Running Head: DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT

Tianmei Yang

Course LLSS 614

Dr. Holbrook Mahn

University of New Mexico

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 1

Introduction

For a long time, static assessment (SA) has been used to assess the students’ language

proficiency because of its psychometric promises of validity, reliability and generalizability.

However, Wagner (1992) summarized, “beyond providing a very rough index of general level of

cognitive functioning...the tests do not provide the kind of specific information that is needed to

train students in the processes and products of learning...IQ tests sample only a narrow slice of

the range of competencies that are required for effective school learning, let alone learning in

out-of-school contexts” (p. 176-177). Thus, L2 researchers turned their attention to the Russian

psychologist L.S. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory. Vygotsky (1994) criticized IQ test for its

being confined to the estimation of individuals’ zone of actual development that approaches

abilities “retrospectively” and its shortcoming to uncover testees’ latent abilities or the zone of

proximal development that defines abilities “prospectively”. He also insisted that the true test of

theory is not in its explanatory power but in its potential to bring about change in the world

(Vygotsky, 1997). In the decades following Vygotsky’s death, a number of pedagogical reforms

have been inspired by using of ZPD for diagnosis and intervention within Russia and

internationally (Kozulin & Gindis, 2007). Dynamic assessment (DA) is one of the important

research areas. DA represents an assessment procedure originally developed in cognitive

psychology, which has put forward concepts of mediation and interaction as indispensable

components of the assessment task and as valid procedures to probe more deeply into the

learners’ abilities (Shabani, 2012, p. 321).

As Campione, Brown, Ferrara, and Bryant (1984) have noted, attempts to develop

dynamic assessment procedures have consistently been motivated by the conviction that static

approaches to the assessment of learning ability or learning potential have failed to provide the
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 2

kinds of information that educators need in order to facilitate the psychological development and

the educational advancement of these children (p. 79; as cited in Minick, 1987, p. 116 ). Also

echoing Vygotsky’s sentiments about the value of theory, Reuven Feuerstein explains that in DA

“what is at stake is not theoretical elegance, but issues that affect the lives and destinies of real

people” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, p. 13). Therefore, DA has been pursued by school and

clinical development by embedding instruction in the assessment process itself (Sternberg &

Grigorenko, 2002). In this paper, the theoretical origin of DA, its definition, comparison with

SA, two approaches to DA, necessities and challenges in its implication will be explained.

The theoretical origin of dynamic assessment

Minick (1987) pointed out that Vygotsky discussed the implications for assessment in

only one paper. He himself did not use the term DA when formulating his proposals on the

cultural development of the individual nor when discussing his views on the importance of

distinguishing between diagnostic and prognostic testing in the school and in the laboratory

settings (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005, p. 233-234). The term DA was introduced by Vygotsky’s

colleague Luria (1961) who coined it in his English writings on Vygotsky’s Socio-cultural

Theory (SCT) of mind (Shabani, 2012, p. 322), to contrast “statistical” with “dynamic”

approaches to assessment (p. 7). However, Vygotsky has been called the “father” of dynamic

assessment (Guthke & Wingenfeld, 1992). He was one of the earliest critics of psychometric

approaches to the assessment of cognitive functioning. He argued that human’s abilities were in

a constant state of flux and learning was a progression between points, the point of independent

functioning and the point of dependent functions. He also wrote (1978) that: “ By using

[traditional] tests, we determine the mental development level with which education should
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 3

reckon and whose limits it should not exceed. This procedure oriented learning toward

yesterday’s development, toward developmental stages already completed” (p. 89).

DA nevertheless represents the procedure of changing traits and abilities. It

operationalizes Vygotsky’s ideas and promises not only to link assessment with instruction and

intervention, but to bring all of these closer to their roots in the process of development of

cognitive functioning (Lidz, 1995, p. 151) because it is derived from Vygotsky's theory the Zone

of Proximal Development.

The definition of dynamic assessment

DA is based on Vygotsky’s proposal of ZPD, If we want to define DA, we need to

understand what ZPD is. In the early 1930s, Vygotsky defined ZPD as the difference between an

individual’s level of independent functioning and the level at which he or she can function while

engaged in social interaction. Improving interaction and the limitations of static test was the core

of the discussion about his ZPD (Minick, 1987, p. 121). How should we interpret this

information? It is important to look back in Vygotsky’s Thinking and Speech:

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
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 4

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 child’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).

As one can see, the ZPD is created by interaction and emphasizes assistance and

mediation. It is about co-mediation between someone who has the knowledge or capacity to

attain a goal and someone who does not (Lidz, 1995, p. 148). The mediation that is negotiated

between instructors and learners should not be directed at just “getting the learner through” the
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 5

task, but at preparing them for future tasks (Phoehner & Lantolf, 2005, p. 257). Students’

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 learners 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) put it,

what the person can do with assistance today, he or she can do tomorrow independently (p. 87).

DA elicits ZPD. So we can say: DA is a pedagogical approach grounded in a specific

theory of mind and mental development (Phoehner & Lantolf, 2005, p. 260); DA is a framework

for conceptualizing teaching and assessment as an integrated activity of understanding learner

abilities by actively supporting their development (Poehner, 2008); DA is a procedure in which

change is at the heart. It provides direct measures of learners’ potential for learning and

development, information on the processes that lead to learners’ success or failure on cognitive

tasks, and information on what might be done to facilitate learners’ education and development

(Minick, 1987, p. 117).

Comparison of static assessment and dynamic assessment

Originally, static measures were used to select personnel for all kinds of areas. Its focus

was not to distinguish the difference between learners' current performance and learners'

potential or future performance. It is only an assessment of learners' current development, which

doesn't help second language learners to realize their potential abilities in mastering the

language. However, the information gained from DA not only shows learners' competence of

finishing task along with assistance, but also the potential of accomplishing higher level of task

independently. It begins where standardized assessment terminates. Moreover, the focus of the
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 6

dynamic assessment is on the processes that seem to account for the observed learning behavior,

and the interventions that seem to help the learner move to the next level of competence (Lidz,

1995, p.144). Thus, DA begins where SA terminates and provides teachers a full picture of

learners' intellectual development.

Two approaches to dynamic assessment

From the time when DA was introduced by Luria (1961), two general approaches to DA

have developed. They are the key to gain understanding of Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of

proximal development for the dynamic assessment movement. Here we have “interventionist”

and “interactionist” DA (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004). The contrast between these two approaches

is regarding the relative freedom mediators have to respond to learners' difficulties and to pursue

concerns as they emerge during the interaction (Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, p. 15).

Interventionist DA

Interventionist DA is rooted in Vygotsky’s quantitative interpretation of the ZPD as a

“difference score” (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005, 239). It is concerned with quantifying the amount

of support required for a learner to reach a prespecified endpoint. It is currently implemented in

either of two formats: a pretest--treatment--posttest experimental approach; or by providing

item--by--item assistance selected from a prefabricated menu of hints during the administration

of a test (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005, 239). Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) vividly classified the

interventionist approaches to DA as being either in sandwich format (pretest--treatment--

posttest) or cake format (item--by--item), which shows in the picture below. The former

approach reflects the traditional experimental research and is administered in a non-dynamic

manner. The later is based on interventionist procedure and embeds instruction in the test
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 7

administration itself and learners receive assessor’s mediation for each test item or task that they

find difficult.

Sandwich
Format
pre-test treatment post-test

Time
Cake Format

correct item 2

item 1

false treatment item 2

Time

(Shabani, 2012, p. 324)

In this context, according to Sternberg and Grigorenko (2004), mediation is usually very

tightly scripted and often arranged as a menu of hints, prompts and cues that must be followed in

pre-determined sequence, from most implicit to most explicit (Shabani, 2012, p. 323). Explicit

mediation should be provided when implicit mediation becomes a barrier to the developmental

level of the learner. Moreover, in interventionist DA, the mediation is not tailored to the

responsivity of individual learners, and it is possible to generate numerical scores and compare

them across learners (Lantolf, 2009, 360).

There is an example of implementing interventionist DA in a L2 German class to

international students. It is borrowed from Lantolf (2009), but is provided by the LEIPZIG

LEARNING TEST (LLT) of language aptitude which is developed by Jurgen Guthke and his

colleagues:
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 8

As with many language aptitude tests, the LLT presents examinees with an

invented language and asks them to respond to a series of questions requiring them to

figure out its morphosyntactic properties. Each test item is followed by series of five

hints ordered from implicit to explicit. Whenever examinees produce an incorrect

response they are initially given the most implicit hint: “That’s not correct. Please think

about it once again.” If the second attempt does not yield an appropriate response, the

mediation becomes more explicit: “That’s not correct. Think about which rows are most

relevant to the ones you are trying to complete.” The fifth and final form of mediation

provides the correct response along with an explanation of why the response is correct.

The test then proceeds to the next item. Although the goal of the LLT is to assess

language aptitude, because it is based on the ZPD, it recognizes that aptitude is not a

stable trait but a dynamic ability that can actually develop during the course of the very

test designed to assess it. Thus, the expectation is that as learners move through the test

they will require fewer hints and less explicit mediation, an indication that they are

improving their language aptitude ( (Guthke, Heinrich & Caruso, 1986, p.360).

Interactionist DA

The origins of interactionist DA are in Vygotsky’s second, qualitative, interpretation of

the ZPD -- one that foregrounds instruction-learning over measurement (Lidz & Gindis, 2003, p.

105; Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, p. 23). It focuses on the process of performing rather than the

result. In Vygotsky’s words, “we must not measure the child, we must interpret the child and this

can only be achieved through interaction and co-operation with child” (Vygotsky, 1998, p. 204).

In the interaction, teachers try their best to help learners expand their current ability of

performing independently. They encourage learners to actively take part in the relevant features
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 9

of the language by offering mediate a set of prompts. Thus, mediation in interactionist DA is not

restricted or predetermined. It is negotiated and continually adjusted according to the learner’s

responsivity (Lantolf, 2009, 360).

The following is an example of using interactionist DA to help an adult ESL learner to

distinguish the usages of “a, an, the”. This example is borrowed from Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s

study:

Tutor: … There’s also something wrong with the article here. Do you know articles?

N: Articles, yes.

T: Yeah, so what’s …

N: Eeh on my trip to …

T: What is the correct article to use here?

N: Isn’t to is … no … eh … article?

T: What is the article that we should …

N; It.

T: No. Article … You know the articles like the or a or an

N: The trip … my, is not my? No … the trip?

T: My … yeah it’s okay, you say my trip.

N: My trip.

T: Okay.

N: To United States

T: Yeah, USA, what article we need to use with USA?

N: A, an, the

T: The, which one?

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 10

N: But the?

T: Okay, do we use the … preparing my trip to … the USA?

N: Aaah ah (utters something in Spanish) ah, okay when I use when I use USA use with

article.

T: Okay.

(Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994, p. 473)

As the example shows, the learner thought he knew what articles were, but through the

interaction with the tutor, he found out her didn’t understand the concept and had no clear idea of

how to use them. For the tutor, he didn’t use a number of prepared hints or leading questions, but

appropriate feedback and negotiated mediation to help the learner to develop the ability of

controlling over the relevant grammatical rules.

The necessities and challenges in implicating dynamic assessment

When teachers are implementing DA in their classrooms, there are several necessities

they need to consider. First, it is important to build positive relationship between teachers and

learners, so learners will feel comfortable being helped and willing to interact freely with

teachers. Second, teachers should pay attention to learners' strengths and weaknesses during the

process of interaction and resolving problems, so teachers will have better understanding about

learners and how to assist them in the next ZPD. Third, the assistance provided should be

specific and appropriate in order to reach the aim that learners will attain higher level of

performance.

Of course, challenges are inevitable in the procedure of DA. Such challenges relate to

needs to redefine reliability and validity to reflect more closely the goals of this model (e.g. the

limited relevance of test-retest reliability and predictive validity), as well as dealing with the
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 11

issue of reduced standardization when the procedure includes learner-responsive intervention

(Lidz, 1995, p.146).

Conclusion and questions

Conclusion

DA was not created by Vygotsky, but it is based on his ZPD concept which has a great

deal to offer developmental psychology generally. He also didn't write down teaching and

assessment methods in specific ways for teachers to follow, but he makes teachers realize the

importance of learners' current competence and potential development be considered in an

assessment, which is the core value of DA. As DA is being used, it should reflect the teachers’

own interpretation of DA as well as their familiarity with students and the constraints of their

particular classroom context because it is a way of reconceptualizing the relationship between

teaching, assessment and development (Lantolf & Poehner, 2010, p. 27).

Questions to ponder

After reading a number of papers about DA and writing this paper about DA, two

questions raised in my head:

Is DA only used to assess learners' scientific concepts learned from school rather than

everyday concept learned from daily life?

Is DA going to replace SA completely in the future?

Reference

Day, J. D. (June 01, 1997). Comparison of Static and Dynamic Assessment Procedures and Their

Relation to Independent Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,2, 358-68.

Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (February 01, 2002). Dynamic Assessment of EFL Text

Comprehension. School Psychology International, 23, 1, 112-27.w

DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 12

Lantolf, J. P. (April 01, 2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and

assessment. Language Teaching, 42, 2, 355-368.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (February 17, 2004). Dynamic assessment of L2

development:bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 1, 49-72

Lantolf, J., & Poehner, M. (January 01, 2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom:

Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 1, 11-

33.

Lidz, C. S. (January 01, 1995). Dynamic Assessment and the Legacy of L.S. Vygotsky.School

Psychology International, 16, 2, 143.

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 (p. 116-

40). New York: The Guilford Press

Shabani, K. (January 01, 2012). Dynamic assessment of L2 learners’ reading comprehension

processes: A Vygotskian perspective. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 321-328.

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Wertsch, J. V. (January 01, 2004). Dynamic Testing: The

Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. Contemporary Psychology,49, 1, 91.

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and

promoting L2 development. Berlin?: Springer.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (January 01, 2005). Dynamic Assessment in the Language

Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 3, 233-265.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Problems of general psychology. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky:

Vol. 1. Including the volume Thinking and Speech. New York, NY: Plenum.
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT 13

Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions. The collected

works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 4. Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York:

Plenum.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1998). Child psychology. The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 5.

Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. (pp. 338-354). R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner

(Eds.).Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.