Sociocultural Theory, Dynamic Assessment and Academic Writing

Author(s):  
Prithvi N. Shrestha
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
James P. Lantolf ◽  
Jiao Xi ◽  
Valeriya Minakova

In the initial sociocultural theory (SCT) timeline, Lantolf and Beckett (2009) surveyed a broad spectrum of research informed by sociocultural psychology as it was extended into the field of second language acquisition and language teaching. Since that time, the amount of research that has been published within the SCT framework has grown exponentially. With regard to the educational setting, two major strands of research have emerged; one that addresses pedagogical practice and the other that deals with assessment. The assessment strand, Dynamic Assessment, adheres to principles that emerge from the SCT concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and is the topic of a separate timeline (see Poehner & Wang, forthcoming). The pedagogical strand, the topic of the present article, is generally referred to as Concept-based Language Instruction (C-BLI), although in some publications the rubric Concept-based Instruction (CBI) is used. Unfortunately, the abbreviation of the alternative rubric has on more than one occasion been confused with content-based instruction, also abbreviated as CBI. We would like to suggest here that it would be better if SCT researchers were to adopt C-BLI to avoid misinterpretations going forward.


2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-147

05–314Alderson, J. Charles (Lancaster U, UK) & Ari Huhta, The development of a suite of computer-based diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.3 (2005), 301–320.05–315Al-Hamly, Mashael & Christine Coombe (Kuwait U, Kuwait), To change or not to change: investigating the value of MCQ answer changing for Gulf Arab students. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.4 (2005), 509–531.05–316Broadfoot, Patricia M. (U of Bristol, UK), Dark alleys and blind bends: testing the language of learning. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.2 (2005), 123–141.05–317Cumming, Alister (U of Toronto, Canada; [email protected]), Robert Kantor, Kyoko Baba, Usman Erdosy, Keanre Eouanzoui & Mark James, Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10.1 (2005), 5–43.05–318Eckes, Thomas (TestDaF Institute, the Netherlands), Melanie Ellis, Vita Kalnberzina, Karmen Piorn, Claude Springer, Krisztina Szollás & Constance Tsagari, Progress and problems in reforming public language examinations in Europe: cameos from the Baltic States, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, France and Germany. Language Testing (London,UK) 22.3 (2005), 355–377.05–319Figueras, Neus (Department of Education, Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain), Brian North, Sauli Takala, Norman Verhelst & Piet Van Avermaet, Relating examinations to the Common European Framework: a manual. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.3 (2005), 261–279.05–320Green, Anthony (Cambridge ESOL Examinations, Cambridge, UK), EAP study recommendations and score gains on the IELTS Academic Writing test. Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10.1 (2005), 44–60.05–321Green, Rita & Dianne Wall (Lancaster U, UK), Language testing in the military: problems, politics and progress. Language Testing (London,UK) 22.3 (2005), 379–398.05–322Hasselgreen, Angela (The U of Bergen, Norway), Assessing the language of young learners. Language Testing (London,UK) 22.3 (2005), 337–354.05–323Klein, Joseph ([email protected]) & David Taub, The effect of variations in handwriting and print on evaluation of student essays. Assessing Writing (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) 10.2 (2005), 134–148.05–324Little, David (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland), The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.3 (2005), 321–336.05–325Lumley, Tom & Barry O'Sullivan (Australian Council for Educational Research, Australia), The effect of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking. Language Testing (London,UK) 22.4 (2005), 415–437.05–326Luxia, Qi (Guandong U of Foreign Studies, China), Stakeholders' conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.2 (2005), 142–173.05–327Poehner, Matthew E. & James P. Lantolf (The Pennsylvania State U, USA), Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research (London, UK) 9.3 (2005), 233–265.05–328Stansfield, Charles W. & William E. Hewitt (Second Language Testing Inc., USA), Examining the predictive validity of a screening test for court interpreters. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.4 (2005), 438–462.05–329Trites, Latricia (Murray State U, USA) & Mary McGroarty, Reading to learn and reading to integrate: new tasks for reading comprehension tests?Language Testing (London, UK) 22.2 (2005), 174–210.05–330Uiterwijk, Henny (Citogroep, Arnem, the Netherlands) & Ton Vallen, Linguistic sources of item bias for second generation immigrants in Dutch tests. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.2 (2005), 211–234.05–331Weems, Gail H. (Arkansas Little Rock U, USA; [email protected]), Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie & Daniel Lustig, Profiles of respondents who respond inconsistently to positively- and negatively-worded items on rating scales. Evaluation & Research in Education (Clevedon, UK) 17.1 (2003), 45–60.05–332Weir, Cyril J. (Roehampton U, UK), Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing (London, UK) 22.3 (2005), 281–300.05–333Xi, Xiaoming (U of California, USA), Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam?Language Testing (London, UK) 22.4 (2005), 463–508.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 132
Author(s):  
Widya Ratna Kusumaningrum ◽  
Prima Ferri Karma

<p class="AbstractText">The present study focuses on the implementation of traditional diagnostic test for speaking skill in the form of an interview with no specific set of corrective procedure. However, it triggers more increasing worries on the significance of standardized test such as not being able to unlock students’ speaking potential. This study highlights on Dynamic Assessment (DA) based on the Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1978). Fundamentally, DA inserts mediation process such as prompts, hints, and leading questions in its interview process. This study compares the efficacy of Dynamic Assessment (DA) and the standardized diagnostic test/Non-Dynamic Assessment (NDA) in diagnosing and unlocking their potential. Using a quasi-experimental research with non-equivalent group design (NEGD), this study focused on four micro speaking skills including pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, and fluency. The results suggested that the use of DA was able to identify their current speaking performance and uncover their speaking potential even if some were claimed to have the similar speaking level. While, the standardized test (NDA) emphasized only on the current performance and was not able to elicit their potential.</p>


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samran Daneshfar ◽  
Mehdi Moharami

Language assessment is the significant component of foreign language learning/ teaching. An aim of language assessment is to find about how much the process of education improves learners’ knowledge of the target language. One alternative to standardized testing, Dynamic Assessment derived from Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory offers a new insight into the field of assessment through integrating instruction and assessment. Dynamic assessment is a method of conducting a language testing to investigate and highlight the individual learner's possessed skills and potential development. The present study is going to display an overview of the importance of dynamic assessment in L2 learning, emphasizing the origins and principal concepts involved in the process. The study highlights the derivation of dynamic assessment from Vygotsky’s prominent sociocultural theory. Then it brings about an introduction to zone of proximal development the concept of which learner's cognitive development results through the application of dynamic assessment. Later the study discusses dynamic assessment in detail and introduces its differences with the traditional testing formats as well as introducing forms of dynamic assessment.


2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prithvi Shrestha ◽  
Caroline Coffin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document