This article examines how four second language (L2) teachers’ discursive practices changed as they attempted to implement dynamic assessment (DA) in their classrooms. Classroom artifacts, lesson recordings, and reflections from two pre-service teachers and two in-service teachers, both before and after a professional development series on DA, were included in the analysis. Findings revealed that all teachers’ approaches to mediation changed. In Pre-DA lessons, teachers defaulted to recasts when attempting to provide mediation. Following the DA professional development series, all teachers expanded the discursive space by providing more prompts and fewer recasts. However, findings illustrated that the four teachers appropriated DA to varying degrees, suggesting that some may have required additional mediation to appropriate all of the distinguishing features of DA. We discuss implications of these findings for teacher preparation.
AbleevaR. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension. In: LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 57–86). London: Equinox.
2.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
3.
AntónM. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 576–598.
4.
BorgS. (2006). Teacher cognition in language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.
5.
ChaiklinS. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In: KozulinA.GindisB.AgeyevV.S.MillerS.M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CrossR. (2010). Language teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language teacher practice. Modern Language Journal, 94, 434–452.
7.
DavinK.J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17, 303–322.
8.
DavinK.J.TroyanF.J. (2015). Teacher candidates’ implementation of high leverage teaching practices: From the university classroom to the field site. Foreign Language Annals, 48(1), 124–142.
9.
DavinK.J.TroyanF.J.HellmannA. (2014). Classroom dynamic assessment of reading comprehension with second language learners. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 1, 1–23.
10.
DesoeteA.RoeyersH.BuysseA.De ClerqA. (2002). Dynamic assessment of metacognitive skills in young children with mathematics-learning disabilities. In: van der AalsvoortG.M.ResingW.C.M.RuijssenaarsA.J.J.M. (Eds.), Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (pp. 307–333). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
11.
GolombekP.R. (2011). Dynamic assessment in teacher education: Using dialogic video protocols to intervene in teacher thinking and activity. In: JohnsonK.E.GolombekP.R. (Eds.). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development (pp. 121–135). New York: Routledge.
12.
JohnsonK.E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge.
13.
LantolfJ.P. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In: GassS.M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York: Routledge.
14.
LantolfJ.P.JohnsonK.E. (2007). Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. Modern Language Journal, 91, 877–892.
15.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2011a). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 11–33.
16.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2011b). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher’s guide. 2nd edition.University Park, PA: CALPER.
17.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 141–157.
18.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge.
19.
LidzC.S. (2014). Leaning toward a consensus about dynamic assessment: Can we? Do we want to?Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13, 292–307.
20.
LysterR.RantaL. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
21.
NassajiH. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59, 411–452.
22.
Negueruela-AzarolaE. (2011). Beliefs as conceptualizing activity: A dialectical approach for the second language classroom. System, 39, 359–369.
23.
PoehnerM.E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer.
24.
PoehnerM.E.LantolfJ.P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17, 323–342.
25.
PoehnerM.E.van CompernolleR.A. (2013). L2 development around tests: Learner response processes and dynamic assessment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 353–377.
26.
PoehnerM.E.ZhangJ.LuX. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32, 337–357.
27.
RahimiM.KushkiA.NassajiH. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 185–208.
28.
RassaeiE. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. Modern Language Journal, 98, 417–431.
29.
SmagorinskyP.CookL.S.JohnsonT.S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105, 1399–1436.
30.
SongS.KelloggD. (2011). Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural theory. Modern Language Journal, 95, 589–604.
31.
van CompernolleR.A. (2013). Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of L2 pragmatic abilities. In: RossS.KasperG. (Eds.), Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 327–353). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
32.
van CompernolleR.A.HeneryA. (2015). Learning to do concept-based pragmatics instruction: Teacher development and L2 pedagogical content knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19, 351–372.
33.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
VygotskyL.S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology including the volume Thinking and speech. RieberR.W.CartonA.S. (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.
35.
WalshS. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge.
36.
WertschJ.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
WertschJ.V. (2007). Mediation. In: DanielsH.ColeM.WertschJ.V. (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
WilliamsL.AbrahamL.B.Negueruela-AzarolaE. (2013). Using concept-based instruction in the L2 classroom: Perspectives from current and future language teachers. Language Teaching Research, 17, 363–381.
