This study examined the use of dynamic mediation procedures for assessing language modifiability of bilingual students with a previous history of learning disabilities. Pre- and post-mediation measures included students' language scores as well as behavioral observations of language learning and modifiability during mediation. The investigation also explored the use of a qualitative approach describing students' response attempts pre- and post-mediation. Results indicated significant improvement in students' language scores as well as significant changes in the quality of their responses after mediation. The dynamic procedures proved useful in describing their language learning needs and responsiveness to intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bachman,L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. (pp. 170–183). Oxford University Press.
2.
Bain,B.A. & Olswang, L.B. (1995). Examining readiness for learning two-word utterances by children with specific expressive language impairment: Dynamic assessment validation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 81–91.
3.
Bernstein, B. L. (1989). Assessing children with limited English proficiency: Current perspectives. Topics in Language Disorders, 9, 15–20.
4.
Billingsley,F., White, O., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
5.
Budoff,M., & Friedman, M. (1964). “Learning potential” as an assessment approach to the adolescent mentally retarded. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 434–439.
6.
Burt,M., Dulay, H., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1984). Bilingual Syntax Measure.San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
7.
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. 82–116). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
8.
Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R.A., Jones, R.S., & Steinberg, E. (1985). Differences between retarded and non-retarded children in transfer following equivalent learning performance: Breakdowns in flexible use of information. Intelligence, 9, 297–315.
9.
Cole,K.N., Dale, P.S., & Mills, P.E. (1991). Individual differences in language delayed children's responses to direct and interactive preschool instruction. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, (1), 99–124.
10.
Cole,K.N., Dale, P.S., Mills, P.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1993). Interaction between early intervention curricula and student characteristics. Exceptional Children, 59, (6), 1–12.
11.
Cole,K.N., Mills, P.E., & Dale, P. (1989). A comparison of the effects of academic and cognitive curricula for young handicapped children one and two years post-program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, (3), 110–127.
12.
Dale,P.S. & Cole, K.N. (1988). Academically based and cognitively based programs for young handicapped children: A comparative evaluation. Exceptional Children, 54, 439–447.
13.
Dalton, E. F. (1991). Idea Oral Language Proficiency Test.Brea, CA: Ballard and Tighe.
14.
Damico, J. S. (1991). Descriptive assessment of communicative ability in limited English proficient students. In E. V. Hamayan & J. S. Damico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students (pp. 157–217). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
15.
De Avila, E.A., & Duncan, S. E. (1983). Language Assessment Scales.Monterey, CA: Publishers Test Service.
16.
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. 141–172). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
17.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers.Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
18.
Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability.Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
19.
Figueroa,R., Fradd, S. H., & Correa, V. I. (1989). Bilingual special education and this issue. Exceptional Children, 56, 145–152.
20.
Figueroa, R. A., & García, E. (1994). Issues in testing students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Multicultural Education, Fall, 10–19.
21.
Gardner, M. F. (1990). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test.Novato, CA: Academic Therapy.
22.
Gerber, A. (1993). Language related learning disabilities: Their nature and treatment.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
23.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V.F. (1996) Language Diversity: Implications for Assessment. In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.), Advances in assessment of communication and language (pp. 29–56). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
24.
Haywood, H. C., Brown, A.L., & Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19, 4, 411–422.
25.
Jensen,M., Robinson-Zañartu, C., & Jensen, M. L. (1992). Dynamic assessment and mediated learning: Assessment and intervention for developing cognitive and knowledge structures (Monograph). Atlanta: Delphi Health & Sciences.
26.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
27.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
28.
McNeill, D. (1966). A study of word association. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 548–557.
29.
Okagaki,L. & Sternberg, R.J. (1991). Cultural and parental influences on cognitive development. In L. Okagaki & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.) Directors of development: Influences on the development of children's thinking (pp. 101–120), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
Olswang,L. & Bain, B. (1996). Assessment information for predicting upcoming change in language production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 2, 414–423.
31.
Olswang,L., Bain, B., & Johnson, G. (1992). Using dynamic assessment with children with language disorders. In: S.F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.) Causes and effects in communication language intervention. Communication and language intervention series (pp. 187–215), Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
32.
Olswang,L., Bain, B., Rosendahl, P., Oblak, S., & Smith, A. (1986). Language learning: Moving performance from a context-dependent to -independent state. Child Language and Teaching Therapy, 2, 180–210.
33.
Pe&ntild;a, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model and its language applications. In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.) Advances in Assessment of Communication and Language (pp. 281–308). Baltimore: MD: Brookes Publishing.
34.
Pe&ntild;a, E. (1993). Dynamic assessment: A non-biased approach for assessing the language of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
35.
Peña, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 269–280.
36.
Robinson-Zañartu, C. (1993, November). Dynamic assessment and mediated learning interventions.Seminar presented to the Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Training Project Bilingual School Psychologists and Speech-Language Pathologists, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.CTB/McGraw-Hill Book Company. (1987). Spanish Assessment of Basic Education Monterey, CA: Author.
37.
Taylor,O., & Payne, K. (1983). Culturally valid testing: A proactive approach. Topics in Language Disorders, 3(3), 8–19.
38.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed. and Trans.) Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934).
39.
Wade, K. M., & Haynes, W. O. (1989). Dynamic assessment of spontaneous and cue responses in adult-directed and child-directed play: A statistical and descriptive study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 5, 157–173.
40.
Woodcock, R. W. (1981). Woodcock language proficiency battery: Spanish form.Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.
41.
Woodcock,R.M. & Johnson, M.B. (1981, 1988). Batería Woodcock Psico-Educativa en Español. (The Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
