Item Details

Developing L2 oral language proficiency using concept-based Dynamic Assessment within a large-scale testing context

Issue: Vol 4 No. 1 (2017)

Journal: Language and Sociocultural Theory

Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics

DOI: 10.1558/lst.32866


Oral language proficiency (OLP) is a central facet of foreign language learning. Nevertheless, it is a component that is challenging both to teach and to test (Luoma, 2004). In an effort to optimize these processes, this paper examines the application of the Vygotskian notion of Dynamic Assessment (DA) as a means to prioritize the learning-assessment relationship with a view to enhancing OLP performance and up-scaling DA use for larger groups of learners to match large-scale test contexts. In this study, Israeli high-school students preparing for their matriculation OLP test in EFL, which focuses on the measures of Communicative Ability (fluency) and Accuracy, underwent a single short-term DA mediation session following a pre-test. A teacher-tester administered the mediation to individuals and groups of students as they analyzed a video recording of their pre-tests, equipped with a theoretical scientific-concept-based instrument (SCOBA). Post- and follow-up tests were given to all participants. Findings show that students who underwent DA mediation improved scores in the post- and follow-up tests for both measures, suggesting that this form of DA mediation may have beneficial short and longer-term impact on OLP performance within a large-scale context.

Author: Tziona Levi

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.

Ahmed, M. K. (1994). Speaking as cognitive regulation: A Vygotskian perspective on dialogic communication. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research, 157–171. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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, 576–598. https:/

Bailey, K.M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13 (3): 257–279. https:/

Brooks, L., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., and Knouzi, I. (2010). Mediating between scientific and spontaneous concepts through languaging. Language Awareness, 19 (2), 89–110. https:/

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller (Eds), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, 39–64. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https:/

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., and Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for individual differences and learning. In B. Rogoff and J. V. Wertsch (Eds) New Directions for Child Development, 76–91. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. https:/

Davydov, V. V. (2004). Problems of Developmental Instruction. A Theoretical and Experimental Psychological Study (translated by Peter Moxhay). Moscow: Akademia Press.

Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17 (3), 303–322. https:/

Davin, K. J. (2015). Transforming classroom discourse through dynamic assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Toronto, Canada, March.

Davin, K. J., and Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (1), 5–22. https:/

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., and Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., Rand, Y. and Feuerstein R. S. (2003). Dynamic Assessment of Cognitive Modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B. and Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Gal’perin, P. Ia. (1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology 5, 28–33. https:/

Gal’perin, P. Ia (1979). The role of orientation in thought. Soviet Psychology 18, 19–45. https:/

Gal’perin, P. (1992). Linguistic consciousness and some questions of the relationships between language and thought. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30 (4), 28–49. https:/

Gutierrez-Clellen, V., Brown, S., Conboy, B., and Ronbinson-Zanartu, C. (1998). Modifiability: A dynamic approach to assessing immediate language change. Journal of Children’s Communication Development 19 (2), 31–43. https:/

Haywood, H. C., Brown, A. L., and Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review 19 (4), 411–422.

Karpov, Y. V. (2005). The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to Child Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:/

Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological Tools: A Sociocultural Approach to Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kozulin, A. (2015). Dynamic assessment of adult learners’ logical problem solving: A pilot study with the Flags Test. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 14 (2), 219–230. https:/

Kozulin, A., and Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112–127. https:/

Lantolf, J. P., and Poehner, M. E. (2006). Dynamic Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom: A Teacher’s Guide. University Park, PA: CALPER Publications.

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

Lidz, C. S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential. New York: Guilford Press.

Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: Guilford Press.

Lidz C. S. (1996). Dynamic assessment and the legacy of L. S. Vygotsky. School Psychology International 16, 143–154. https:/

Lidz C. S. (2002). Mediated learning experience (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment. School Psychology International 23, 68–84. https:/

Lundstrom, K., and Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 30–43. https:/

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing Speaking. Cambridge Language assessment series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:/

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. New York: The Guilford Press.

Nassaji, H., Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2; The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness 9, 34–51. https:/

Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads to second language development. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (Eds), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, 189–227. London: Equinox.

Negueruela, E. and Lantolf, J. P. (2006). A concept-based approach to teaching Spanish grammar. In R. Salaberry and B. Lafford (Eds), Spanish Second Language Acquisition: State of the Art, 79–102. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989). The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OECD report retrieved from 15/1/2016.

Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition and L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 51–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peña, E., Quinn, R., and Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 269-280. https:/

Peña, E. D. and Gillam, R. (2000). Dynamic assessment of children referred for speech and language evaluation. In C. Lidz and J. Elliott (Eds), Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications, 543–575. New York: Elsevier Science.

Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French (L. S. Vygotsky). PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

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

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Both sides of the conversation: The interplay between mediation and learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (Eds). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox Publishing.

Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment for foreign language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly 43, 471–492. https:/

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 97–114. New York: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing 18 (3), 275–302.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108. London: Continuum.

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82 (ii), 320–337. https:/

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (Eds), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, 99–118. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Swain, M., and Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 285–304. https:/

Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knousi, I., Susuki, W. and Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal 93, 5–29. https:/

Thorne, S. L., Reinhardt, J., and Golombek, P. (2008). Mediation as objectification in the development of professional discourse: A corpus-informed curricular innovation. In J. Lantolf and M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, 256–284. London: Equinox.

Villamil, O. S., and De Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 23–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:/

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Newly revised and edited by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Original work published in 1934.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In R. W. Rieber and A. S. Caron (Eds), Collected Works of L. S Vygotsky (Vol. 1), 43–288. New York. Plenum Press.

Wiggins, G. (1991). Teaching to the (authentic) test. Educational Leadership. 46 (7), 41–47