This article explores how a primary school teacher utilized the frameworks of dynamic assessment (DA) and the instructional conversation (IC) within a Spanish as a foreign language classroom. DA was used to construct zones of proximal development with individuals in the classroom context. A menu of pre-scripted assisting prompts, used to respond to predictable lexical and grammatical errors, permitted the teacher to assess students while also promoting development. ICs were used to co-construct a group zone of proximal development (ZPD) in response to less predictable student errors or inquiries. The flexible mediation provided by the teacher in these instances allowed for the active involvement of more students as well as more responsive dialogue. This language teacher drew upon these two frameworks to navigate dual goals of instruction and assessment while providing mediation attuned to the ZPD of the learners. As students studied interrogative formation to complete the pedagogical task of an interview, the teacher alternated between these two frameworks based on her goal for each interaction. Class transcripts are analysed to reveal how these two complementary frameworks can be used in conjunction to meet both the students’ and teacher’s needs.
AbleevaR. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Retrieved from: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/11063 (March2013).
2.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
3.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines: Speaking, writing, listening, and reading. Yonkers, NY: ACTFL, Inc.
4.
AntónM. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 576–598.
5.
BrownA.FerraraR.A. (1985). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In WertschJ.V. (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 273–305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BudoffM. (1987). The validity of learning potential assessment. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactive approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52–81). New York: Guilford.
7.
CampioneJ.C.BrownA.L. (1987). Linking dynamic testing with school achievement. In LidzC.S. (Ed.), Dynamic testing (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford Press.
8.
CampioneJ.C.BrownA.L.FerreraR.A.BryantN.R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for individual differences and learning. In RogoffB.WertschJ.V. (Eds.), Children’s learning in the ‘zone of proximal development’ (pp. 76–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.
9.
CarlsonJ.S.WiedlK.H. (1992). Principles of dynamic assessment: The application of a specific model. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 153–166. doi: 10.1016/1041-6080(92)90011-3.
10.
ColeM.EngeströmY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CurtainH.DahlbergC.A. (2010). Languages and children: Making the match. 4th ed.Glenview, IL: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
12.
DavinK.J.DonatoR. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals. doi: 10.1111/flan.12012
13.
DeKeyserR.M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501–514.
14.
EchevarriaJ.McDonoughR. (1995). An alternative reading approach: Instructional conversations in a bilingual special education setting. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 108–119.
15.
FeuersteinR.FalikL.RandY.FeuersteinR.S. (2003). Dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
16.
FeuersteinR.RandY.HoffmanM.B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
17.
FeuersteinR.RandY.HoffmanM.B.MillerR. (1980). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
18.
GibbonsP. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247–273.
19.
GoldenbergC. (1991). Instructional conversations and their classroom applications. Educational Practice Report 2. Paper EPR02. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6q72k3k9 (March2013).
20.
GoldenbergC.Patthey-ChavezG. (1995). Discourse processes in instructional conversations: Interactions between teacher and transition readers. Discourse Processes, 19, 57–74.
21.
GuthkeJ. (1992). Learning tests: The concept, main research findings, problems and trends. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 137–151. doi: 10.1016/1041-6080(92)90010-C
22.
GuthkeJ.BeckmannJ.F. (2000). The learning test concept and its applications in practice. In LidzC. S.ElliottJ.G. (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 17–69). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23.
KozulinA. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
KozulinA.GarbE. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23, 112–127. doi:10.1177/0143034302023001733
25.
LantolfJ.P.AljaafrehA. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619–632.
26.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 49–72.
27.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2011a). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 323–340. doi: 10.1177/1362168810383328.
28.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2011b). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher’s guide. 2nd ed.University Park, PA: CALPER Publications.
29.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
LidzC.S.GindisB. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children with typical and atypical development. In KozulinA.AgeyevV.MillerS.GindisB. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s theory of education in cultural context (pp. 99–116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LysterR. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
32.
NewmanD.GriffinP.ColeM. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
PoehnerM.E. (2005). Dynamic assessment among advanced L2 learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Retrieved from: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/6627/1890 (March2013).
34.
PoehnerM.E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471–491.
35.
PoehnerM.E.LantolfJ.P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233–265. DOI: 10.1191/1362168805lr166oa.
36.
Rea-DickinsP. (2006). Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning-focused interpretation. International Journal, 16, 163–188.
37.
SaundersW.M.GoldenbergC. (1999). Effects of instructional conversations and literature logs on limited- and fluent- English-proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 277–301.
38.
SternbergR.J.GrigorenkoE.L. (2002). Dynamic testing. The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
TharpR.G.GallimoreR. (1991). The instructional conversation: Teaching and learning in social activity. Research Reports: 2. Paper rr02. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research and Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5th0939d (March2013).
40.
ValsinerJ. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development. Human Development, 44, 84–97.
41.
van CompernolleR.A.WilliamsL. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16, 39–60. doi: 10.1177/1362168811423340
42.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
VygotskyL. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In van der VeerR.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
45.
WertschJ.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
