View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Is Potential Ever Realised?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Is Potential Ever Realised?
Language: English
Authors: Stringer, Phil (ORCID 0000-0002-3491-3508)
Source: Educational Review. 2018 70(1):18-30.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Alternative Assessment, Educational Assessment, Research and Development, Theory Practice Relationship, Evaluation Methods, Standardized Tests, Intervention, Research Needs, Evaluation Research, Educational Psychology, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1397900
ISSN: 0013-1911
Abstract: This paper reports on what has happened since Elliott ("Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential," 2003) in those applications of dynamic assessment that he considered. There continues to be two broad applications, one, largely researcher led, and the other, largely practitioner led, although there are examples of researcher-practitioners. Since Elliott, arguably, it is now relatively easy both to reach consensus over constructs and assessment processes and also to mutually respect differences through clarity over professional and assessment purposes. There is a fuller account than Elliott provided of educational psychologists' practice in the UK, which partly serves to highlight the difference in purpose and imperative to research and evaluate outcomes that persists for researchers and practitioners. The paper concludes by arguing that the premise in Elliott's title of "realising potential" was always contestable.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 76
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1167604
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEK3OGxDgJc157N2OnyUh58AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIUUSM2UfAf2YRKPzgIBEICBmxdEZF7sbxWK9DYhgvnNpYkoCKhPVQDyKcLxmXZbwbPo3m6QfYWtsuGEop7iBzaAow0ba7O2JU9J7J3P8E4BUQVfQFFH66olhogOkXAAoLTBoRY6bERXN4abIB-659n3gkT7elF82lc7ueJYUMH03zQpTMCL2dGG-ukdHgyZ-VdffMchitDgb6zO5C2rwyZBvgPdkplKHO2CIDFJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0127185009;edi01jan.18;2019Feb01.08:45;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0127185009-1">Dynamic assessment in educational settings: is potential ever realised? </title> <p>This paper reports on what has happened since Elliott ("Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential", 2003) in those applications of dynamic assessment that he considered. There continues to be two broad applications, one, largely researcher led, and the other, largely practitioner led, although there are examples of researcher–practitioners. Since Elliott, arguably, it is now relatively easy both to reach consensus over constructs and assessment processes and also to mutually respect differences through clarity over professional and assessment purposes. There is a fuller account than Elliott provided of educational psychologists' practice in the UK, which partly serves to highlight the difference in purpose and imperative to research and evaluate outcomes that persists for researchers and practitioners. The paper concludes by arguing that the premise in Elliott's title of "realising potential" was always contestable.</p> <p>Keywords: Dynamic assessment; learning processes; metacognition; children; adolescents; educational psychology</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The purpose of this paper is to reflect on developments in dynamic assessment (DA) since this journal published Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]) "Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential". Quite rightly, Elliott's article has been admitted to <emph>Educational Review's</emph> Hall of Fame but what has changed in the 14 years or so since it was written? The short answer to this question is that by the terms of his article, very little. For example, in relation to the potential promise of DA, we do not know if know if it is used with more, the same or less prevalence than in 2003 and the reasons for this for applied educational psychologists outlined by Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]), Stringer, Elliott, and Lauchlan ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref3">65</reflink>]) and from a USA school psychologist perspective, Lidz ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref4">41</reflink>]), are still more or less relevant. Certainly, so far as qualitative DA approaches are concerned, the challenge Elliott laid down for future studies in the conclusion of his article has not been realised, at least not by applied educational psychologists. At the same it is arguable (Beckmann [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]) if his challenge can be realised even so far as research with dynamic tests is concerned. Indeed, a bigger question is whether the potential of many human processes can ever be realised. If there is one thing to learn from Vygotsky's ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref6">74</reflink>], 194) construct of <emph>zone of proximal development</emph> (often referred to as <emph>potential</emph> development) it is that there is always a gap between <emph>actual</emph> development and <emph>potential</emph> development.</p> <p>Undoubtedly and predictably, there have been changes. Key figures in researcher-led dynamic testing are working in other areas of research and the interests of those still researching in this area have understandably evolved, for instance to focus still more strongly on intervention studies. The use of DA has spread into other fields, particularly in the areas of speech and language therapy (for example, Hasson and Joffe [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>]) and of second language development and bilingualism (for example, Camilleri, Hasson, and Dodd [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Poehner and Lantolf [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref9">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Before going further, however, first a declaration of interest and second, a confession to a sin of commission: First, my perspective in this article is that of an applied educational psychologist in the UK and my emphasis more than that of Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]) will be on how DA practice has developed in the UK and the tasks that it faces. Second, within the scope of this article, it is necessary both to be selective and concise in reviewing developments since 2003. So, for instance, I will not describe developments in other fields, as important and interesting as they are.</p> <p>The organisation of this article will be roughly guided by my interpretation of Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]) central themes, which are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • The lack of consensus between those using the two different methods of dynamic assessment</item> <p></p> <item> • The potential promise of dynamic assessment and the use of standardised dynamic tests to assess potential to learn</item> <p></p> <item> • The extent to which DA informs intervention, especially classroom instruction</item> <p></p> <item> • The requirements of future studies</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0127185009-3">Standardised and clinical approaches to dynamic assessment: is there any continuing disagreem...</hd> <p>Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]) draws the common distinction in the literature between standardised and clinical approaches to DA and the nature of disagreement or lack of consensus between these approaches. In my view consensus was never far away because most DA researchers and practitioner implicitly or explicitly have followed Gipps ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>], 163) who urged an end to such "false dichotomies" as "standardised tests versus performance assessment". The way to consensus, though, was proposed by Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]) himself, through considering purposes, constructs, and the implications and methods that follow from those constructs.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-4">Definitions and consensus</hd> <p>The seeds of confusion for anyone coming new to DA are sown simply by the plethora of definitions, with most if not all authors in the field offering their particular definition. Without claiming that it is exhaustive, Stacey ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref15">57</reflink>], 14–15) lists nine definitions including that of Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]). As Tiekstra, Minnaert and Hessels ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref17">66</reflink>], 132) confirm, "...there is no consensus about the definition of dynamic assessment in the field. Moreover, different approaches exist (standardised vs. clinical), which may cause confusion in research as well as in practice". From my point of view, this begs the question: in order to avoid confusion, does there need to be a consensus over different approaches? Surely a starting point is to embrace the consensus that exists and then provide clarity over how the general term, DA, is used. Arguably, clarity only becomes a problem when testing (a possible feature of an assessment) is used as a synonym for assessment (as an entire process) and by the same token, dynamic testing is used as a synonym for dynamic assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-5">Purposes and consensus</hd> <p>Clarity over purposes can build consensus by respecting difference and as Gipps ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>], 163) indicates, being aware of what different assessment approaches offer. Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>]) himself draws upon Grigorenko and Sternberg ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]) to note the drawing of an early contrast, that between the purposes of researchers and those of "teachers and clinicians" (Elliott, 17; Grigorenko and Sternberg, 104). Both researchers and practitioners have to address particular purposes. Undoubtedly in my experience, educational psychologists can take a relaxed approach to clarity of purpose, not heeding the warnings of, for example, Cizek ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]) and Burden ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]). The point is summarised for educational psychologists by Lauchlan ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref23">38</reflink>]) and Lauchlan and Carrigan's ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref24">39</reflink>]): clarity of assessment purpose is required to avoid misunderstanding.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-6">Constructs, implications, methods and consensus: in the beginning was Vygotsky</hd> <p>By common consent among writers in the field, the roots of dynamic assessment lie in Vygotsky's work although Kozulin ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>], 72) emphasises that Feuerstein (and his collaborators) developed their theory and practice, including mediation, independently of Vygotsky. Kozulin ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>], 69) notes that in Vygotsky's account, the <emph>zone of proximal development</emph> can be interpreted both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitatively through a mediated learning approach to dynamic assessment and the identification of the emergent "cognitive functions that are absent in the unaided performance of the child, but reveal themselves when the child is aided by adults". Quantitatively through dynamic testing and "a measure of the difference between unaided and aided performance" (Kozulin [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref27">35</reflink>], 69). Kozulin ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref28">36</reflink>], 176) implicitly advises users of DA to make a careful distinction between approaches to investigating learning potential and those investigating "cognitive modifiability". Poehner and Lantolf ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>], 239–240) utilise this qualitative and quantitative distinction to propose, respectively, the terms <emph>interactionist</emph> and <emph>interventionist</emph> dynamic assessment.</p> <p>Haywood and Lidz ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref30">25</reflink>], 7), Resing ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref31">50</reflink>], 83) and Lidz ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref32">42</reflink>], 293–4) have sought to establish consensus in dynamic assessment by pointing to the key features of all approaches, in defining intelligence as "ability to learn", that the intervention of the assessor is integral, and the central focus is on how the learner responds to this.</p> <p>The argument in this article, then, is that consensus is to be found through clarity over which constructs apply to which DA methods, assessment purposes and the implications that follow as a consequence. If consensus can be identified, then, what is the current status of dynamic testing and measuring potential since Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>])?</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-7">Learning potential fourteen years on</hd> <p>Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]) used <emph>potential</emph> in two ways: the promise of DA in general, and as a reference to learning potential. So far as promise is concerned, as noted at the beginning of this article it is difficult to know if DA is used with greater prevalence, not just in the UK but elsewhere.</p> <p>What is the current status of learning potential research? A consideration of this also takes in another of Elliott's themes: the extent to which dynamic assessment informs intervention, especially classroom instruction, and the related theme of the focus of dynamic assessment on either specific curricular domains or the cognitive processes that are necessary for all learning and problem solving.</p> <p>It is worth briefly contemplating Sternberg and Grigorenko's work since they were a substantial source for Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref35">10</reflink>]). Their later writing (Sternberg and Grigorenko [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref36">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref37">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref38">61</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref39">62</reflink>]) is much less concerned with dynamic testing (with the exception of Grigorenko [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]). They have turned to emphasising the relationship between intelligence and culture summed up by the title of the 2006 chapter, <emph>Why cultural psychology is necessary and not just nice: The example of the study of intelligence</emph>.</p> <p>Elliott has continued his interest in dynamic testing. Recent publications (for example, Elliott and Resing [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]) have maintained a critique both of the lack of evidence for the extent to which DA informs instructional intervention and also the extent to which programmes aimed at developing cognitive skills lead to improved academic attainment. This article usefully complements that of Resing ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref42">50</reflink>]). In both, a connection is made with the part that DA might play in response to intervention. This is a theme that Grigorenko ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]) examined although there is not the scope here to elaborate this topic and in addition to Grigorenko, an interested reader is referred as a starting point to Fuchs et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>More relevant, here, are the increasing attempts to inform classroom instruction. In addition to Elliott and Resing, other authors have pointed to this, including Haywood ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>], 228) who sees it as a "critical need," and for applied psychologists, Lauchlan and Carrigan ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>]) with their "practical classroom resource". Tiekstra, Minnaert, and Hessels ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref47">66</reflink>]), for instance, have conducted a systematic literature review of dynamic tests with the aim of examining their consequential validity (although their search criteria only included articles published up until 2011). They conclude that there is still insufficient evidence for the extent to which understanding the nature of a child's cognitive needs leads to relevant intervention.</p> <p>Since the beginning of the 1990s, Resing has made a major contribution to interventionist approaches, in particular through studying inductive reasoning, frequently using analogical reasoning tasks and a graduated prompts approach to providing structured assistance during the assessment (see Resing [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref48">50</reflink>], 85, for the rationale for this). While learning potential remains a key background construct, a central purpose of this work has been to inform classroom instruction (for example, Bosma, Hessels, and Resing [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>]; Bosma, Stevenson, and Resing [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>]; Resing [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref51">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref53">50</reflink>]) and has also included a series of studies utilising a microgenetic research design (Tunteler and Resing [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref54">67</reflink>]; Resing et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref55">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref56">52</reflink>]). Resing has also made a contribution to computerised dynamic testing (Resing and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]; Stevenson, Touw, and Resing [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref58">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref59">10</reflink>]) also cited Hessels and Hessels-Schlatter as other key researchers in Europe. Their significant contribution to the field has continued, from developing interventionist assessment measures (Hessels, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref60">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref61">27</reflink>]; Schlatter and Buchel, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]; Hessels-Schlatter [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref63">30</reflink>]) to developing a computerised version of the Hessel's Analogical Reasoning Test (Hessels, Vanderlinden, and Rojas [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]), often with a focus on particular populations such as individuals with severe learning difficulties (Hessels and Hessels-Schlatter [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref65">28</reflink>]). Most recently, their work has targeted metacognition and self-regulated learning (Hessels-Schlatter [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]; Hessels-Schlatter et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>It should go without saying that potential to learn is not the prerogative of research psychologists. From his earliest work in dynamic assessment research and test development, Tzuriel has modelled consensus by accommodating research and clinical applications of dynamic assessment, in that his tests can be used either as a research or clinical version (e.g. Tzuriel [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref68">68</reflink>]). For him there is value in combining "both as harmoniously contributing to [his] understanding of human behaviour" (Tzuriel, personal communication, July 4, 2017). His wide-ranging research has included consideration of the measurement of learning potential, for example, in the context of the use of dynamic assessment as outcome measures in cognitive education programmes (Tzuriel [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref69">70</reflink>]). This article captures the distinction in conceptualising potential from different DA perspectives. As Tzuriel ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref70">70</reflink>], 127) points out, whereas some researchers have taken a psychometric route in their work, Feuerstein and colleagues have not sought to quantify potential because of the implied limitations on cognitive functioning.</p> <p>Similarly, and in concluding this section, Lidz ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref71">42</reflink>], 301), describes how she grew disinterested in the idea of learning potential since, "Essentially, it does not provide information of any substantial value because we all have potential beyond our current level of functioning". My reading of the literature is that researcher preoccupation with learning potential has understandably evolved. While not necessarily accepting Lidz's point, learning potential research generally proceeds on the basis that all children can learn and that researchers aim for a particular kind of rigour in their use of standardised approaches.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-8">Educational psychologists' practice in the United Kingdom</hd> <p>A significant but minor theme in Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref72">10</reflink>]) article is the use of DA by educational psychologists in the UK. The balance will be redressed here although since the development and use of DA in the UK merits an article in its own right, I will focus on current practice.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-9">Instruments and procedures</hd> <p>Educational psychology practice has been most influenced by Tzuriel's "clinical qualitative approach" (Tzuriel [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref73">70</reflink>], 127, and elaborated in Tzuriel [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref74">69</reflink>], 65–75). A significant attraction follows from the purpose of qualitative DA: to assess how a learner changes during the assessment process, since those changes indicate propensity to learn and develop <emph>if</emph> there is cognitive intervention (Tzuriel [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref75">70</reflink>], 115). It means that DA makes for an empowering person-centred form of assessment to support inclusive practice (Stringer [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref76">64</reflink>]), the more so if that assessment takes place in the presence, say, of parents and school staff. Also, as Lauchlan and Carrigan ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref77">39</reflink>]) emphasise, the assessment process itself can directly translate into recommendations for the child and for parents and adults, who share a collaborative responsibility for that child's learning.</p> <p>As already noted, it is difficult to establish how many educational psychologists use dynamic assessment instruments as part of their routine practice. Both Stacey ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref78">57</reflink>]) and Stanley-Duke ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref79">58</reflink>]) describe small scale surveys where participants report frequently using a range of dynamic assessment instruments. It is a fair assumption that these are representative of instruments and procedures generally used within the profession because they are indicative of access to training, in particular from Tzuriel, who frequently offers workshops in the UK. The range embraces tests developed by Tzuriel and from Feuerstein et al.'s <emph>Learning Propensity Assessment Device</emph> (unpublished but see Feuerstein et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref82">12</reflink>] for descriptions). Most participants use play-based assessment and in particular draw upon <emph>Let's Play</emph> (also known as <emph>The Bunny Bag</emph>: Waters and Stringer [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref83">76</reflink>]; Waters [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref84">75</reflink>]). Although Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref85">10</reflink>], 19) suggested the popularity in the UK of Lidz and Jepsen's <emph>Application of Cognitive Functions Scale</emph>, I am not aware of any educational psychologist that has used or makes use of this scale, although it is used elsewhere in the world (see Lidz [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref86">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Stacey's ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref87">57</reflink>]) study, some participants reported use of the <emph>Cognitive Abilities Profile</emph> (Deutsch and Mohammed [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref88">8</reflink>]). In general, though, there is no reliable evidence of the extent to which any dynamic assessment procedures are used. The same applies to the more recent development by Lauchlan and Carrigan ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref89">39</reflink>]). Their publication is a departure in that it emphasises a staged assessment process that could be applied to any curricula or test material. They base this on Feuerstein's theories (Feuerstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref90">13</reflink>]) and on the non-intellective factors proposed by Tzuriel, Samuels, and Feuerstein ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref91">71</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-10">A framework for assessment, intervention and recommendations for intervention</hd> <p>Conceiving of dynamic assessment as a theoretical and conceptually driven process seems critical in encouraging its use. In making sense of my own dynamic assessment practice, I developed a framework for learning, as shown in Figure 1, <emph>The Components of Learning</emph>. Vermunt ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref92">72</reflink>]), writing independently of any reference to dynamic assessment theory, was an influence and in particular, Feuerstein, Tzuriel and Lidz. Figure 1 provides me with a visual guide to inform my efforts as an assessor using mediating learning experience (MLE) theory (in addition to other references to Feuerstein, see also Feuerstein, Klein, and Tannenbaum [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]). These efforts consider if a child has difficulties with the cognitive demands of a task, metacognitive aspects, feelings and motivation or any combination of those. It is also a framework both to explain learning and also to influence recommendations about intervention to children and young people, their parents and to staff in schools and other settings.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. The components of learning.</p> <p>Optimal learning, then, is effectively a product of the intersection of an individual's cognitive functions, metacognitive skills and non-intellective factors (feelings and motivation). The Figure follows Feuerstein et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref94">13</reflink>], 152–157) account of the role of MLE. They suggest that the reason a child experiences, say, learning difficulties, is due to access to MLE. Individual differences caused through heredity or genetic factors and wider environmental factors are termed "distal factors" and they function to affect access to MLE. The appropriate provision of MLE then determines how a child can be helped to overcome these distal factors. Feuerstein et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>]) also provide elaboration of cognitive functions and metacognitive skills and Tzuriel, Samuels, and Feuerstein ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref96">71</reflink>]) and Tzuriel ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref97">69</reflink>], 72–73) provide elaboration of the non-intellective factors.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-11">Connecting assessment with intervention</hd> <p>By definition, conducting DA means intervening with a child or young person, essentially to find out the meditational strategies, which are required to promote effective learning. For educational psychologists, that means as Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref98">10</reflink>], 19) puts it, the cognitive processes used to solve problems and to learn, rather than the particular cognitive skills required by a particular curricular domain. In effect, the intervention used in the assessment is a rehearsal and, frequently, modelling for observing parents and school staff for what can be done at home and school to support learning. One of the strengths of Lauchlan and Carrigan's ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref99">39</reflink>]) work is the strategies they suggest as a basis for intervention in the classroom, although they have equal applicability to non-teaching staff, such as teaching assistants, and to parents.</p> <p>In Hampshire local authority, educational psychologists have taken intervention in another direction. Both examples are a response to changes in England's National Curriculum, which has brought an increased emphasis on learning processes. The first example (Burt and Stringer [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref100">5</reflink>]) is curricular domain specific and reports a study in a primary school that uses recent research to devise and pilot a programme to improve children's metacognitive understanding about maths. The second example, as yet [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref101">34</reflink>] (Jenkins, et al.), is a four<bold>-</bold>session programme drawing largely but not exclusively on Feuerstein's theories. It focuses on whole school staff development aimed at improving task analysis and the quality of instruction and support for all learners and in particular those seen as experiencing learning difficulties.</p> <p>Before concluding this section and as a way of leading into the next, there is another point to draw out. A dominant theme in Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref102">10</reflink>]) article is standardisation. An argument rarely made in the literature is that while Feuerstein, Tzuriel, Lidz and others do not offer psychometric standardisation, they do offer a qualitative, process-based approach, with recognisably <emph>standard</emph> procedures, founded on robust theory and principles of meditational practice. It is this that guides educational psychology practice in the UK and that Lauchlan and Carrigan ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]) have utilised.</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-12">What can be done to improve the evidence base?</hd> <p>This section addresses what has happened in response to Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref104">10</reflink>], 24) challenge that future studies should go beyond "case study testaments". Taking this at face value, so far as applied psychologists (and certainly educational psychologists in the UK are concerned) there continues to be little published evidence that directly meets this challenge.</p> <p>However, first, why is there a problem with case study accounts? Second, what practical value would there be in trying to compare interventions based on dynamic and static tests? It seems perverse in light of Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref105">10</reflink>]) earlier observation (p.20) that applied educational psychologists in both the UK and USA increasingly doubt the value of static assessment and its central purpose to classify and categorise children according to norms. The purpose of DA, of course, and its aim of informing intervention, is quite different. There is anecdotal evidence provided to educational psychologists by children and young people, parents, and staff in schools that dynamic assessment produces recommendations for meaningful interventions that can be realistically implemented. As for evidence of gains, given the general history of learning failure that characterises most of the children referred to educational psychologists, any improvement in a child's progress that is reported on the basis of an educational psychologist's recommendations is sufficient and satisfactory evidence. Naïve or not, this is consistent with Feuerstein's resolve that it is illogical to judge an essentially qualitative process-based approach to dynamic assessment by the standards adopted by quantitative approaches to dynamic <emph>testing</emph>. "What is at stake is not theoretical elegance, but issues that affect the lives and destinies of real people" (Feuerstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref106">15</reflink>], 218).</p> <p>Less naïvely, there is no doubt more that educational psychologists could do to strengthen their evaluations of the use of DA and go beyond largely theoretical articles (including this one). There are some interesting examples of publications within the last five years (Hill [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref107">33</reflink>]; Lauchlan [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref108">38</reflink>]; Lauchlan and Carrigan [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref109">39</reflink>]; Lawrence and Cahill [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref110">40</reflink>]) and studies based on doctoral research (Green [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref111">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref112">20</reflink>]; Stacey [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref113">57</reflink>]). Green's research is the first to consider the competencies that UK-based educational psychologists require to conduct dynamic assessment. Emerging doctoral research by Stanley-Duke (not submitted) uses Q Method to investigate the educational psychologists' choice of assessment tools, including dynamic assessment.</p> <p>It would be timely to bring together these various research methods to build coherence to disparate efforts and to act as a spur to further, systematic studies. Contrary to Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref114">10</reflink>]), case studies and case study research could play an important role if greater rigour is applied. The second phase of Stacey's ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref115">57</reflink>]) study fulfils this by carefully following Yin's account of case study method (2003, cited in Stacey, p.94) for a detailed analysis of one educational psychologist's work with an individual child and the follow-up work undertaken by a member of the school staff. Lidz ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref116">42</reflink>], 301) also recommends the relevance of single-case research. There is of course, a long history of the systematic use of this procedure (for example, Kratochwill [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref117">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Microgenetic methods as "a means for obtaining the type of fine-grain information that seems necessary to advance understanding of cognitive change" (Siegler [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref118">55</reflink>], 226) are also beginning to be used in dynamic assessment research. Given the purpose of these methods and their concern with cognitive change, it seems surprising that they have not been used widely in the DA research, especially since accounts of the method have been available for a long time in the research literature on child development. In fact, as Siegler and Crowley ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref119">56</reflink>], 608) remark, the history of microgenetic methods can be dated to the 1920s and to Vygotsky and to Werner. So far as DA is concerned, Tunteler and Resing ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref120">67</reflink>]), Resing et al. ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref121">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref122">52</reflink>]), and Marzban, Bagheri, and Sadighi ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref123">44</reflink>]) have all published studies using microgenetic methods.</p> <p>Finally, although it is beyond the scope of this article, there appear to be sufficient grounds to question whether Elliott's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref124">10</reflink>]) challenge stands up to scrutiny, even by the terms of standardised DA. Beckmann ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref125">1</reflink>]), with implicit reference to Elliott's observations about the unfulfilled potential of dynamic testing, describes the paradoxical nature of considering the "promise" of DA. Beckman builds an argument, ultimately suggesting, "...that the only promise dynamic testing could possibly make is regarding its usefulness to the psychometric measurement of psychologically relevant constructs" (p.320). He states that it is not possible to directly test this promise because of problems in establishing the validity of all dynamic tests. Beckman's arguments about validity are part of a well-worn path highlighted in the DA literature (for example, Tzuriel [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref126">69</reflink>], 214; Haywood & Lidz ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref127">25</reflink>], 329) and which goes back as least as far as Messick ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref128">45</reflink>]), who has had a major influence on researchers, including Gipps ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref129">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-13">Concluding comments</hd> <p>The purpose of this article is to report on what has happened in the field of DA since Elliott ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref130">10</reflink>]). There continues to be two broad applications. One, largely researcher led, is concerned with developing and using standardised dynamic tests to research cognitive interventions. The other, largely practitioner led, is concerned with qualitative assessment to meet a similar end but with noticeably less evaluation of outcomes. Arguably, since Elliott, it is now relatively easy both to reach consensus over constructs and assessment processes and also to mutually respect differences through clarity over professional and assessment purposes. Further work is required to establish rigorous evidence of outcomes, especially on the part of practitioners although in this regard, Elliott's concluding recommendations are open to challenge. Ultimately, and as Vygotsky's influence continues, in my view, the premise in Elliott's title of "realising potential" was always contestable. It is worth recalling that, "The zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in embryonic state" (Vygotsky [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref131">73</reflink>], 86). We have not yet reached "tomorrow".</p> <hd id="AN0127185009-14">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.</p> <ref id="AN0127185009-15"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Beckmann, J. F. 2014. "The Umbrella That is Too Wide and Yet Too Small: Why Dynamic Testing Has Still Not Delivered on the Promise That Was Never Made." Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 13 (3): 308–323.10.1891/1945-8959.13.3.308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref49" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bosma, T., M. G. P. Hessels, and W. C. M. Resing. 2012. "Teachers' Preferences for Educational Planning: Dynamic Testing, Teaching Experience and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy." Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 560–567.10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref50" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bosma, T., C. E. Stevenson, and W. C. M. Resing. 2017. "Differences in Need for Instruction: Dynamic Testing in Children with Arithmetic Difficulties." Journal of Education and Training Studies 5 (6): 132–145.10.11114/jets.v5i6.2326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burden, R. 1996. "Meaningful Questions or Meaningless Answers: Worthwhile Assessment in a Changing World." In Perspectives on Learning Difficulties, edited by S. Kriegler and P. Englebrecht. Hatfield, SA: Van Schaik.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref100" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burt, E., and P. Stringer. Submitted. "How Does the 'PACE Maths' Approach Impact on the Practice of School Staff when Working in Class with a Small Group in a Maths Lesson?"</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Camilleri, B., N. Hasson, and B. Dodd. 2014. "Dynamic Assessment of Bilingual Children's Language at the Point of Referral." Educational & Child Psychology 31 (2): 57–72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref21" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cizek, G. J. 1997. "Learning, Achievement, and Assessment: Constructs at a Crossroads." In Handbook of Classroom Assessment: Learning, Achievement and Adjustment, edited by G. D. Phye. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref88" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Deutsch, R. M., and M. G. Mohammed. 2010. Cognitive Abilities Profile. Administration and Scoring Manual: A Tool for Consultation and Observation of Learners Based on Dynamic Assessment. Canterbury: Real Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Elliott, J. 1993. "Assisted Assessment: If it is 'Dynamic' Why is it so Rarely Employed?" Educational & Child Psychology 10 (4): 48–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, J. 2003. "Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential." Educational Review 55 (1): 15–32.10.1080/00131910303253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, J. G., and W. C. M. Resing. 2015. "Can Intelligence Testing Inform Educational Intervention for Children with Reading Disability?" Journal of Intelligence 20 (3): 137–157.10.3390/jintelligence3040137</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feuerstein, R., L. H. Falik, and R. Feuerstein. 2003. "The Learning Potential Assessment Device." In Feuerstein's Theory and Applied Systems: A Reader, edited by International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential. Jerusalem, Israel: International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential. <ulink href="http://www.icelp.info/media/328542/Learning-Potential-Assesment-Device-Reader.pdf">http://www.icelp.info/media/328542/Learning-Potential-Assesment-Device-Reader.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feuerstein, R., R. S. Feuerstein, L. H. Falik, and Y. Rand. 2002. The Dynamic Assessment of Cognitive Modifiability. Jerusalem, Israel: International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feuerstein, R., P. S. Klein, and A. J. Tannenbaum, eds. 1991. Mediated Learning Experience. London: Freund Publishing House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feuerstein, R., R. Miller, Y. Rand, and M. R. Jensen. 1981. "Can Evolving Techniques Better Measure Cognitive Change?" Journal of Special Education 15 (2): 201–219.10.1177/002246698101500209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand, and J. E. Rynders. 1988. Don't Accept Me as I Am. Helping "Retarded" People to Excel. New York: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978-1-4899-6128-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs, D., L. S. Fuchs, D. L. Compton, B. Bouton, E. Caffrey, and L. Hill. 2007. "Dynamic Assessment as Response to Intervention: A Scripted Protocol to Identify Young At-Risk Readers." Teaching Exceptional Children 39 (5): 58–63.10.1177/004005990703900508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gipps, C. V. 1994. Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. London: Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, R. 2015. "Quality Dynamic Assessment: Using the Delphi Technique to Identify the Competencies Needed for Effective Dynamic Assessment." DEdPsy diss., University College London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, R. 2015, unsubmitted. "Ensuring Quality in Educational Psychologists' Use of Dynamic Assessment: A Delphi Study."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigorenko, E. L. 2009. "Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention Two Sides of One Coin." Journal of Learning Disabilities 42 (2): 111–132.10.1177/0022219408326207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigorenko, E. L., and R. J. Sternberg. 1998. "Dynamic Testing." Psychological Bulletin 124 (1): 75–111.10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.75</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasson, N., and V. Joffe. 2007. "The Case for Dynamic Assessment in Speech and Language Therapy." Child Language Teaching and Therapy 23 (1): 9–25.10.1177/0265659007072142</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haywood, H. C. 2012. "Dynamic Assessment: A History of Fundamental Ideas." Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 11 (3): 217–229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haywood, H. C., and C. S. Lidz. 2007. Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels, M. G. P. 2000. "The Learning Potential Test for Ethnic Minorities (LEM): A Tool for Standardized Assessment of Children in Kindergarten and the First Years of Primary School." In Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications, edited by C. S. Lidz and J. G. Elliott. New York: Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels, M. G. P. 2009. "Estimation of the Predictive Validity of the HART by Means of a Dynamic Test of Geography." Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 8: 6–22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels, M. G. P., and C. Hessels-Schlatter. 2008. "Pedagogical Principles Favouring the Development of Reasoning in People with Severe Learning Difficulties." Educational and Child Psychology 25 (1): 66–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels, M. G. P., K. Vanderlinden, and H. Rojas. 2011. "Training Effects in Dynamic Assessment: A pilot study of Eye Movement as Indicator of Problem Solving Behaviour Before and After Training." Educational and Child Psychology 28 (2): 101–113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels-Schlatter, C. 2002. "A Dynamic Test to Assess Learning Capacity in People with Severe Impairments." American Journal on Mental Retardation 107: 340–351.10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0340:ADTTAL>2.0.CO;2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels-Schlatter, C. 2010. "Development of a Theoretical Framework and Practical Application of Games in Fostering Cognitive and Metacognitive Skills." Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 9 (2): 116–138.10.1891/1945-8959.9.2.116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hessels-Schlatter, C., M. G. P. Hessels, H. Godin, and H. Spillman-Rojas. 2017. "Fostering Self-Regulated Learning: From Clinical to Whole Class Interventions." Educational and Child Psychology 34 (1): 110–125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, J. 2015. "How useful is Dynamic Assessment as an Approach to Service Delivery Within Educational Psychology?" Educational Psychology in Practice 31 (2): 127–136.10.1080/02667363.2014.994737</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, K., A. Watson, L. Manger, and S. Poynter. Unpublished. Helping Harry Learn. Professional Development Programme for School Staff. Winchester: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Education Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozulin, A. 1998. Psychological Tools: A Sociocultural Approach to Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozulin, A. 2011. "Learning Potential and Cognitive Modifiability." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (2): 169–181.10.1080/0969594X.2010.526586</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R. 1978. "Foundations of Time-Series Research." In Single Subject Research Design, edited by T. R. Kratochwill, 1–100. New York: Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauchlan, F. 2012. "Improving Learning Through Dynamic Assessment." Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist 29 (2): 95–106.10.1017/edp.2012.13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauchlan, F., and D. Carrigan. 2013. Improving Learning Through Dynamic Assessment. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawrence, N., and S. Cahill. 2014. "The Impact of Dynamic Assessment: An Exploration of the Views of Children, Parents and Teachers." British Journal of Special Education 41 (2): 181–211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lidz, C. S. 2009. "Dynamic Assessment in School Psychology." National Association of School Psychologists, Communique 38 (2): 16–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lidz, C. S. 2014. "Leaning Toward a Consensus About Dynamic Assessment. Can We? Do We Want to?" Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 13 (3): 292–307.10.1891/1945-8959.13.3.292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lidz, C. S. 2016. Around the World with the Application of Cognitive Functions Scale. Unpublished manuscript, uploaded to researchgate.net, March 28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marzban, H., M. S. Bagheri, and S. Sadighi. 2017. "Enhancing Learner's Listening Comprehension in an EFL Context Through Interactionist Dynamic Assessment." Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, Tehran 7(1): 247-268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Messick, S. 1980. "Test Validity and the Ethics of Assessment." American Psychologist 35 (11): 1012–1027.10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.1012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poehner, M.E., and J. P. Lantolf. 2003. Dynamic Assessment of L2 Development: Bringing the Past into the Future. CALPER Working Paper Series, No. 1. The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research. (Also published as: Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. 2004. "Dynamic Assessment: Bringing the Past into the Future." Journal of Applied Linguistic, 1: 49-74.).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poehner, M. E., and J. P. Lantolf. 2005. "Dynamic Assessment in the Language Classroom." Language Teaching Research 9 (3): 233–265.10.1191/1362168805lr166oa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resing, W. C. M. 2000. "Assessing the Learning Potential for Inductive Reasoning in Young Children." In Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications, edited by C. S. Lidz and J. G. Elliott, 229–262. Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Science.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resing, W. C. M. 2006. "Using Children's 'Ability to Learn' in Diagnosis and Assessment." Educational and Child Psychology 23 (3): 6–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resing, W. C. M. 2013. "Dynamic Testing and Individualized Instruction: Helpful in Cognitive Education." Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 12 (1): 81–95.10.1891/1945-8959.12.1.81</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resing, W. C. M., M. Bakker, C. M. E. Pronk, and J. G. Elliott. 2016. "Dynamic Testing and Transfer: An Examination of Children's Problem-Solving Strategies." Learning and Individual Differences 49: 110–119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resing, W. C. M., M. Bakker, C. M. E. Pronk, and J. G. Elliott. 2017. "Progression Paths in Children's Problem Solving: The Influence of Dynamic Testing, Initial Variability, and Working Memory." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 153: 83–109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resing, W. C. M., and J. G. Elliott. 2011. "Dynamic Testing with Tangible Electronics: Measuring Children's Change in Strategy Use with a Series Completion Task." British Journal of Educational Psychology 81 (4): 579–605.10.1348/2044-8279.002006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlatter, C., and F. Buchel. 2000. "Detecting Reasoning Abilities of Persons with Moderate Mental Retardation: The Analogical Reasoning Learning Test (ARLT)." In Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications, edited by C. S. Lidz and J. G. Elliott. New York: Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegler, R. S. 1995. "How Does Change Occur: A Microgenetic Study of Number Conservation." Cognitive Psychology 28: 225–273.10.1006/cogp.1995.1006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegler, R. S., and K. Crowley. 1991. "The Microgenetic Method: A Direct Means for Studying Cognitive Development." American Psychologist 46 (6): 606–620.10.1037/0003-066X.46.6.606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stacey, G. 2016. "'A Professional Decision You Have to Make': A Sociocultural Exploration of Practice and Impact Within Educational Psychologists Use of Dynamic Assessment." EdPsychD diss., University of Birmingham.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanley-Duke, M. Unsubmitted. "A Q Methodology Exploration of Influences on Assessment Tool Selection Amongst Educational Psychologists." To be submitted as a DEdPsy diss., University College London.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J., and E. L. Grigorenko. 2004a. "Why Cultural Psychology is Necessary and Not Just Nice: The Example of the Study of Intelligence." In Culture and Competence: Contexts of Life Success, edited by R. J. Sternberg and E. L. Grigorenko, 207–223. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/10681-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J., and E. L. Grigorenko. 2004b. "Why We Need to Explore Development in Its Cultural Context." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 50 (3): 369–386.10.1353/mpq.2004.0026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J., and E. L. Grigorenko. 2004c. "Intelligence and Culture: How Culture Shapes What Intelligence Means, and the Implications for a Science of Well-Being." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 359 (1449): 1427–1434.10.1098/rstb.2004.1514</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J., and E. L. Grigorenko. 2006. "Cultural Intelligence and Successful Intelligence." Group and Organization Management 31 (1): 27–39.10.1177/1059601105275255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, C. E., K. W. J. Touw, and W. C. M. Resing. 2011. "Computer or Paper Analogy Puzzles: Does Assessment Mode Influence Young Children's Strategy Progression?" Educational and Child Psychology 28 (2): 67–84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stringer, P. 2009. "Dynamic Assessment for Inclusive Learning." In A Psychology for Inclusive Education. New Directions in Theory and Practice, edited by P. Hick, R. Kershner, and P. Farrell, 127–138. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stringer, P., J. Elliott, and F. Lauchlan. 1997. "Dynamic Assessment and its Potential for Educational Psychologists, Part 2: The Zone of Next Development." Educational Psychology in Practice 12 (4): 234–239.10.1080/0266736970120409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiekstra, M., A. Minnaert, and M. G. P. Hessels. 2016. "A Review Scrutinising the Consequential Validity of Dynamic Assessment." Educational Psychology 36 (1): 112–137.10.1080/01443410.2014.915930</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunteler, E., and W. C. M. Resing. 2002. "Spontaneous Analogical Transfer in 4-year-olds: A Microgenetic Study." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 83: 149–166.10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00125-X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzuriel, D. 1995. The Cognitive Modifiability Battery (CMB): Assessment and intervention – Instruction Manual. Ramat-Gan: School of Education, Bar-Ilan University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzuriel, D. 2001. Dynamic Assessment of Young Children. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.10.1007/978-1-4615-1255-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzuriel, D. 2011. "Revealing the Effects of Cognitive Education Programmes Through Dynamic Assessment." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18 (2): 113–131.10.1080/0969594X.2011.567110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzuriel, D., M. Samuels, and R. Feuerstein. 1988. "Non-Intellective Factors in Dynamic Assessment." In Cultural Diversity and Learning Efficiency: Recent Developments in Assessment, edited by R. M. Gupta and P. Coxhead, 141–163. Basingstoke: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-19131-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vermunt, J. D. 1996. "Metacognitive, Cognitive and Affective Aspects of Learning Styles and Strategies: A Phenomenographic Analysis." Higher Education 31: 25–50.10.1007/BF00129106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language. Edited by A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waters, J. 1999. Let's Play. A Guide to Interactive Assessment with Young Children. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle upon Tyne City Council.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waters, J., and P. Stringer. 1997. "The Bunny Bag: A Dynamic Approach to the Assessment of Preschool Children." Educational and Child Psychology 14 (4): 33–44.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Phil Stringer</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref131"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1167604
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Is Potential Ever Realised?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stringer%2C+Phil%22">Stringer, Phil</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3491-3508">0000-0002-3491-3508</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Review%22"><i>Educational Review</i></searchLink>. 2018 70(1):18-30.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alternative+Assessment%22">Alternative Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Assessment%22">Educational Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+and+Development%22">Research and Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Theory+Practice+Relationship%22">Theory Practice Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Needs%22">Research Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Research%22">Evaluation Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Psychology%22">Educational Psychology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1397900
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-1911
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper reports on what has happened since Elliott ("Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Realising Potential," 2003) in those applications of dynamic assessment that he considered. There continues to be two broad applications, one, largely researcher led, and the other, largely practitioner led, although there are examples of researcher-practitioners. Since Elliott, arguably, it is now relatively easy both to reach consensus over constructs and assessment processes and also to mutually respect differences through clarity over professional and assessment purposes. There is a fuller account than Elliott provided of educational psychologists' practice in the UK, which partly serves to highlight the difference in purpose and imperative to research and evaluate outcomes that persists for researchers and practitioners. The paper concludes by arguing that the premise in Elliott's title of "realising potential" was always contestable.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 76
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1167604
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1167604
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00131911.2018.1397900
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 18
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Alternative Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research and Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Theory Practice Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Psychology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: Is Potential Ever Realised?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stringer, Phil
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-1911
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 70
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1