DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT IN INCLUSIVE ELEMENTARY EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE USABILITY, METHODS, AND CHALLENGES IN THE PAST DECADE

Authors

  • Hang Le Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Finland orcid.org/0009-0008-0870-8034
  • Juliene Madureira Ferreira Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Åkerlundinkatu 5, Office 509 Tampere, 33100, Finland orcid.org/0000-0002-8977-5982
  • Elina Kuusisto Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Finland orcid.org/0000-0001-5003-547X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejse.v9i3.5009

Keywords:

dynamic assessment, systematic literature review, elementary education, special education

Abstract

Dynamic Assessment (DA) provides alternative strategies for assessing children in inclusive education but hasn’t been widely incorporated in teacher education as a tool for mediating learning in special education. This systematic literature review investigates empirical studies reported in the last decade to provide a comprehensive overview of the applications DA in inclusive elementary education, reviewing common methodologies and tools, challenges, and recommended solutions to develop DA. In the final analysis, 24 articles published between 2010- 2021 met the study’s inclusion criteria. Results indicate that DA is mainly used to identify students’ educational needs, predict students’ future performance and responsiveness to intervention, and assess academic development, but rarely to guide intervention, inform instruction, or develop individual educational planning. DA is mainly used by trained researchers and their assistants, instead of teachers, despite its relevance to educational processes. Challenges employing DA and recommendations for developing its practice are critically discussed.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

Author Biographies

  • Hang Le, Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Finland orcid.org/0009-0008-0870-8034

    Hang Le is a graduate of Tampere University with a Master of Arts degree in Teacher Education. Her academic interests are focused on the field of dynamic assessment and the advancement of inclusive practices in developing countries.

  • Juliene Madureira Ferreira, Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Åkerlundinkatu 5, Office 509 Tampere, 33100, Finland orcid.org/0000-0002-8977-5982

    Juliene M. Ferreira is an assistant professor (tenure track) in Education - focus area of Educational Psychology. Her research investigates children’s sociability in challenging interactions and contexts (e.g., special education), analyzing how intersubjectivity influence/impact learning and development. She is equally interested in improving inclusive education in teacher education and training.

  • Elina Kuusisto, Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University, Finland orcid.org/0000-0001-5003-547X

    Elina Kuusisto is a university lecturer (diversity and inclusive education) at the Faculty of Education and Culture, Tampere University. She holds the title of Docent at the University of Helsinki. Her academic writings deal with teachers’ professional ethics and school pedagogy, with a special interest in purpose in life, moral sensitivities, and a growth mindset.

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A., & Smith, R. 2006. Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203967157

Al-Hroub, A. 2011. Developing assessment profiles for mathematically gifted children with learning difficulties at three schools in Cambridgeshire, England. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003400102

Al-Hroub, A., & Whitebread, D. 2019. Dynamic assessment for identification of twice-exceptional learners exhibiting mathematical giftedness and specific learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 41(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1585396

Aljunied, M., & Frederickson, N. 2011. Does central coherence relate to the cognitive performance of children with autism in dynamic assessments? Autism, 17(2), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361311409960

Alony, S., & Kozulin, A. 2007. Dynamic assessment of receptive language in children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040701291415

Amod, Z., Heafield, D., & Seabi, J. 2017. Assessing a REMEDIAL intervention programme in developing the planning skills of grade 4 and 5 Learners. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(4), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2017.1406067

Boland, A., Cherry, M. G., & Dickson, R. (Eds.). 2017. Doing a systematic review: A student's guide (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, USA.

Bosma, T., Stevenson, C. E., & Resing, W. C. 2017. Differences in need for instruction: Dynamic testing in children with arithmetic difficulties. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(6), 132. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i6.2326

Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. 2008. The predictive validity of Dynamic Assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310366

Calero, M. D., Belen, G.-M. M., & Robles, M. A. 2011. Learning potential in high IQ children: The contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.025

Cho, E., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bouton, B. 2014. Examining the predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of decoding to forecast response to tier 2 intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412466703

Cho, E., Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. 2020. Dynamic assessment for identifying spanish-speaking english learners’ risk for mathematics disabilities: Does language of administration matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419898887

Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A., Cho, E., & Crouch, R. C. 2010. Selecting at-risk FIRST-GRADE readers for Early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage GATED screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448

Elleman, A. M., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bouton, B. 2011. Exploring dynamic assessment as a means of identifying children at risk of developing comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407865

Elliott, J. 2003. Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review, 55(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910303253

Elliott, J. G., Resing, W. C., & Beckmann, J. F. 2018. Dynamic assessment: A case of unfulfilled potential? Educational Review, 70(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1396806

Ferreira, J. M. 2018. Inclusive Early Childhood Education and the role of peer interaction: Brazil and Finland in dialogue [Published Doctoral dissertation]. University of Tampere. University Press (Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 1947). https://trepo.tuni.fi/handle/10024/104470

Ferreira, J. M., Mäkinen, M., & Mäkihonko, M. 2022. Equality, equity, and the child’s best interest as guiding principles in the implementation of the Finnish inclusive education system. In G. M. Kraemer, K. Wunder & L. B. Lopes, A educação das pessoas com deficiência: Desafios, Perspectivas e Possibilidades (pp. 134-159). Pimenta Cultural Publishing, Brazil.

Feuerstein, R., Klein, P. S., & Tannenbaum, A. J. 1999. Mediated Learning Experience: theoretical, psychological and learning implications. Freund Publishing House, Israel.

Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, R. S. 2001. Is dynamic assessment compatible with the Psychometric Model? Specific Learning Disabilities and Difficulties in Children and Adolescents, 218–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511526794.008

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R., Falik, L. H., & Rand, Y. 2003. The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The learning propensity assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. International Center for the Enhancement of Learning Potential.

Feuerstein, R., & Lewin-Benham, A. 2012. What Learning Looks Like – Mediated Learning in Theory and Practice K-6. Teachers College Press, UK.

Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. 2004. Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0015-y

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., & Caffrey, E. 2011. The construct and predictive validity of a Dynamic assessment of young children learning to Read: Implications for RTI Frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407864

Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. 2012. Responsiveness-to-intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150

Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. 2017. Does a dynamic test of phonological awareness predict early reading difficulties? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415609185

Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. 2018. Predicting reading disabilities using Dynamic assessment of decoding before and after the onset of reading instruction: A longitudinal study from kindergarten through Grade 2. Annals of Dyslexia, 68(2), 126–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-0159-9

Ghanbarpour, M. 2017. A qualitative meta-synthesis of research on Dynamic assessment of second/foreign language Learning: Implications for language teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(4), 731. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0804.12

Grigorenko, E. 2009. Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention: Two Sides of One Coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326207

Hasson, N., & Dodd, B. 2014. Planning intervention using dynamic assessments: A case study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659014521642

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. 2019. Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429485480

Haywood, H. C., & Tzuriel, D. 2002. Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7702_5

Haywood, H., & Lidz, C. 2006. Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications. In Dynamic Assessment in Practice. Cambridge University Press, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607516

Haywood, H. C. 2012. Dynamic Assessment: A history of fundamental ideas. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11(3), 217-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.11.3.217

Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.-P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O’Cathain, A., Rousseau, M.-C., & Vedel, I. 2018. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of copyright, 1148552(10).

Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. 2011. Making instruction and assessment responsive to diverse students’ progress: Group-administered dynamic assessment in teaching mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407868

Jensen, M., & Feuerstein, R. 1987. The Learning Potential Assessment Device: From philosophy to practice. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. Guilford Press, USA.

Kaniel, S., Tzuriel, D., Feuerstein, R., Ben-Shachar, N., & Eitan, T. 1999. Dynamic assessment: Learning and transfer abilities of Ethiopian Immigrants to Israel. In R. Feuerstein, P. S. Klein & A. J. Tannenbaum, Mediated Learning Experience: theoretical, psychological and learning implications (pp. 179–209). Freund Publishing House.

Kirschenbaum, R. J. 1998. Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(3), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629804200302

Kong, J. E., & Orosco, M. J. 2016. Word-problem-solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715607347

Kozulin, A., & Presseisen, B. Z. 1995. Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky's and Feuerstein's perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3002_3

Kozulin, A. 2011. Learning potential and cognitive modifiability. Assessment in Education : Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.526586

Kozulin, A. 2015. Dynamic Assessment of Adult Learners’ Logical Problem Solving: A Pilot Study with the Flags Test. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 14(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.14.2.219

Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. 2016. Dynamic Assessment of EFL Text Comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034302023001733

Lawrence, N., & Cahill, S. 2014. The impact of dynamic assessment: An exploration of the views of children, parents and teachers. British Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12060

Lee Swanson, H. 2011. Dynamic testing, working memory, and reading Comprehension growth in children with Reading Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407866

Leeber, J., Candeias, A., & Grácio, L. 2011. With a different glance: Dynamic assessment of functioning of children oriented at development & inclusive learning. Antwerp: Garant Publishing.

Leeber, J., Partanen, P., Candeias, A., Grácio, M. L., Bohacs, K., Sonnesyn, G., Van de Veire, H., Van Trimpont, I., Orban, R., János, R., Demeter, K., Schraepen, B., & Dawson, L. 2013. The need for a more dynamic and ecological assessment of children experiencing barriers to learning to move towards inclusive education: A summary of results of the Daffodil Project. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology, Special Issue, 175-205.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339(7716), b2535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

Moscardini, L., & Moscardini, C. 2020. Dynamic assessment and teachers' knowledge of children's mathematical thinking: A case study in children's mathematics. Support for Learning, 35(4), 522–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12331

Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. 1997. Cognitive assessment system. Riverside Publishing Company.

Orosco, M. J., Swanson, H. L., O’Connor, R., & Lussier, C. 2011. The effects of dynamic strategic math on english language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911416248

Orosco, M. J. 2014. Word problem strategy for latino english language learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713504206

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. 2016. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Petersen, D. B., & Gillam, R. B. 2015. Predicting reading ability for bilingual latino children using dynamic assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413486930

Poehner, M. E. 2018. Probing and provoking L2 Development: the object of mediation in dynamic assessment and mediated development. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, & M. Swain, The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development (pp. 249-265). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624747

Regalla, M., & Peker, H. 2017. Prompting all students to learn: Examining dynamic assessment of special needs and typical students in a prekindergarten inclusive French program. Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12261

Rezaee, A. A., & Ghanbarpour, M. 2016. The Measurement Paradigm and Role of Mediators in Dynamic Assessment: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis. International Journal of Language Studies, 10(4), 77–108.

Samran, M., & Mehdi, M. 2018. Dynamic Assessment in Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory: Origins and Main Concepts. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(3), 600-607. https://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0903.20

Schwarz, C. M., Hoffmann, M., Schwarz, P., Kamolz, L.-P., Brunner, G., & Sendlhofer, G. 2019. A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis on the risks of medical discharge letters for patients’ safety. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-3989-1

Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. 2012. Predicting first graders' development of Calculation VERSUS word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024968

Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. 2016. Does the value of Dynamic assessment in predicting end-of-first-grade mathematics performance differ as a function of English Language proficiency? The Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1086/688870

Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Svanes, I. K., & Skagen, K. 2017. Connecting feedback, classroom research and Didaktik perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 334-351, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1140810

Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. 2001. A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002321

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of a systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.

UNESCO. 2005. Guidelines for Inclusion. Ensuring Access to Education for All (Orientaciones para la inclusión. Asegurar el acceso a la Educación para Todos)

Vogelaar, B., Bakker, M., Elliott, J. G., & Resing, W. C. 2016. Dynamic testing and test anxiety amongst gifted and average-ability children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12136

Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

Wagner, R., & Compton, D. 2011. Dynamic Assessment and Its Implications for RTI Models. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407859

Walqui, A. 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050608668639

Watkins, A. 2007. Assessment in inclusive settings: Key issues for policy and practice. Odense. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. 2020. Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7

Downloads

Published

2023-08-29

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 3 (2023)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).