CHAPTER 9

LECTURE EXTENSION

Dynamic Testing: A Vygotskian Approach to Mental Testing

In addition to the variety of intelligence-defining approaches discussed in the text, a new perspective on assessing mental ability has been proposed based on Vygotsky's notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD refers to a range of tasks that the child cannot yet handle alone but can do with the help of more skilled partners. As Campione and his collaborators (1984) point out, the breadth of the zone varies across individuals and across domains of learning within an individual. For one child in a particular domain, the zone may be narrow, indicating that the child is not yet ready to master tasks beyond his unaided performance. For another child in the same domain or the same child in another domain, the zone may be broader, suggesting that the child can perform at a higher level than current performance indicates with the help of a more expert partner.

In contrast to static assessment procedures, which emphasize previously acquired knowledge in terms of intelligence or achievement scores, dynamic testing involves purposeful teaching within the testing situation. It attempts to distinguish between a child's apparent level of development as might be measured by a standardized test and the child's level of potential development. To measure the breadth of the zone, dynamic testing models utilize a pretest-intervene-retest procedure. It is based on the assumption that the best way to help a child learn is to explore the teaching strategies to which that child is most responsive.

Evidence on the effectiveness of dynamic testing confirms that it has considerable value for predicting children's learning potential. Age and ability (as measured by static intelligence tests) are positively related to the breadth of children's ZPDs as determined by dynamic testing. These assessment methods may be particularly important for low-SES and ethnic minority children, who may demonstrate a large difference between actual and potential development (Missiuna & Samuels, 1989). Those who perform poorly when left to their own devices often do substantially better when given appropriate instructional intervention.

Despite its promise, dynamic testing presents challenges that are much greater than those faced in traditional testing. The examiner must be able to hypothesize about and respond adaptively to the child's needs during the testing situation, intervening with scaffolding until the child's performance is significantly improved. The method is often difficult and time consuming, but it is just this aspect of dynamic assessment that may identify teaching practices likely to be effective with children who present diverse learning difficulties in the classroom. Dynamic testing reduces the possibility that a child who can profit from instruction will be denied opportunities to learn because of a poor score on a static assessment.

As yet, dynamic testing is not more effective in predicting academic achievement than are traditional tests. But better correspondence may emerge in classrooms in which teaching resembles procedures integral to the dyamic testing approach-namely, individualized, responsive interaction on tasts carefully selected to help the child move beyond his or her current level of development (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1998).

Aside from its applicability to evaluating pupils' learning potential, dynamic testing conveys an important message about our understanding of cognitive development. In most research, conclusions about children's cognitive competence are drawn from assessments of their unaided performance. Dynamic testing tells us that these conclusions would change substantially if children were observed under teaching conditions sensitive to their learning needs.

Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., & Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Implications for individual differences and learning. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), New directions for child development (No. 23, pp. 77-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 75-111.

Missiuna, C., & Samuels, M. (1989). Dynamic assessment: Review and critique. Special Services in the Schools, 5, 1-22.

LEARNING ACTIVITY

Examining School-Age Children's Handwriting and Drawings

By age 6, children can print the alphabet, their names, and numbers from 1 to 10. Writing in the early school years tends to be large because (when first learning to write) children tend to use their entire arm. They have not yet perfected using only the wrist and fingers for writing. They also tend to master uppercase letters first because they find it easier to control hand motions for vertical and horizontal movements. School-age children's drawings show gains in organization, detail, and representation of depth.

Collect handwriting and art samples from school-age children of varying ages. Note the age and sex of each child for later reference. Place the art collection and handwriting samples around the classroom. Ask students to guess the age of the author/artist of each and to describe the clues they used to make their predictions. How do the artists represent depth in their drawings?