时间：2022-10-30 10:49:35
Abstract: This paper first tries to make clear the meaning of “assessment” and “test” to an EFL classroom practitioner, and then briefly introduces Dynamic Assessment (henceforth DA for short), its theoretical roots, and some models. Finally, this paper further makes some explorations of Dynamic Assessment in classroom practice at home and abroad.
Key Words: Dynamic Assessment; College English Teaching
1Literature Review
1.1Assessment and Test
Bachman (1990) defines assessment as “the process of quantifying the characteristics of persons associating to explicit procedures and rules”, and he believes that its main function is to provide information for people to make decision.
According to Genesee et al.(1999) , a test is narrow and static, designed to measure a set of skills or behaviors at one point in time, whereas assessment is broader in scope and dynamic in nature, involving gathering information over a period of time.
Relationship between test and assessment (Genesee, 1999)
1.2Dynamic Assessment
Dynamic testing is basically defined as an approach which understands individual differences and their implications for instruction, and which imbeds intervention within the assessment procedure. In dynamic assessment procedures, the focus is on the process rather than the products of learning. In other words, the “dynamic” nature of this approach is based on Vygotsky’s observation that a body can show what it is only in movement (Lidz , 2003).
Sternberg and Grigeronko(2002) summarized the differences between dynamic assessment and non-dynamic assessment in three main points. Table 1 below compares the two views from the practical perspective:
Table1. Methodological Differences Between Dynamic and Non-Dynamic Assessment
The most striking item in the above comparison is the third one. What is seen as a threat to test reliability in non-dynamic testing is seen as the most important part of the testing process in dynamic assessment. This crucial difference is also the main reason why dynamic assessment procedures are taking so much resistance in today’s educational settings.
In China, some scholars give preliminary DA theory introduction (Tang, 2004; Han, 2009; Fan, 2006, 2009); Peng (2002, 2004) offers seven rationales for developing classroom assessment, and designed a five-phase assessment process; Lan and Liu (2010) introduce DA and produce a simple framework for English writing instruction based on the principle of DA. In foreign countries, Lantolf (1994) and Poehner (2008) make some explorations and provide some practice examples in L2 field.
2The theoretical roots for dynamic assessment
Dynamic assessment is basically grounded in Vygotsky’s innovative insight that in the zone of proximal development instruction leads development. Before Vygotsky, the general view about assessment was that the independent problem solving was the only valid indication of mental functioning, but Vygotsky argued against this view by suggesting that independent problem solving reveals only a part of person’s mental ability, his actual developmental level. Yet a person’s potential developmental level is as important as the actual developmental level. Vygotsky argued that responsiveness to assistance is an indispensable feature for understanding cognitive ability because it provides an insight into the person’s future (potential) development. Vygotsky exemplified his view with the following example:
Imagine that we have examined two children and have determined that the mental age of both is seven years. This means that both children solve tasks accessible to seven-years-old. However, when we attempt to push these children further in carrying out the tests, there turns out to be an essential difference between them.
With the help of leading questions, examples, and demonstrations, one of them easily solves test items taken from two years above the child’s level of [actual] development. The other solves test items that are only a half-year above, his or her level of [actual] development.
(Vygotsky 19567, cited in Wertsch 1985)
From the point of view of their independent activity they are equivalent, but from the point of view of their immediate potential development they are sharply different. That which the child turns out to be able to do with the help of anpoints us toward the zone of the child’s proximal development.
This means that with the help of this method, we can take stock not only of today’s completed process of development, not only the cycles that are already concluded and done, not only the processes of maturation that are completed; we can also take stock of processes that are now in the state of coming into being, that are only ripening, or only developing.
(Vygotsky 1956; cited in Wertsch 1985)
3Models of Dynamic Assessment
Lantolf (2004) propose the terms interventionist and interactionist to describe the two general kinds of mediation that DA researchers can make available. DA researchers have generally referred to mediation as “intervention.” (see Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Lidz, 1991). Intervention, or mediation, can entail a wide array of support, ranging from standardized hints to dialogic interaction. Lidz and Gindis (2003) observe that the importance Vygotsky placed on the social origin of higher psychological functions means that “it would be important to discriminate between those interactions that propose such development and those that do not, assuming that all interactions are not equal.” Vygotsky himself conceived of the relationship between the examiner and examinee as “cooperation” rather than intervention, clearly implying a dialogic interaction, with both participants negotiating and sharing in the responsibility for development.
Interactionist DA follows Vygotsky’s preference for cooperative dialoging. In this approach, assistance emerges from the interaction between the examiner and the learners, and is therefore highly sensitive to the learner’s ZPD. Interventionist DA, on the other hand, remains closer to psychometric concerns of many static forms of assessment. Interventionist DA uses standardized administration procedures and forms of assistance in order to produce easily quantifiable results that can be used to make comparisons between and within groups, and can be contrasted with other measures and used to make predictions about performance on future tests.
4Its Application in College English Teaching Context
Donato (1994) explores the process through whichforeign language learners mediate each other through collaborative interaction in a classroom learning environment. The students of French at an American university under study had worked together in class for a period of ten weeks. The study underscores the need to account for the rich fabric of interindividual help that arises in social interactions, and has proved that in the process of peer scaffolding, learners can expand their own L2 knowledge and extend the linguistic development of their peers.
Peng (2002) offers seven rationales for developing classroom assessment, and designed a five-phase assessment process: planning, observing, reflecting, analyzing, and decision-making.
Lan and Liu (2010) produce a simple framework for English writing instruction based on the principle of DA. The case study proves that the dialogic way of teaching is of great help in enhancing learners’ writing interest and improving their writing competence. The study is designed to test the effect of using DA framework on students’ writing ability and motivation by providing mediation as a vehicle for promoting students to span the ZPD established by the distance between them and their teacher or peers in a writing task and achieve the aim of enhancing their writing competence. The findings confirm that learners’ writing ability can be substantially and comprehensively improved, and that learners’ motivation of writing can be markedly stimulated.
5Conclusion
The review of literature reveals that DA is a useful framework to be used in the language classrooms as it focuses on potential rather than final achievement thus DA has a great potential to be a useful tool of learning and assessment in the language classroom.
DA is not yet widely practiced and is still virtually unknown to many psychologists and educators and is only beginning to make an appearance in applied linguistics.
References：
Bachman L.. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donato Richard. 1994. Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning[A]. In James Lantolf & Gabriela Appel. Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research [C]. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Genesee, et al. 1999. Scenarios for ESL Standards-based Assessment [J]. A paper delivered at the 33rd TESOL Conference in New York.
Lantolf J. & Appel G., 1994. Theoretical Framework: An Introduction to Vygotskian Perspectives on Second Language Research. [A]. In James Lantolf & Gabriela Appel. Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research [C]. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lantolf J. & Thorne S. 2006: Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development [M]. Oxford University Press, USA.
Lidz Carol S. 1991. Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment[M]. The Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. 2003. Dynamic assessment [A]. In R. Fern ndez-Ballesteros (eds.). Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment [C]. London: SAGE.
Peng Jinding &Tan Ying. 2002. Developing and Managing Dynamic Assessment in a Chinese EFL Classroom [J]. Foreign Language Education.
Poehner M.. 2008. Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development [M]. Springer US.
Sternberg, Robert & Grigorenko Elena (2002), Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential [M]. Cambridge University Press.
Tang, Wei. 2004. New ideas of teaching foreign language: The DA theory and practice[J] . Journal of Hangzhou Teachers College (Natural Science Edition).（3）
Wertsch, J. 1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind [M]. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
范兆兰，2006，动态评估：对传统智力测验的挑战和超越[J]，陕西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）（3）。
范兆兰，2009，动态评估：一种能力测评的新视角[J]，青岛大学师范学院学报（3）。
韩宝成，2009，动态评价理论、模式及其在外语教育中的应用[J]，外语教学与研究（6）。
兰笑笑，刘燕，2010，动态评估融入英语过程写作的个案研究[J]，中国应用语言学（1）。
彭金定，2004，大学英语课堂教学动态评估[J]，外语界（3）。