Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T17:12:46.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

School Counsellor Use of Curriculum-based Dynamic Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2015

Jeanette Berman  and
Lorraine Graham
Jeanette Berman*
Affiliation:
University of New England, Australia
Lorraine Graham
Affiliation:
University of New England, Australia
*
Dr Jeanette Berman, School of Education, The University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. Email: jberman@metz.une.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

This study explored the conditions required for the practical implementation of dynamic assessment in schools. It involved the development and implementation of a curriculum-based dynamic assessment procedure in the area of school mathematics for use by school counsellors. Dynamic assessment has been developed within Vygotskian theories of learning, teaching and assessment. It incorporates a teaching or mediation phase that requires the application of clinical assessment and teaching skills. This paper argues that the competencies needed to conduct a successful dynamic assessment are a blend of professional skills possessed by school counsellors. The assessment procedures used in this study resulted in valid assessment information about students' cognitive development as well as aspects of their general cognitive, social and emotional functioning. The information gathered through dynamic assessment was particularly useful for informing classroom teaching. The practical problems associated with dynamic assessment identified in the literature were not found to be barriers to the use of these techniques in schools in this study. Instead, dynamic assessment, used to complement conventional assessment instruments, has the potential to enhance the classroom utility of assessments carried out by school counsellors.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools , Volume 12 , November 2002 , pp. 21 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anton, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centred classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the second-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303–318. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No EJ591 392).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Education Council. (1994). Mathematics: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Vic: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
Baroody, A. (1987). Children's mathematical thinking: A developmental framework for pre-school, primary and special education teachers. New York: Teachers College PressGoogle Scholar
Bazzini, L. (1993). The teaching/learning process and assessment practice: Two intertwined sides of mathematics education. In Niss, M. (Ed.), Cases of assessment in mathematics education (pp. 99–106). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M. (1998). Graphic calculators: An interpretive framework. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(2), 13–20. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 590 355).Google Scholar
Berman, J. (2001). An application of dynamic assessment to school mathematical learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New England: Armidale.Google Scholar
Berman, J. (2002). Development of understanding of place-value. In Barton, B., Irwin, K., Pfannkuch, M. & Thomas, M. (Eds), Mathematics education in the South Pacific: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia: Auckland (pp. 131–138). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
Board of Studies NSW. (1994). English K–6: Syllabus and support document. North Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
Boulton-Lewis, G. (1996). Representations of place value knowledge and implications for teaching addition and subtraction. In Mulligan, J. & Mitchelmore, M. (Eds.), Children's number learning: A research monograph of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia and the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (pp. 75–88). Adelaide, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia/Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.Google Scholar
Brainard, M. (1997). Assessment as a way of seeing. In Goodwin, A. L., (Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children (pp. 163–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., Delclos, V., Vye, N., Burns, S., & Hasselbring, T. (1987). Sate of the art and future directions. In Lidz, C.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 479–496). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Campbell, C., & Carlson, J.S. (1995). The dynamic assessment of mental abilities. In Carlson, J.S. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment, 3, (pp. 1–31). Connecticut: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In Lidz, C.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. (1987). A rationale for assessment alternatives in mathematics. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 43(3), 8–10.Google Scholar
Clay, M., & Cazden, C.B. (1999). A Vygotskian interpretation of Reading Recovery. In Lloyd, P. & Fernyhough, C. (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments: The zone of proximal development, Vol III (pp. 353–370). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 1998-06799-018).Google Scholar
Cordeiro, P. (1999). Vygotsky in the classroom: An interactionist literacy framework in mathematics. In Lloyd, P. & Fernyhough, C. (Eds.) Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments: The zone of proximal development, Vol III (pp. 353–370). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 1998-06799-020).Google Scholar
Day, J.D. (1983). The zone of proximal development. In Pressley, M. & Levin, J.R. (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations (pp. 155–175). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J.D., Engelhardt, J.L., Maxwell, S.E. & Bolig, E.E. (1997). Comparison of static and dynamic assessment procedures and their relation to independent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denvir, B., & Brown, M. (1986a). Understanding of number concepts in low attaining 7–9 year olds: Part I. Development of descriptive framework and diagnostic instrument. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denvir, B., & Brown, M. (1986b). Understanding of number concepts in low attaining 7–9 year olds: Part II. The teaching studies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, G. (1998). The skilled helper: A problem-management approach to helping (6th ed). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Embretson, S.E. (1987). Toward development of a psychometric approach. In Lidz, C.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 141–170). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive development. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Fleischner, J. (1994). Diagnosis and assessment of Mathematics learning disabilities. In Lyon, G. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views of measurement issues (pp. 441–458). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Gerber, M., Semmel, D., & Semmel, M. (1994). Computer-based dynamic assessment of multidigit multiplication. Exceptional Children, 61(2), 114–125.Google Scholar
Gillam, R.B., Pena, E.D., & Miller, L. (1999). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children's arithmetic: The learning process. New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Grigorenko, E., & Sternberg, R. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthke, J., & Wingenfeld, S. (1992). The learning test concept: Origins, state of the art, and trends (pp. 64–93). In Haywood, H. & Tzuriel, D. (Eds.), Interactive assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamers, J.H.M., & Sijtsma, K. (1995). Trends in learning potential assessment. In Carlson, J. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment, 3 (pp. 83–116). Connecticut: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Hamers, J.H.M., Hessels, M.G.P. & Tissink, J. (1995). Research on learning potential assessment. In Carlson, J. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment, 3 (pp. 145–183). Connecticut: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Haney, M.R., & Evans, J.G. (1999). National survey of school psychologists regarding use of dynamic assessment and other nontraditional assessment techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 36(4), 295–304.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, F.A., & Charnitski, C.W. (1998). Improving mathematics instruction using technology: A Vygotskian perspective. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the National Conventional of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 837).Google Scholar
Haywood, H., Brown, A., & Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psycho-educational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19(4), 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haywood, H., & Tzuriel, D. (Eds.). (1992). Interactive assessment. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haywood, H., & Wingenfeld, S. (1992). Interactive assessment as a research tool. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jitendra, A.K., & Kameenui, E.J. (1996). Experts' and novices' error patterns in solving part-whole mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, G., & Thornton, C. (1993). Vygotsky revisited: Nurturing young children's understanding of number. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 15(2 & 3), 18–28. Centre for Teaching/Learning of Mathematics.Google Scholar
Jones, G., Thornton, C., Putt, I., Hill, K., Mogill, A., Rich, B., et al. (1996). Multidigit number sense: A framework for instruction and assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 310–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, C.S. (Ed.). (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lidz, C.S. (1997). Dynamic assessment approaches. In Flanagan, D.P., Genshaft, J.L. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 281–295). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lidz, C.S., & Macrine, S.L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International, 22(1), 74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, C.S., & Thomas, C. (1987). The preschool learning assessment device: Extension of a static approach. In Lidz, C.S. (Ed.), Dynamic Assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. (1981). The development of children's understanding on numerical representation. Final Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 230 410).Google Scholar
McKay, D. (n.d.) Cognitive psychology and the school counsellor: The challenge of assessment. Unpublished paper distributed to NSW Department of Education school counsellors.Google Scholar
Malone, J., & Ireland, D. (1996). Constructivist research on teaching and learning mathematics. In Sullivan, P., Owens, K. & Atweh, B., (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 1992–1995 (pp. 119–133). Campbelltown, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
Meyers, J. (1987). The training of dynamic assessors. In Lidz, C.S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 403–425). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Mitchelmore, M., & Mulligan, J. (1996). Introduction. In Mulligan, J. & Mitchelmore, M. (Eds.), Children's number learning: A research monograph of Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia and the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (pp. 1–14). Adelaide, South Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia/Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.Google Scholar
New South Wales Department of Education. (1989). Mathematics K-6. Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (1999). Count me in too: Professional development package. Ryde, Australia: Curriculum Support Directorate.Google Scholar
Pengelly, H. (1990). Mathematical learning beyond the activity. In Steffe, L.P. & Wood, T. (Eds.), Transforming children's mathematics education: International perspectives (pp. 357–376). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peters, S. (1997). The relationship between the place value understanding of seven-year-old children and the strategies that they use to solve written addition problems. In Biddulph, F., & Carr, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 397–405). Aotearoa, NZ: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.Google Scholar
Pirie, S. (1989). Classroom-based assessment. In Ernest, P. (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 47–55). Lewes, East Sussex: Falmer.Google Scholar
Resnick, L. (1983). A developmental theory of number understanding. In Ginsburg, H. (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking, (pp. 109–151). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J.V. (Eds.). (1984). Children's learning in the “Zone of Proximal Development” New Directions for Child Development Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ross, S.H. (1986). The development of children's place-value numeration concepts in grades two through five. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sattler, J. (1992). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.Google Scholar
Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science education, 32, 45–80. (Abstract from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 584 561)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seng, S. (2000). Teaching and learning primary mathematics in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual international conference and exhibition of the Association for Childhood Education international. Baltimore, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 812).Google Scholar
Shepardson, D.P. (1999). Learning science in a first grade science activity: A Vygotskian perspective. Science Education, 83(5), 621–638.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurin, R. (1999). Concurrent and discriminant validity of a dynamic assessment procedure with special needs and typical preschool children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 435 681).Google Scholar
Sierink, T. (1989). Place value in the primary school. Unpublished B.Ed (Hons) thesis. University of Tasmania, Australia.Google Scholar
Sierink, T., & Watson, J.M. (1991), Children's understanding of place value. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 16(4), 33–42.Google Scholar
Skuy, M. (1997). Cross cultural and interdimensional implications of Feuerstein's construct of mediated learning experience. School Psychology International, 18, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, N. (1992). An analysis of children's understanding of numeration. In Space. The First and Final Frontier: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (pp. 521–540). Nepean, Sydney: University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Tzuriel, D. (1992). The dynamic assessment approach: A reply to Frisby and Braden. The Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 302–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Hanfmann, E. & Vakar, G. (Eds. & Trans.) Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiedl, K., Guthke, J., & Wingenfeld, S. (1995). Dynamic assessment in Europe: Historical perspectives. In Carlson, J. (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: European contributions to dynamic assessment (pp. 33–82). Connecticut, US: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Wingenfeld, S.A. (1991). Dynamic and neuropsychological assessment of the cognitive functioning of learning disabled and non-learning-disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
Wright, R.J.B., & Stewart, R. (1999). Can teachers know too much? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 4(2), 4–7.Google Scholar