Item Details

Diagnostic and Developmental Potentials of Dynamic Assessment for L2 writing

Issue: Vol 2 No. 2 (2015)

Journal: Language and Sociocultural Theory

Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics

DOI: 10.1558/lst.v2i2.25956


Many theoretical claims have been made about the role and effectiveness of Dynamic assessment (DA) in L2 learning. It has, for example, been suggested that this kind of approach provides learners with appropriate and timely feedback in a supportive and interactive environment and in ways that can maximize L2 development (Poehner & Lantolf, 2013). However, issues remain about how to measure the effects of DA and how these effects compare with those of traditional ways of providing feedback. This qualitative case study explores the role of interactional DA in the development of L2 writing skills. Three advanced EFL students each produced first 10 writing samples in ten individualized writing sessions. They then engaged in 10 collaborative tutorial sessions with their teacher and received feedback based on the DA principles. The interactions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. The results revealed important diagnostic and treatment effects for interactive DA.

Author: Mohammad Rahimi, Ali Kushki, Hossein Nassaji

View Original Web Page

References :

Ableeva, R. (2008).The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, 57–86. London: Equinox Press.

Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in L2 French. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of Proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78 (4): 465–483.

Antón, M. (2003). ‘Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners.’ Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, March.

Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced language learners. Foreign Language Annals 42 (3): 576–598.

van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., and Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62 (1): 1–41.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2): 102–118.

Bitchener, J., and Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12 (3): 409–431.

van Compernolle, R. A., and Kinginger, C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research 17: 282–302.

van Compernolle, R. A., and Zhang, H. S. (2014).Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing 31: 395–412.

Davin, K. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17: 303–322.

Ellis, R., (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second-Language Students. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32 (2): 181–201.

Ferris, D. R., and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (3): 161–184.

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (1): 40–53.

Guk, I., and Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research 11 (3): 281–299.

Kozulin, A. and Grab, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International 23 (1): 112–127.

Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2008). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox Press.

Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 49–72.

Lantolf, J. and Poehner, M. (2014). Sociocultural Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the Research/Practice Divide. New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P., and Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lidz, C. (1987). Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford Press.

Minick, N. (1987).Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (ed.) Dynamic Assessment: An Interactive Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential, 116–140. The Guilford Press, New York.

Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles. Language Awareness 9: 34–51.

Peña, C. D. and Gillam, R. B. (2000). Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluations. In C. Lantolf and L. Thorne (eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Poehner, M. E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9 (3): 1–33.

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Philadelphia, PA: Springer.

Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal 91 (3): 323–340.

Poehner, M. E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: the case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal 17 (4): 312–330.

Poehner, M. E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing the development during computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research 17 (3): 323–342.

Shrestha, P., and Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing 17 (1): 55–70.

Sternberg, R. and Grigorenko, E. (2002). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Storch, N., and Wiggleworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32 (2), 303–334.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46, 327–369.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.