This document discusses dynamic assessment, which involves assessing students with instruction. It distinguishes between latent and developed abilities, noting that conventional tests only measure developed abilities. Dynamic assessment aims to bridge this gap by using techniques like test-teach-test. The goal is to see how much a student can improve with learning opportunities. It was influenced by Vygotsky and aims to create more fair and developmental tests, especially for disadvantaged students. It assesses language responsiveness and growth rather than language alone.

1. Dynamic Assessment
Presentation for
University Course
Design workshop
October 2015

2. Dynamic Assessment
l Distinctions between ‘latent’ and ‘developed’
capacities
l Conventional (achievement) measure latent
capacity only as manifest in performance
l Performance can be affected by many
factors: schooling; prior experience; parental
support; test-taking ‘literacy’; …

3. Dynamic Assessment
l Developed abilities: what a test writer can do,
given the opportunities available
l Latent abilities: what a test writer might do,
given ideal or near ideal opportunities
l May wish to know differences between
developed and latent capacities
l Dynamic testing may serve as a bridge

4. Dynamic Assessment
l Dynamic assessment is assessment with
instruction
l Major recent approaches:
– Feuerstein et al: Structural cognitive modifiability
– Budoff et al: Learning potential testing
– Campione & Browne: Graduated prompt
approach
– Guthke et al: German learning potential tests
– Hessels & Hamers: Dutch learning potential tests

5. Dynamic Assessment
l Two common approaches: (1) test-teach-test
and (2) feedback on outcome
l Dynamic assessment taps into a developing
process
l Feedback is given explicitly or implicitly
l Examiner and writer in interactive
relationship

6. Dynamic Assessment
l The goal of dynamic assessment is to see
whether and by how much the test taker
changes as a result of being given an
opportunity to learn

7. Dynamic Assessment
l Historically attributed to Vygotsky principally
l Driven by the need to find tests that were:
– More culture-fair
– Workable in culturally / educationally diverse
settings
– More developmental, for educationally
disadvantaged students
– Aimed at assessing learning potential

8. Dynamic Assessment
l Dynamic assessment can provide a basis for
the teaching and developing of capacities
l And learning potential
l Can serve socio-political and cultural goals,
e.g. access and opportunities to writers
whose developed abilities may not be visible
on conventional assessments

9. The Assessment Approach
l Language-as-vehicle, rather than language-
as-target
l Reading and writing modes only
l Predominantly generic tests
l Downplay distinctions between first and
second (or additional) English language

10. The Assessment Approach
l Tests are based on a theme that is culturally
neutral / balanced, and that allows
opportunities for authentic academic
engagement
l Prior knowledge reduced as far as possible
l Assess topical and language responsiveness
l Assess language at grammatical, textual,
functional and socio-linguistic levels

11. The Assessment Approach
l Reduce the role played by strategic
competence (dealing with timed-tests;
answering questions according to mark
allocation)
l Keep theme and content non-emotive
l Use a ‘scaffolding’ approach
l Use an inter-disciplinary panel of developers

12. Selected bibliography
l Budoff, M. (1987). Measures for assessing learning potential. In
C.S. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach
to evaluating learning potential (pp.173-195). New York: The
Guilford Press
l Campione, J.C. & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic testing
with school achievement. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic
assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning
potential (pp.82-115). New York: The Guilford Press
l Feuerstein, R. et al (1980). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore:
University Park Press.

13. Selected bibliography
l Guthke, J. & Beckman, J. (2000). The learning test concept and
its application in practice. In C.S. Lidz & J.G. Elliott (Eds.)
Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications
(pp.17-69). Greenwich: Elsevier-JAI
l Hessels, M.G.P. & Hamers, J.H.M. (1993). The learning
potential test for ethnic minorities. In J.H.M. Hamers et al (Eds.)
Learning potential testing (pp.285-311). Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeitlinger
l Sternberg, R.J. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamic Testing.
The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

14. Selected bibliography
l Yeld, N. (2001). Equity, assessment and language of learning.
Key issues for Higher Education selection and access in South
Africa. Unpublished PhD thesis. Cape Town: UCT