Abstract
Dynamic assessments are often assumed to produce more valid indicators of students’ competencies than do static assessments. For the assessment of reading competence, there are only a few, and very specific, approaches to dynamic assessments available, and thus there is almost no support for the validity of dynamic measures, compared to static measures. Against this background, we explain the theoretical and practical prerequisites for a dynamic test of reading competence. After describing the concept of dynamic assessments (particularly for the area of reading competence), three computer-based experiments are presented that implemented the core principles of dynamic assessment in the domain of reading. In these experiments different, theoretically derived feedback and prompting conditions were varied systematically. The results show the benefits but also the costs and shortcomings of the implementation of a dynamic test of reading competence. Finally, further challenges and subsequent stages concerning the development of a dynamic assessment tool in this domain are outlined.
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
Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 363–383. doi:10.1007/BF03173188.
Artelt, C., McElvany, N., Christmann, U., Richter, T., Groeben, N., Köster, J., … Saalbach, H. (2005). Expertise: Förderung von Lesekompetenz (Bildungsreform Band 17) [Expertise: Fostering reading competence]. Bonn: BMBF.
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples: Using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.416.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238. doi:10.3102/00346543061002213.
Beckmann, J. F. (2001). Zur Validierung des Konstrukts des intellektuellen Veränderungspotentials [On validation of the construct of intellectual change potential]. Berlin: Logos.
Beckmann, N., Beckmann, J. F., & Elliott, J. G. (2009). Self-confidence and performance goal orientation interactively predict performance in a reasoning test with accuracy feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 277–282. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.008.
Birjandi, P., Estaji, M., & Deyhim, T. (2013). The impact of dynamic assessment on reading comprehension and metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Iranian high school learners. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 3, 60–77.
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.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 254–270. doi:10.1177/0022466907310366.
Cain, K. (2009). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: A consideration of the precursors and consequences. In C. Wood & V. Connelly (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling (pp. 59–75). New York: Routledge.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assesment: An international approach to evaluation learning potential (pp. 82–140). New York: Guilford Press.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1979). Towards a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven Matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323–344. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(79)90002-3.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (2000). The validity of dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment:Prevailing models and applications (Vol. 6, pp. 681–712). Oxford: Elsevier.
Carney, J. J., & Cioffi, G. (1992). The dynamic assessment of reading abilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39, 107–114. doi:10.1080/0156655920390203.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404.
Cioffi, G., & Carney, J. (1983). Dynamic assessment of reading disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 36, 764–768.
Dillon, R. F. (1997). Dynamic testing. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook on testing (pp. 164–186). Westport: Greenwood Press.
Dörfler, T., Golke, S., & Artelt, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 77–82. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.005.
Elliott, J. G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (Vol. 6, pp. 713–740). Oxford: Elsevier.
Embretson, S. E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141–170). New York: Guilford Press.
Embretson, S. E. (2000). Multidimensional measurement from dynamic tests: Abstract reasoning under stress. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 505–542. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3504_05.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Haywood, H. C., Hoffmann, M., & Jensen, M. R. (1983). Learning potential assessment device: Manual. Jerusalem: HWCRI.
Frey, A., & Seitz, N. N. (2009). Multidimensional adaptive testing in educational and psychological measurement: Current state and future challenges. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 89–94. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.10.007.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., & Caffrey, E. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: Implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 339–347. doi:10.1177/0022219411407864.
Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a first grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 135–154. doi:10.1002/rrq.45.
Golke, S. (2013). Effekte elaborierter Feedbacks auf das Textverstehen: Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit von Feedbackinhalten unter Berücksichtigung des Präsentationsmodus in computerbasierten Testsettings [The effects of elaborated feedback on text comprehension: Studies on the relevance of feedback content and feedback presentation type in a computer based assessment]. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.
Golke, S., Dörfler, T., Artelt, C. (2015). The impact of elaborated feedbacks on text comprehension within a computer-based assessment. Learning and Instruction, 39, 123–136. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.009.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford.
Guthke, J. (1982). The learning test concept: An alternative to the traditional static intelligence test. The German Journal of Psychology, 6, 306–324.
Guthke, J., & Wiedl, K. H. (1996). Dynamisches Testen: Zur Psychodiagnostik der intraindividuellen Variabilität [Dynamic testing]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Kletzien, S. B., & Bednar, M. R. (1990). Dynamic assessment for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading, 33, 528–533.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.
Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.
Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Generative learning strategies and metacognitive feedback to facilitate comprehension of complex science topics and self-regulation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 18, 5–25.
Meijer, J., & Elshout, J. J. (2001). The predictive and discriminant validity of the zone of proximal development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 7, 93–113. doi:10.1348/000709901158415.
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: “Teaching children to read”: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized Dynamic Assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17, 323–342. doi:10.1177/1362168813482935.
Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2013). L2 development around tests. Learner response processes and dynamic assessment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 353–377. doi:10.1515/iral-2013-0015.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 351–364. doi:10.1080/10862969109547746.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal of Special Education, 27, 257–276. doi:10.1177/002246699302700301.
Segall, D. O. (2005). Computerized adaptive testing. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 429–438). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199–228. doi:10.1080/01638539709545013.
Sträfling, N., Fleischer, I., Polzer, C., Leutner, D., & Krämer, N. C. (2010). Teaching learning strategies with a pedagogical agent. The effects of a virtual tutor and its appearance on learning and motivation. Journal of Media Psychology, 22, 73–83. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000010.
VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 3–62. doi:10.1080/03640210709336984.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964). Denken und Sprechen [Thought and language]. Berlin: Akademie.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Acknowledgements
The preparation of this chapter was supported by Grants AR 307/7-1 and AR 307/7-2 from the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the Priority Program “Competence Models for Assessing Individual Learning Outcomes and Evaluating Educational Processes” (SPP 1293).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dörfler, T., Golke, S., Artelt, C. (2017). Evaluating Prerequisites for the Development of a Dynamic Test of Reading Competence: Feedback Effects on Reading Comprehension in Children. In: Leutner, D., Fleischer, J., Grünkorn, J., Klieme, E. (eds) Competence Assessment in Education. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50030-0_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50030-0_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50028-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50030-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)