Although the second language literature on Dynamic Assessment (DA) – the unity of assessment and instruction into a singular activity to promote cognitive development – shows promising results, very little has been written about how to educate teachers to use it. This two-cycle, exploratory action research study aimed to understand and address the challenges that the pre- and in-service teachers faced while participating in a graduate course introducing computer-mediated DA. Data from reflective journals, surveys, and transcripts from synchronous online DA tutoring sessions showed that the teachers in Cycle 1 experienced problems managing the levels of the mediating strategies that they used, which was related to the issues of utilizing course-embedded supports, dealing with task pressures, and understanding the DA concept. After modifying the course to attend to these issues, the study found that the Cycle 2 teachers exhibited greater control over the mediating strategies they employed during tutoring sessions than the teachers in Cycle 1. This study presents a contextualized account of certain issues that may arise when introducing DA and ways to manage them. More broadly, the findings underscore the importance of teacher educators investigating their own practices, and highlight the need to connect the concepts that teachers are studying with meaningful and well-supported opportunities for use.
AbleevaR.LantolfJ. (2011) Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 133–149.
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.
BogdanR.C.BiklenS.K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
5.
DarhowerM.A. (2014). Synchronous computer-mediated Dynamic Assessment: A case study of L2 Spanish past narration. CALICO Journal, 31, 221–243.
6.
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.
7.
DornyeiZ.ScottM.L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210.
8.
GuichonN.BétrancourtM.PriéY. (2012). Managing written and oral negative feedback in a synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 181–197.
9.
HeiftT. (2010). Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94, 198–216.
10.
HerringS. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse analysis. In: SchiffrinD.TannenD.HamiltonH. (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.
JohnsonK.E.GolombekP.R. (2011). Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on professional development. New York: Routledge.
13.
KozulinA.GarbE. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International, 23, 112–127.
14.
LamyM.HampelR. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
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.
16.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2011a). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 323–340.
17.
LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (2011b). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher’s guide. 2nd edition.University Park, PA: Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
18.
McCarthyM.CarterR. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
19.
McNeilL. (2013). Exploring the relationship between situated activity and CALL learning in teacher education. ReCALL, 25, 215–232.
20.
McNeilL. (2016). Computer-mediated communication strategy instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 242–261.
21.
McNeilL. (in press). Situated learning in CALL teacher education. In: LiontasJ. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York: Wiley.
22.
MeskillC.AnthonyN. (2007). Learning to orchestrate online instructional conversations: A case of faculty development for foreign language educators. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 5–19.
23.
MeskillC.AnthonyN. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
24.
MeskillC.AnthonyN. (2014). Managing synchronous polyfocality in new media/new learning: Online language educators’ instructional strategies. System, 42, 177–188.
NassajiH. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315–334.
27.
NassajiH.SwainM. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
28.
NegueruelaE. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In: LantolfJ.P.PoehnerM.E. (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.
29.
PoehnerM.E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 Dynamic Assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. Modern Language Journal, 91, 323–340.
30.
PoehnerM.E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 471–491.
31.
PoehnerM.E.van CompernolleR.A. (2013). L2 development around tests: Learner response processes and Dynamic Assessment. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 51, 353–377.
32.
PoehnerM.E.ZhangJ.LuX. (2015). Computerized Dynamic Assessement (CDA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32, 337–357.
33.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In: NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
34.
SmithR. (2015). Exploratory action research: why, what, and where from? In: DikilitasK.SmithR.TrotmanW. (Eds.), Teacher-researchers in action (pp. 37–45). Faversham: IATEFL.
35.
SmithR.ConnellyT.RebolledoP. (2014). Teacher-research as CPD: A project with Chilean secondary school teachers. In: HayesD. (Ed.) Innovations in continuing professional development for ELT (pp. 111–132). London: The British Council.
36.
van CompernolleR.A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
37.
van CompernolleR.A.WilliamsL. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16, 39–60.
38.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
