Dynamic Assessment of Learners of a Signed Language

In this chapter, the authors discuss the use of dynamic language assessment with signing deaf children. This is a fairly new area, and, in spite of the growing interest on behalf of researchers and practitioners, there is very limited research. Given the lack of available studies, the authors use anecdotal information that draws on observations made by two of the authors from their own work with signing deaf children, one in a hospital and the other in a school setting. Some of the questions that will guide the discussions are: What makes dynamic assessment useful for signing deaf children? And, how do we determine that dynamic assessment is appropriate for a particular child, and how do we evaluate whether it works? The authors finish with a look at possible future directions and present recommendations on how to make dynamic assessment (more) meaningful for use with signing deaf children.

Dynamic Language Use in Bi/Multilingual Early Childhood Education Contexts

The population of bilingual students learning and using more than one language in the United States has more than doubled in the past 30 years. This is especially true in early childhood, which makes it crucial that educators of young emergent bilingual children understand and support these young children’s bi/multilingual development, including critically understanding the implication of adopting different perspectives of bi/multilingualism. Although much is known about classroom practices in support of emergent bilingual children in Kindergarten and beyond, little is known about those practices in the early years. This article provides a systematic review of relevant empirical studies that investigated teachers’ and children’s dynamic language use in bi/multilingual early childhood education settings. The authors identify several strategic languaging practices enacted by both teachers and children, and strategies for fostering these practices; as well as ways in which teachers leveraged their agency through their languaging practices. Implications for future research, practice, professional development, and policy are discussed.