Improving the Quality of Instruction: Roles for Dynamic Assessment

  • Victor R. Delclos
  • Nancy J. Vye
  • M. Susan Burns
  • John D. Bransford
  • Ted S. Hasselbring
Part of the Disorders of Human Learning, Behavior, and Communication book series (HUMAN LEARNING)

Abstract

Dynamic assessment is a relatively new and promising approach to educational evaluation. The term dynamic assessment, as defined in this discussion, refers to attempts to assess individuals’ responsiveness to teaching (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979) or “zone of sensitivity to instruction” (Vygotsky, 1978; Wood, 1980; Wood, Wood, & Middleton, 1978). The methods of assessment are different from those used in standardized, “static” assessments such as intelligence tests and achievement tests, where instruction on the part of the testor invalidates results. In dynamic assessment, instruction is essential. The critical components of dynamic assessment are systematic attempts (a) to change various components of tasks in order to assure that the examinee understands what is required, and (b) to experiment with different approaches to teaching the examinee how to complete the task. Both of these elements are included in order to determine specific instructional techniques that are most effective for each child.

Keywords

Penicillin Assure Malleability Craie 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aloia, G. F., & MacMillan, D. L. (1983). Influence of the EMR label on initial expectations for regular-classroom teachers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88 (3), 255–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, G. (1947). A point scale of performance tests. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1986). Computers, videodiscs and the teaching of thinking. (Technical Report No. 86.1.1). Nashville, TN: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N. J., & Reiser, J. R. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving: Suggestions from research. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markham (Eds.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–166). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, N. R. (1982). Preschool children’s learning and transfer of matrices problems: A study of proximal development. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. S. (1985). Comparison of “graduated prompt” and “mediational” dynamic assessment and static assessment with young children. (Technical Report No. 2). In Alternative assessments of handicapped children. Nashville, TN: John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., Bransford, J. D., & Sloan, K. (1986). Performance and behavior of young children in different types of dynamic assessment. (Technical Report No. 7). Alternative assessments of handicapped children. Nashville, TN: John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  9. Burns, M.S., Haywood, H. C., & Delclos, V. R. (1987). Young children’s problem-solving strategies: An observational study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(1), 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, M. S., Vye, N. J., Bransford, J. D., Delclos, V. R., & Ogan, T. A. (1986). Static and dynamic measures of learning in young handicapped children. (Technical Report No. 8). Alternative assessments of handicapped children. Nashville, TN: John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  11. Burton, R. R., Brown, J. S., & Fischer, G. (1984). Skiing as a model of instruction. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, H. M. (1979). Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delclos, V. R., Burns, S., & Kulewicz, S. J. (1987). Effects of dynamic assessment on teachers’ expectations of handicapped children. American Educational Research Journal, 24 (3) 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delclos, V. R., Burns, M. S., & Vye, N. J. (1986). Dynamic assessment of moderately handicapped children: A single subject design approach. Unpublished manuscript. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  16. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device: Theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hasselbring, T., Goin, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1985). Assessment and prescriptive teaching with elementary grade children. Unpublished paper presented at annual meeting of American Association on Mental Deficiency, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  18. Haywood, H.C. (1985). The malleability of intelligence: Cognitive processes as a function of polygenic-experiential interaction. Unpublished paper presented as keynote address to the National Association of School Psychologists, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  19. Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.) (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hoy, M. P. M. (1983). The perceived value of the standard psychological report compared with the Learning Potential Assessment Device report. Unpublished dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  21. Jensen, M. R., & Feuerstein, R. (1987). Dynamic assessment of retarded performers with the Learning Potential Assessment Device: From philosophy to practice. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: Foundations and fundamentals. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Lichtenstein, R. (1981). Comparative validity of two preschool screening tests: Correlational and classificational approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(2), 68–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lidz, C. S. (Ed.) (1987a). Dynamic assessment: Foundations and fundamentals. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Lidz, C. S. (Ed.) (1987b). Introduction chapter. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: Foundations and fundamentals. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  25. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vye, N. J., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). Dynamic assessment of intellectually handicapped children. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: Foundations and fundamentals. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wood, D. (1980). Teaching the young child: Some relationships between social interaction, language, and thought. In D. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  29. Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor R. Delclos
  • Nancy J. Vye
  • M. Susan Burns
  • John D. Bransford
  • Ted S. Hasselbring

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations