest that the DA interactions were helpful in increasing metalinguistic awareness, especially as it allowed for the explicit use of the students’ native language as a kind of parameter and therefore as a tool for thinking and for mediating the development of academic English in textual form. Also, DA emerged as a more accurate diagnostic tool to understand recent-immigrant students’ potential abilities in communicating in the target language than more traditional forms of assessment.

Author: Ana Christina DaSilva Iddings

View Original Web Page

References :

Anton, M. (2003). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners.
Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., March 2003.
Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. J. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative
interactions in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 1. pp. 609-633.
Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English Language Learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283-300.
Belz, J. A. (2002). Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent
self in foreign language study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 1,1, pp. 13-39.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of
learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp 39-63).
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Leher, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design
experiments in research. Educational Researcher, 32, 1, pp. 9-13.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. (1999). Culture-free versus culture-based measures of cognition. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 645-654). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.
Dworin, J. (2012). Insights into Biliteracy Development: Toward a Bidirectional
Theory of Bilingual Pedagogy. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(2), 171–86.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.
Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feuerstein, R., Falik, L, & Feuerstein, Ra. (1998). Feuerstein's LPAD. In R. Samuda (Ed.), Advances in Cross-cultural assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. & Tannenbaum, A.(1991). (Eds.), Mediated Learning
Experience. Theoretical, psychosocial, and learning implications. London: Freund.
Feurestein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The Dynamic assessment of
retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Goss, N., Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Two heads may be better than one:
Mental activity in second-language grammatically judgments. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 263-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthke, J., Heinrich, A. & Caruso, M. (1986). The diagnostic program of
syntactical rule and vocabulary acquisition. In F. Klix and H. Hagendorf (Eds.), A contribution to the psychodiagnosis of foreign language learning ability (pp. 306-324). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Hakuta, K., & Beatty, A. (Eds.). (2000). Testing English-language learners in U.S.
schools: Report and workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hedagaard, M. (2007). The Development of children’s conceptual relation to the world, with a focus on concept formation in preschool children’s activity. In Daniels, H. M. Cole, & J.V. Wertsch, The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge University Press.
Kozulin, A. & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of
at-risk students. School Psychology International 23, pp. 112-127.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford.
Lidz, C. S. & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive
functions in chidren. In Vygostky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, S. M. Miller (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L. (2002). The concept of educational sovereignty. Penn GSE Perspectives on
Urban Education, 1, 2, pp. 1-11.
Pohner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2003). Dynamic Assessment of L2 Development:
Bridging the Past into the Future. CALPER Working Paper Series, 1. The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Learning, Education and Research.
Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 267-292.
Shneider, E. & Ganschow, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment and instructional
strategies for learners who struggle to learn a foreign language. Dyslexia, 6, pp. 72-82.
Solano-Flores, G. & Trunbull, E. (2002). Examining language in context: The
Need for new research and practice paradigms in the Testing of English-Language Learners. Educational Researcher, 32, 2, pp. 3-13.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: toward a research and
development program in reading comprehension, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (RAND Reading Study Group). Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contributions to second language
learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, pp. 115-132.
Swain, M. & Lapkin (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two
adolescents working together. The Modern Language Journal 82, pp. 320-337.
Thouësny, S. (2010). Dynamically assessing written language: To what extent do learners of French language accept mediation? Paper presentation. CALICO Conference, Enhancing Language Learning: Research, Innovation and Evaluation in CALL, 8-12 June 2010, Amherst College, Amherst, MA, US.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and Speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R.W. Rieber
& A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-28). New York: Plenum Press.
Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human
development. Human Development, 44, pp. 84-97.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.