Abstract
This paper explores the suitability of Dynamic Assessment (DA) as a method of formal testing when the intervention is both electronic and supported by face-to-face encounters. The principles of DA appear in Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (SCT) which postulates that cognitive development occurs when there is productive interaction. In DA, as opposed to psychometric tests, the learner is offered mediation during or after assessment. Performance with the assistance of the mediator helps the assessor to determine the learner’s progress in the “zone of proximal development” or ZPD. Vygotsky describes the ZPD as the distance between a learner’s actual level of development without mediation and their level of potential development when interacting with an able mediator. Participants in this study were a group of 12 EFL learners enrolled in the foundation programme of an Omani university that was designed to equip them with the language skills required for English-medium tertiary education. Students emailed pre-specified academic essays during the course of a semester to the first author who then offered them feedback using a word processor’s review function. Students were then assessed on their ability to incorporate the researcher’s feedback which ranged from implicit to explicit. A focus group interview with participants was held in addition to a series of observations to explore emergent trends associated with DA. Overall results suggest that electronic forms of DA involving mediation attuned to participants’ ZPD are more effective than pre-scripted prompts based on assessors’ guesses about the kinds of intervention learners may require during assessment. The paper concludes by suggesting that electronic forms of DA ensure students get the best possible mediation when they are undertaking important assessment processes and therefore may be of benefit in Omani EFL tertiary contexts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 576–598.
Budoff, M. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 53–81). New York: Guilford 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, 303.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. Helping retarded performers excel. New York: Plenum.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112–127.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619–632.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–72.
Lidz, C. S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, V. S. Ageev, S. Miller, & B. Gindis (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99–106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. A Journal of Human Behavior, 31, 1–16.
Meihami, H., & Meihami, B. (2014). An overview of dynamic assessment in the language classroom. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 5, 35–43.
Minick, N. (1989). L.S. Vygotsky and Soviet activity theory: Perspectives on the relationship between mind and society. Newton, MA: Educational Development Center.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norton, L. (2007). Using assessment to promote quality learning in higher education. In A. Campbell & L. Norton (Eds.), Learning, teaching and assessing in higher education: Developing reflective practice (pp. 92–101). Southernhay East: Learning Matters.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 323–340.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233–265.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing. The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2005). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 1: DA Cycle Scores and LPS by Participant
Appendix 1: DA Cycle Scores and LPS by Participant
Participant #1
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 67 | 74 | 1.08 |
2 | 63 | 75 | 1.16 |
3 | 70 | 75 | 1.06 |
High Scorer 1 in Pre-test 1
Participant #2
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 58 | 67 | 1.01 |
2 | 55 | 64 | 0.97 |
3 | 50 | 60 | 0.93 |
High Scorer 2 in Pre-test 1
Participant #3
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 65 | 70 | 1.00 |
2 | 70 | 75 | 1.06 |
3 | 74 | 75 | 1.01 |
High Scorer 3 in Pre-test 1
Participant #4
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 55 | 60 | 0.86 |
2 | 60 | 60 | 1.00 |
3 | 60 | 60 | 1.00 |
High Scorer 4 in Pre-test 1
Participant #5
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 48 | 58 | 0.90 |
2 | 55 | 65 | 1.00 |
3 | 58 | 68 | 1.04 |
Average Scorer 1 in Pre-test 1
Participant #6
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 40 | 50 | 0.80 |
2 | 45 | 55 | 0.86 |
3 | 48 | 58 | 0.90 |
Average Scorer 2 in Pre-test 1
Participant #7
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 48 | 58 | 0.90 |
2 | 62 | 65 | 0.90 |
3 | 65 | 70 | 1.00 |
Average Scorer 3 in Pre-test 1
Participant #8
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 55 | 60 | 0.86 |
2 | 58 | 62 | 0.88 |
3 | 62 | 65 | 0.90 |
Average Scorer 4 in Pre-test 1
Participant #9
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 25 | 45 | 0.86 |
2 | 40 | 50 | 0.80 |
3 | 48 | 55 | 0.82 |
Poor Scorer 1 in Pre-test 1
Participant #10
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 30 | 40 | 0.66 |
2 | 28 | 33 | 0.50 |
3 | 25 | 25 | 0.33 |
Poor Scorer 2 in Pre-test 1
Participant #11
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 15 | 40 | 0.86 |
2 | 30 | 40 | 0.66 |
3 | 25 | 40 | 0.73 |
Poor Scorer 3 in Pre-test 1
Participant #12
DA cycle | Non-dynamic pre-test | Post-test after mediation | Learning potential score |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | 28 | 35 | 0.56 |
2 | 30 | 35 | 0.53 |
3 | 30 | 35 | 0.53 |
Poor Scorer 4 in Pre-Test 1
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mathew, P., Al-Mahrooqi, R., Denman, C. (2017). Electronic Intervention Strategies in Dynamic Assessment in an Omani EFL Classroom. In: Al-Mahrooqi, R., Coombe, C., Al-Maamari, F., Thakur, V. (eds) Revisiting EFL Assessment. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32601-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32601-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32599-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32601-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)