This study explored the conditions required for the practical implementation of dynamic assessment in schools. It involved the development and implementation of a curriculum-based dynamic assessment procedure in the area of school mathematics for use by school counsellors. Dynamic assessment has been developed within Vygotskian theories of learning, teaching and assessment. It incorporates a teaching or mediation phase that requires the application of clinical assessment and teaching skills. This paper argues that the competencies needed to conduct a successful dynamic assessment are a blend of professional skills possessed by school counsellors. The assessment procedures used in this study resulted in valid assessment information about students' cognitive development as well as aspects of their general cognitive, social and emotional functioning. The information gathered through dynamic assessment was particularly useful for informing classroom teaching. The practical problems associated with dynamic assessment identified in the literature were not found to be barriers to the use of these techniques in schools in this study. Instead, dynamic assessment, used to complement conventional assessment instruments, has the potential to enhance the classroom utility of assessments carried out by school counsellors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntonM. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centred classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303–318. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No EJ591 392).
2.
Australian Education Council. (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation.
3.
BaroodyA. (1987). Children's mathematical thinking: A developmental framework for pre-school, primary and special education teachers. New York: Teachers College Press
4.
BazziniL. (1993). The teaching/learning process and assessment practice: Two intertwined sides of mathematics education. In NissM. (Ed.), Cases of assessment in mathematics education (pp. 99–106). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
5.
BergerM. (1998). Graphic calculators: An interpretive framework. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(2), 13–20. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 590 355).
6.
BermanJ. (2001). An application of dynamic assessment to school mathematical learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England: Armidale.
7.
BermanJ. (2002). Development of understanding of place-value. In BartonB., IrwinK., PfannkuchM. & ThomasM. (Eds), Mathematics education in the South Pacific: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia: Auckland (pp. 131–138). Sydney: MERGA.
8.
Board of Studies NSW. (1994). English K–6: Syllabus and support document. North Sydney: Author.
9.
Boulton-LewisG. (1996). Representations of place value knowledge and implications for teaching addition and subtraction. In MulliganJ. & MitchelmoreM. (Eds.), Children's number learning: A research monograph of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia and the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (pp. 75–88). Adelaide, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia/Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
10.
BrainardM. (1997). Assessment as a way of seeing. In GoodwinA. L., (Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children (pp. 163–179). New York: Routledge.
11.
BransfordJ., DelclosV., VyeN., BurnsS., & HasselbringT. (1987). Sate of the art and future directions. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 479–496). New York: Guilford.
12.
CampbellC., & CarlsonJ.S. (1995). The dynamic assessment of mental abilities. In CarlsonJ.S. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment, 3, (pp. 1–31). Connecticut: JAI Press.
13.
CampioneJ.C., & BrownA.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford.
14.
ClarkeD. (1987). A rationale for assessment alternatives in mathematics. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 43(3), 8–10.
15.
ClayM., & CazdenC.B. (1999). A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Recovery. In LloydP. & FernyhoughC. (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments: The zone of proximal development, Vol III (pp. 353–370). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 1998-06799-018).
16.
CordeiroP. (1999). Vygotsky in the classroom: An interactionist literacy framework in mathematics. In LloydP. & FernyhoughC. (Eds.) Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments: The zone of proximal development, Vol III (pp. 353–370). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 1998-06799-020).
17.
DayJ.D. (1983). The zone of proximal development. In PressleyM. & LevinJ.R. (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations (pp. 155–175). New York: Springer-Verlag.
18.
DayJ.D., EngelhardtJ.L., MaxwellS.E. & BoligE.E. (1997). Comparison of static and dynamic assessment procedures and their relation to independent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 358–368.
19.
DenvirB., & BrownM. (1986a). Understanding of number concepts in low attaining 7–9 year olds: Part I. Development of descriptive framework and diagnostic instrument. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 15–36.
20.
DenvirB., & BrownM. (1986b). Understanding of number concepts in low attaining 7–9 year olds: Part II. The teaching studies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 143–164.
21.
EganG. (1998). The skilled helper: A problem-management approach to helping (6th ed). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
22.
EmbretsonS.E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141–170). New York: Guilford.
23.
FeuersteinR. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive development. Baltimore: University Park Press.
24.
FleischnerJ. (1994). Diagnosis and assessment of Mathematics learning disabilities. In LyonG. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views of measurement issues (pp. 441–458). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
GuthkeJ., & WingenfeldS. (1992). The learning test concept: Origins, state of the art, and trends (pp. 64–93). In HaywoodH. & TzurielD. (Eds.), Interactive assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
30.
HamersJ.H.M., & SijtsmaK. (1995). Trends in learning potential assessment. In CarlsonJ. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment, 3 (pp. 83–116). Connecticut: JAI Press.
31.
HamersJ.H.M., HesselsM.G.P. & TissinkJ. (1995). Research on learning potential assessment. In CarlsonJ. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment, 3 (pp. 145–183). Connecticut: JAI Press.
32.
HaneyM.R., & EvansJ.G. (1999). National survey of school psychologists regarding use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 36(4), 295–304.
33.
HarveyF.A., & CharnitskiC.W. (1998). Improving mathematics instruction using technology: A Vygotskian perspective. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the National Conventional of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 837).
34.
HaywoodH., BrownA., & WingenfeldS. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psycho-educational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411–422.
35.
HaywoodH., & TzurielD. (Eds.). (1992). Interactive assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
36.
HaywoodH., & WingenfeldS. (1992). Interactive assessment as a research tool. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 253–268.
37.
JitendraA.K., & KameenuiE.J. (1996). Experts' and novices' error patterns in solving part-whole mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 42–51.
38.
JonesG., & ThorntonC. (1993). Vygotsky revisited: Nurturing young children's understanding of number. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 15(2 & 3), 18–28. Centre for Teaching/Learning of Mathematics.
39.
JonesG., ThorntonC., PuttI., HillK., MogillA., RichB., et al. (1996). Multidigit number sense: A framework for instruction and assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 310–336.
40.
LidzC.S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.
41.
LidzC.S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.
42.
LidzC.S. (1997). Dynamic assessment approaches. In FlanaganD.P., GenshaftJ.L. & HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 281–295). New York: Guilford.
43.
LidzC.S., & MacrineS.L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22(1), 74–96.
44.
LidzC.S., & ThomasC. (1987). The preschool learning assessment device: Extension of a static approach. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.
45.
LiebermanM. (1981). The development of children's understanding on numerical representation. Final Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 230 410).
46.
McKayD. (n.d.) Cognitive psychology and the school counsellor: The challenge of assessment. Unpublished paper distributed to NSW Department of Education school counsellors.
47.
MaloneJ., & IrelandD. (1996). Constructivist research on teaching and learning mathematics. In SullivanP., OwensK. & AtwehB., (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 1992–1995 (pp. 119–133). Campbelltown, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
48.
MeyersJ. (1987). The training of dynamic assessors. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 403–425). New York: Guilford.
49.
MitchelmoreM., & MulliganJ. (1996). Introduction. In MulliganJ. & MitchelmoreM. (Eds.), Children's number learning: A research monograph of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia and the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (pp. 1–14). Adelaide, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia/Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
50.
New South Wales Department of Education. (1989). Mathematics K-6. Sydney: Author.
51.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (1999). Count me in too: Professional development package. Ryde, Australia: Curriculum Support Directorate.
52.
PengellyH. (1990). Mathematical learning beyond the activity. In SteffeL.P. & WoodT. (Eds.), Transforming children's mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 357–376). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
PetersS. (1997). The relationship between the place value understanding of seven-year-old children and the strategies that they use to solve written addition problems. In BiddulphF., & CarrK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 397–405). Aotearoa, NZ: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
54.
PirieS. (1989). Classroom-based assessment. In ErnestP. (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 47–55). Lewes, East Sussex: Falmer.
55.
ResnickL. (1983). A developmental theory of number understanding. In GinsburgH. (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking, (pp. 109–151). New York: Academic Press.
56.
RogoffB., & WertschJ.V. (Eds.). (1984). Children's learning in the “Zone of Proximal Development” New Directions for Child Development Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57.
RossS.H. (1986). The development of children's place-value numeration concepts in grades two through five. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.
58.
SattlerJ. (1992). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.
59.
ScottP. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science education, 32, 45–80. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 584 561)
60.
SengS. (2000). Teaching and learning primary mathematics in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual international conference and exhibition of the Association for Childhood Education international. Baltimore, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 812).
61.
ShepardsonD.P. (1999). Learning science in a first grade science activity: A Vygotskian perspective. Science Education, 83(5), 621–638.
62.
ShurinR. (1999). Concurrent and discriminant validity of a dynamic assessment procedure with special needs and typical preschool children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 435 681).
63.
SierinkT. (1989). Place value in the primary school. Unpublished B.Ed (Hons) thesis. University of Tasmania, Australia.
64.
SierinkT., & WatsonJ.M. (1991), Children's understanding of place value. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(4), 33–42.
65.
SkuyM. (1997). Cross cultural and interdimensional implications of Feuerstein's construct of mediated learning experience. School Psychology International, 18, 119–135.
66.
ThomasN. (1992). An analysis of children's understanding of numeration. In Space. The First and Final Frontier: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 521–540). Nepean, Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
67.
TzurielD. (1992). The dynamic assessment approach: A reply to Frisby and Braden. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 302–324.
68.
VygotskyL.S. (1962). Thought and language. HanfmannE. & VakarG. (Eds. & Trans.) Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Wiley.
69.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. ColeM., John-SteinerV., ScribnerS. & SoubermanE. (Eds.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
70.
WiedlK., GuthkeJ., & WingenfeldS. (1995). Dynamic assessment in Europe: Historical perspectives. In CarlsonJ. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment (pp. 33–82). Connecticut, US: JAI Press.
71.
WingenfeldS.A. (1991). Dynamic and neuropsychological assessment of the cognitive functioning of learning disabled and non-learning-disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
72.
WrightR.J.B., & StewartR. (1999). Can teachers know too much?Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 4(2), 4–7.
