Evaluating instruction through classroom Dynamic Assessment

A sandwich approach

Authors

  • Kristin J. Davin University of North Carolina at Charlotte
  • Diana ​Gómez-Pereira Universidad de La Sabana

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.38914

Keywords:

gender agreement, transfer, concept development, cognitive mediation

Abstract

This article examines how a teacher utilized a sandwich approach to DA in a sixth grade Spanish World Language classroom to form a dialectical relationship between instruction and assessment. While existing research has provided evidence that mediation provided during group DA can promote the language learning of multiple students, these investigations presented data for only a few individuals in the group, rather than all. The present study explored how DA was used in the classroom to gather more accurate data on all learners so that instruction could be tailored more appropriately to individual’s needs. In the present study, the teacher delivered a pretest, analyzed students’ performance to design instructional modules, and then carried out a series of posttests and transfer tasks to determine learners’ mediated performance. Our findings focus on how the teacher’s analysis of student performance shaped her subsequent instructional decisions and interventions.

Author Biographies

Kristin J. Davin, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Kristin J. Davin (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Assistant Professor of Foreign Language Education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on second language development, assessment, and teacher preparation.

Diana ​Gómez-Pereira, Universidad de La Sabana

Diana Gómez-Pereira (Ed.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Assistant Professor in the department of Foreign Languages at Universidad de La Sabana. She teaches in the Master’s program and trains pre-service teachers.

References

Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language learning. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/11063/

ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines [Electronic version]. Retrieved January 10, 2017, from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012

Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78 (4): 465–483.

Ammar, A. and Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28 (4): 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1039/c005380p

Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals 42 (3): 576–598.

Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education. Retrieved on 10 September 2017 from https://www.aaia.org.uk/content/uploads/2010/06/Assessment-for-Learning-Beyond-the-Black-Box.pdf.

Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: A critical examination of constructs and practices. Modern Language Journal 100 (4): 813–829.

Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 17 (3): 303–322.

Davin, K. J. and Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher?directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals 46 (1): 5–22.

Davin, K. J., Troyan, F. J., and Hellmann, A. (2014). Classroom dynamic assessment of reading comprehension with second language learners. Language and Sociocultural Theory 1 (1): 1–23.

Bender, W. N. (2009). Beyond the RTI Pyramid: Implementation Issues for the First Five Years. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Bender, W. N. and Shores, C. (2007). Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Carroll, S. (1989). Second language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language Learning 39: 535–594.

Cho, E., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., and Bouton, B. (2014). Examining the predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of decoding to forecast response to tier 2 intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities 47 (5): 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412466703

Davison, C., and Leung, C. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOL Quarterly 43 (3): 393–415.

Dewaele, J. M., and Veronique, D. (2001). Gender assignment and gender agreement in advanced French interlanguage: A cross-sectional study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 275–296.

Escandón, A., and Sanz, M. (2011). The bottom-up move within Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: A pedagogical application for teaching agreement in Spanish as a foreign language. RELC Journal 42 (3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211421662

Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly 41 (1): 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4

Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Craddock, C. F., and Hamlett, C. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology 100 (4): 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012657

Fuchs, L. S. and Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children 39: 14–20.

Gal’perin, P. I. (1989). Mental actions as a basis for the formation of thoughts and images. Soviet Psychology 27 (2): 45–64.

Gal’perin, P. I. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology 30: 60–80.

Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities 42 (2): 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326207

Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological Tools: A Sociocultural Approach to Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kozulin, A. (2009). New reference points for dynamic assessment (DA): A commentary on Karpov and Tzuriel. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 8 (3): 242–245. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945

Kozulin, A. and Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International 23 (1): 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733

Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, 24–47. New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. M. Gass and A. Mackey (Eds), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 57–72. New York: Routledge.

Lantolf, J. P. and Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research 15 (1): 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328

Lantolf, J. P. and Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Montrul, S. and Potowski, K. (2007). Command of gender agreement n school-age Spanish-English Bilingual Children. International Journal of Bilingualism 11 (3): 301–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069070110030301

National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project (NSFLEP). (2006). National Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.

Negueruela-Azarola, E., García, P. N. and Buescher, K. (2015). From interaction to intra-action: The internalization of talk, gesture, and concepts in the second language classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, 233–249. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.

Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. Modern Language Journal 91 (3): 323–340.

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Berlin: Springer.

Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly 43 (3): 471–491.

Regalla, M. and Peker, H. (2017). Prompting all students to learn: Examining dynamic assessment of special needs and typical students in a prekindergarten inclusive French program. Foreign Language Annals 50 (2): 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12261

Sternberg, R. J. and Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Wagner, R. K. and Compton, D. L. (2011). Dynamic assessment and its implications for RTI models. Journal of Learning Disabilities 44 (4): 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407859

White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-Macgregor, M. and Leung, Y.-K. I. (2004). Gender and number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics 25 (2004): 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001067

Williams, L., Abraham, L. B. and Negueruela-Azarola, E. (2013). Using concept-based instruction in the L2 classroom: Perspectives from current and future language teachers. Language Teaching Research 17 (3): 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482950

Published

2019-09-04

How to Cite

Davin, K., & ​Gómez-Pereira, D. (2019). Evaluating instruction through classroom Dynamic Assessment: A sandwich approach. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 6(1), 6-31. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.38914

Issue

Section

Articles