Disenchantment with traditional assessment procedures has prompted an examination of alternative assessment procedures that accurately and adequately measure student learning (Cross, 1990). In view of this significant concern over better assessment approaches, the present article examines the effectiveness of dynamic assessment. First, we present the limitations of traditional assessment techniques and develop an argument for the importance of dynamic assessment. Second, we review five models of dynamic assessment and identify their critical features. Finally, we discuss the limitations of this procedure and propose guidelines that might assist in the more widespread use of dynamic assessment by practitioners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alba, J.W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic?Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203–231.
2.
Arthur, G. (1947). A point scale of performance tests. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
3.
Bereiter, C. (1962). Using tests to measure change. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41, 6–11.
4.
Bethge, H., Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (1982). The effects of dynamic assessment procedures on Raven Matrices performance, visual search behavior, test anxiety and test orientation. Intelligence, 6, 89–97.
5.
Bransford, J.D., Delclos, V.R., Vye, N.J., Burns, M.S., & Hasselbring, T.S. (1987). State of the art and future directions. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 479–496). New York: Guilford Press.
6.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist, 41, 1059–1068.
7.
Brown, A.L., & Ferrara, R.A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development: An alternative to standardized testing. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273–305). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Brown, A.L., & French, L.A. (1979). The zone of potential development: Implications for intelligence testing in the year 2000. Intelligence, 3, 255–273.
9.
Budoff, M. (1967). Learning potential among institutionalized young adult retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72, 404–411.
10.
Budoff, M. (1974). Learning potential and educability among the educable mentally retarded (Final Report Project No. 312312). Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems, Cambridge Mental Health Association.
11.
Budoff, M. (1987a). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173–195). New York: Guilford Press.
12.
Budoff, M. (1987b). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52–81). New York: Guilford Press.
13.
Budoff, M., & Friedman, M. (1964). “Learning potential” as an assessment approach to the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 434–439.
14.
Budoff, M., & Gotlieb, J. (1976). Special class EMR children mainstreamed: A study of an aptitude (learning potential) x treatment interaction. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 1–11.
15.
Budoff, M., & Pines, A. (1971). Reaction to frustration as a function of learning potential status. Cambridge, MA: Research Institute for Educational Problems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 048 709)
16.
Burns, M.S. (1985). Comparison of “graduated prompt” and “mediational” dynamic assessment and static assessment with young children (Tech. Rep. No. 2). Alternative assessments of young handicapped children. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Human Development.
17.
Burns, M.S., Haywood, H.C., Delclos, V.R., & Siewart, L. (1987). Young children's problem-solving strategies: An observational study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(1), 113–121.
18.
Campione, J.C. (1989). Assisted assessment: A taxonomy of approaches and an outline of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 151–165.
19.
Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford Press.
20.
Campione, J.C., Brown, A.L., & Connell, M.L. (1989). Metacognition: On the importance of understanding what you are doing. In R.I. Charles & E.A. Silver (Eds.), The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving (pp. 93–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Campione, J.C., Brown, A.L., & Ferrara, R.A. (1982). Mental retardation and intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 392–490). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Campione, J.C., Brown, A.L., Ferrara, R.A., Jones, R.S., & Steinberg, E. (1985). Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. Intelligence, 9, 297–315.
23.
Carlson, J.S. (1983). Dynamic assessment in relation to learning characteristics and teaching strategies for children with specific learning disability (Final Report). Washington, DC: Department of Education.
24.
Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (1978). Use of testing-the-limits procedures in the assessment of intellectual capabilities in children with learning difficulties. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82, 559–564.
25.
Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven Matrices. Intelligence, 3, 323–344.
26.
Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (1980, May). An approach toward reducing test bias. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
27.
Carney, J.J., & Cioffi, G. (1990). Extending traditional diagnoses: The dynamic assessment of reading abilities. Reading Psychology, 11(3), 177–192.
28.
Carnine, D.W., & Kameenui, E.J. (1992). Higher order thinking: Designing curriculum for mainstreamed students. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
29.
Christenson, S.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1989). Critical instructional factors for students with mild handicaps: An integrative review. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 21–31.
30.
Cioffi, G., & Carney, J.J. (1983). Dynamic assessment of reading disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 36, 764–768.
31.
Cross, C.T. (1990). National goals: Four priorities for educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 21–24.
32.
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.
33.
Ferrara, R.A. (1987). Learning mathematics in the zone of proximal development: The importance of flexible use of knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign.
34.
Ferrara, R.A,Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1986). Children's learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies in proximal development. Child Development, 57, 1087–1099.
35.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
36.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B., Egozi, M., & Shachar-Segev, N.M. (1991). Intervention programs for retarded performers: Goals, means, and expected outcomes. In L. Idol & B.F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 139–178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M.B., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press.
38.
Folman, R., & Budoff, M. (1971). Learning potential status and vocational interests and aspirations of special and regular class adolescents. Exceptional Children, 38, 121–130.
39.
Haeussermann, E. (1958). Developmental potential of preschool children. New York: Grune & Stratton.
40.
Harrison, R.H., & Budoff, M. (1972a). A factor analysis of the Laurelton Self-Concept Scale. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 446–459.
41.
Harrison, R.H., & Budoff, M. (1972b). Demographic, historical, and ability correlates of the Laurelton Self-Concept Scale in an EMR sample. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 460–480.
42.
Harrison, R.H., Singer, J., Budoff, M., & Folman, R. (1972). Level of aspiration as a function of learning potential status in the educable mentally retarded. Psychological Reports, 30, 47–57.
43.
Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W.H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44.
Jenkins, J.R., & O'Connor, R.E. (1991). Implications of the sameness analysis for curriculum developers and curriculum users. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 361–363.
45.
Jensen, M.R., & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The learning potential assessment device: From philosophy to practice. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 379–402). New York: Guilford Press.
46.
Kameenui, E.J. (1991). Toward a pedagogy of learning disabilities: A sameness in the message. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 364–372.
47.
Kameenui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
48.
Kletzien, S.B., & Bednar, M.R. (1990). Dynamic assessment for at-risk readers. Journal of Reading, 33(7), 28–33.
49.
Kragler, S. (1989). Dynamic versus static assessment: A comparison of the effects of each on the reading placement levels of Chapter 1 students (Report No. CS009708). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
50.
Labov, W., Cohn, P., Robbins, D., & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of non-standard English of Negro and Puerto-Rican speakers in New York City. New York: Columbia University.
51.
Lidz, C.S. (1987). Historical perspectives. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach toevaluating learning potential (pp. 3–34). New York: Guilford Press.
52.
Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
53.
Mankinen, R. (1970). The relationship of an impulsivity measure to LP status. Studies in Learning Potential, 2, 29.
54.
Matarazzo, J.D., & Wiens, A.N. (1977). Black intelligence test of cultural homogeneity and Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale scores of black and white applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(1), 57–63.
55.
Mercer, J.R., & Lewis, J. (1977). System of multicultural pluralistic assessment. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
56.
Meyers, J. (1987). The training of dynamic assessors. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 403–425). New York: Guilford Press.
57.
Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M.T. (1989). Dynamic assessment of preschool children with special needs: Comparison of mediation and instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 53–62.
58.
Palincsar, A.S. (1990, July). Dynamic assessment. Paper presented at the OSEP Research Project Directors' Conference, The Council for Exceptional Children, Washington, DC.
59.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
60.
Parker, R., Kameenui, E.J., & Jitendra, A. (1990). Analysis of a grade 3–5 elementary math curriculum for production of valid math tests: Works in progress. In G. Tindal (Ed), The Oregon Conference monograph (pp. 71–79). Eugene: University of Oregon.
61.
Savell, J.M., Twohig, P.T., & Rachford, D.L. (1986). Empirical status of Feuerstein's “Instrumental Enrichment” (FIE) technique as a method of teaching thinking skills. Review of Educational Research, 56, 381–410.
62.
Schucman, H. (1960). Evaluating the educability of the severely mentally retarded child. Psychological Monographs, 74(14), Whole No. 501.
63.
Tennyson, R.D., & Christensen, D.L. (1986, April). Memory theory and design of intelligent learning systems. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
64.
Tzuriel, D., & Klein, P.S. (1987). Assessing the young child: Children's analogical thinking modifiability. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 268–287). New York: Guilford Press.
65.
Vye, N.J., Burns, S., Delclos, V.R., & Bransford, J.D. (1987). A comprehensive approach to assessing intellectually handicapped children. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 327–359). New York: Guilford Press.
66.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
67.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
Ysseldyke, J.E., & Regan, R. (1980). Nondiscriminatory assessment: A formative model. Exceptional Children, 46, 465–466.
