Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation

Abstract

Dynamic assessment (DA) derives from the sociocultural theory of mind as elaborated by Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky. By offering mediation when individuals experience difficulties and carefully tracing their responsiveness, Vygotsky (1998) proposed that diagnoses may uncover abilities that have fully formed as well as those still in the process of developing. This insight has led to numerous assessments, collectively referred to as DA, that have been pursued primarily in the domains of special education and general cognitive abilities measurement (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, & Falik, 2010; Haywood & Lidz, 2007). To date, L2 DA work has been primarily conducted in classroom settings (Ableeva, 2010; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011; Poehner, 2007, 2008). This paper discusses a recent project concerning the design of online multiple-choice tests of L2 reading and listening comprehension that leverage the principle that mediation is indispensable for diagnosing development. Specifically, each test item is accompanied by a set of prompts graduated from implicit to explicit. In this way, resultant diagnoses include not only whether learners answered correctly (their actual score) but also the amount of support they required (mediated score) during the test. We argue that the set of scores automatically generated by the tests, together with a breakdown of learner performance on items targeting particular component features of comprehension, provide a fine-grained diagnosis of their L2 development while also offering information relevant to subsequent teaching and learning.

Keywords

Computerized assessment diagnostic assessment dynamic assessment L2 development zone of proximal development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ableeva

. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in L2 French. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.

Alderson

J. C.

(2007). The challenge of (diagnostic) testing: Do we know what we are measuring? In Fox

Wesche

Bayliss

Cheng

Turner

Doe

(Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 21–39). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Alderson

J. C.

Clapham

Wall

(1995). Language testing construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown

Ferrara

R. A.

(1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In Wertsch

J. V.

(Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition. Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Budoff

. (1968). Learning potential as a supplementary testing procedure. In Hellmuth

(Ed.), Learning disorders, vol. 3 (pp. 295–343). Seattle, WA: Special Child.

Budoff

. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In Lidz

C. S.

(Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 53–81). New York: Guilford Press.

Campione

J. C.

Brown

A.L.

(1990). Guided learning and transfer: Implications for approaches to assessment. In Frederiksen

Glaser

Lesgold

Shafto

M. G.

(Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 141–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Feuerstein

R. S.

Falik

L. H.

(2010). Beyond smarter: Mediated learning and the brain’s capacity for change. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Haywood

H. C.

Lidz

C. S.

(2007). Dynamic assessment in practice. Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Kozulin

Garb

(2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127.

11.

Kunnan

A. J.

(2004). Test fairness. In Milanovic

Weir

(Eds.), European year of languages conference papers, Barcelona (pp. 27–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Kunnan

A. J.

Jang

E. E.

(2009). Diagnostic feedback in language assessment. In Long

M. H.

Doughty

C. J.

(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 610–627). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

13.

Lantolf

J. P.

Poehner

M. E.

(2011). Dynamic Assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33.

14.

Lantolf

J. P.

Poehner

M. E.

(2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. London: Routledge.

15.

Lidz

C. S.

Elliott

J. G

. (2000). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

16.

Poehner

M. E.

(2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323–340.

17.

Poehner

M. E.

(2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer.

18.

Poehner

M. E.

Lantolf

J. P.

(2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342.

19.

Poehner

M. E.

van Compernolle

R. A

. (2011). Frames of interaction in dynamic assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 183–198.

20.

Sternberg

R. J.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2002). Dynamic testing. The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1987). In Rieber

R. W.

Carton

A. S.

(Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, vol. 1: Problems of general psychology, including the volume thinking and speech. New York: Plenum.

23.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1998). The problem of age. In Rieber

R. W.

Carton

A. S.

(Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, vol. 5: Child psychology (pp. 187–206). New York: Plenum.