INTEGRATING ASSESSMENT AND INSTRUCTION: DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT AND ITS CRITICISMS EXAMINED

Authors

  • Hosna Hosseini Tabaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
  • Behzad Ghonsooly Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM), Mashhad, Iran, Iran, Islamic Republic of

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.84207

Keywords:

Dynamic assessment, Constructivism, mediation, modifiability, ZPD, interventionism

Abstract

Dynamic Assessment has recently been voiced of constructivism, the socio-cultural theory of learning. This article, challenging the psychometric and product-based test, makes an attempt to delve into the epistemological and ontological theories of Dynamic Assessment (DA) and their criticisms. DA is the offspring of Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Feuerstein’s mediated learning experience (MLE). It emphasises constructing a future through mediations. Interestingly, this development-oriented process of collaboration relies on the unification of instruction and assessment which is a strong threat to the reliability of the psychometric tests. This study also deals with the battle of views on DA. It discusses the appealing face of DA embracing ethical values, fairness and social equity, and the process based assessment. It also argues the negative face of DA comprising modifiability, interventionism, and stability. It finally concludes that each system should be criticised by certain criteria. Faced with the scarcity of research both theoretically and empirically, the critical analysis of this new generation of test in an L2 setting might be helpful for further discussions, suggestions and implications in the second language learning arena.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Hosna Hosseini, Tabaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran

Hosna Hosseini is the lecturer in Tabaran Institute of Higher Education, Mashhad, Iran. She is studying as a PhD student at Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM), Mashhad, Iran. Her main interest regards language teaching and learning, bilingialism, and assessment.

Behzad Ghonsooly, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM), Mashhad, Iran

Behzad Ghonsooly is the full professor at Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM), Mashhad, Iran. He has published a myriad of articles on language testing and assessment, language teaching, and ESP. One of his outstanding publications is "Effect of Unfocused vs. Focused Written Feedback on Writing Accuracy: corrective writing feedback".

References

  1. Ajideh, P., Farrokhi, F., and Nourdad, N. (2012). Dynamic assessment of EFL reading: Revealing hidden aspects at different proficiency levels.World Journal of Education, 2 (4),102. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n4p102
  2. Alavi, M., Kaivanpanah, Sh., and Shabani, K. (2011). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3 (4), 27-58.
  3. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford Oxford University Press.
  4. Bachman, L. F, and Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford Oxford University Press.
  5. Barootchi, N., and Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolios and teacher-made tests. Educational Research, 44 (3), 279-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880210135313
    |
  6. Bavali, M., Yamini, M, and Sadighi, F. (2011). Dynamic Assessment in Perspective: Demarcating Dynamic and Non-dynamic Boundaries. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (4), 895-902. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.4.895-902
  7. Birjandi, P., and Daftarifard P. (2011). The Role of ZPD in Estimating Learners’ Future Level of Development: The Case of Reading Ability. Journal oF English Studies, 1, 63-78.
  8. Birjandi, P., and Sarem S. N. (2012). Dynamic assessment (DA): An evolution of the current trends in language testing and assessment. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (4), 747-53. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.747-753 .
  9. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  10. Cook, V. (2013). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. New York: Routledge.
  11. Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Ac-quisition. Oxford: Oxford Applied Linguistics.
  12. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., and Rynders, J.E. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. Helping retarded performers excel. New York: Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6128-0 .
  13. Fulcher, G, and Davidson F. 2007. Language testing and assessment. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203449066 .
  14. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203486009 .
  15. Guthke, J., Beckmann, J. F., and Dobat, H. (1997). Dynamic testing—problems, uses, trends and evidence of validity. Educational and Child Psychology, 14 (4), 17-32
  16. Haywood, H. C., and Lidz, C. S. (2006). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607516
  17. Hill, K., and Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (3), 537-545. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00251.x
    |
  18. Kozulin, A., and Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23 (1), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733
    |
  19. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Abingdon: Routledge.
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.1.1.49.55872
  21. Leung, C., and Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: Assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21 (3), 335-359. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt287oa
    |
  22. Lightbown, P. M., and Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned, Oxford Handbooks for language teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Liu, Ch. H., and Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky's Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined. International Education Journal, 6 (3), 386-99.
    |
  24. McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. McNamara, T., and Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Educational measurement, edited by R. L. Linn. New York: Macmillan.
  27. Murphy, R. (2008). Dynamic assessment precursors: Soviet ideology, and Vygotsky. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 29 (3-4), 195-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2008.10446285
  28. Murphy, R, and Maree, D. (2006). A review of South African research in the field of dynamic assessment. South African Journal of Psychology, 36 (1), 168-91. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630603600110
  29. Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
  30. Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
  31. Pishghadam, R., Barabadi, E., and Kamrood, A. M. (2011). The differing effect of computerized dynamic assessment of L2 reading comprehension on high and low achievers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (6), 1353-1358. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.6.1353-1358
  32. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75775-9
  33. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x
  34. Poehner, M. E, and Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9 (3), 233-265. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr166oa
    |
  35. Sjøberg, S. (2007). Constructivism and learning. In International Encyclopaedia of Education. Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.00467-x
  36. Sternberg, R. J., and Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
  37. Tan, Ch. (2015). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2015.1105737
    |
  38. Teo, A. K. (2012). Effects of dynamic assessment on college EFL learners’ reading skills. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9 (1), 57-94.
  39. Tsagari, D. (2004). Is there life beyond language testing? An introduction to alternative language assessment. Center for Research in Language Education, CRILE Working Papers, 58, 1-23.
  40. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  41. Winke, P. (2011). Evaluating the validity of a high-stakes ESL test: Why teachers' perceptions matter. TESOL Quarterly, 45 (4), 628-660. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.268063
    |

Downloads

Published

2017-06-19

How to Cite

Hosseini, H., & Ghonsooly, B. (2017). INTEGRATING ASSESSMENT AND INSTRUCTION: DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT AND ITS CRITICISMS EXAMINED. Advanced Education, (7), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.84207

Issue

2017: Issue 7

Section

Education

License

Copyright (c) 2017 Hosna Hosseini, Behzad Ghonsooly

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).