Academic journal article International Education Studies

Dynamic Assessment in Combination with Video Interaction Guidance in Preschool Education

Academic journal article International Education Studies

Dynamic Assessment in Combination with Video Interaction Guidance in Preschool Education

Article excerpt


Dynamic assessment represents an alternative diagnostic approach focused on the revelation of the tested persons' learning potential. The learning potential is observed via the emphasis on the achievement process. It aims at meaningful connection with the intervention that immediately applies diagnostic findings to support the development of an individual's abilities.

This article summarizes essential information about the mentioned diagnostic trend and investigates possibilities of its utilization in a combination with the method of video interaction guidance (VIG). The pilot-study evaluating this combination of dynamic assessment and VIG has been conducted in three stages. Both quantitative and qualitative methods have been used, although the nature of the study is mostly qualitative. The study verifies the utility and advantages of the dynamic assessment-based method for preschool preparation in kindergartens. Moreover, the paper identifies effective instructions and styles of communication supporting cognitive development.

Keywords: dynamic assessment, video interaction guidance, school maturity and readiness, learning potential

1. Introduction

1.1 Dynamic Assessment

The term dynamic assessment refers to a subset of interactive diagnostic methods including planned mediational teaching and the assessment of the impact of that teaching on subsequent performance (Haywood & Tzuriel, 2002, p. 40). The mediational teaching mostly involves teaching (or "mediating") of metacognitive strategies helping to extend the learning potential of the individual. Definitions of the dynamic assessment (e.g. Kozulin & Garb, 2004; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002) have two constant aspects-active intervention by examiners and assessment of the response to intervention, which means the effect of mediational learning (Haywood & Lidz, 2007, p. 1).

The dynamic assessment of learning potential significantly differs from traditional assessment of intelligence (static assessment). Standard intellectual testing presumes that the manifested level of functioning reveals the inner abilities of the individual more or less accurately, unaided performance is the best format for assessment and the goal of testing is to predict the future functioning. From the point of view of the dynamic assessment, cognitive processes are highly modifiable (therefore this type of assessment focuses on the degree of modifiability rather than on the manifest level of functioning). The next point of the paradigm of dynamic assessment is that interactive assessment including the learning phase provides a better insight into learning capacities than unaided performance (Kozulin, 2003, p. 103).

An extremely important context of differences between the static and dynamic assessment is the fundamental discrepancy between intelligence and cognition (cognitive and metacognitive processes). Intelligence is primarily genetic, whereas cognitive processes must be acquired. In consequence, intelligence itself is not treatable, whereas systematic cognition is eminently modifiable. (Haywood & Lidz, 2007, p. 25)

Dynamic assessment is strongly connected with intervention. The goal of the testing process is the identification of obstacles to learning and performance and estimation of investment required to overcome the obstacles. The assessment is much more interactive than static assessment that prescribes the examiner to be affectively neutral, to pose problems and record responses only. In the dynamic assessment, the examiner is encouraged to be affectively involved. He/she poses problems, identifies obstacles, teaches metacognitive strategies when necessary and promotes change (Haywood & Lidz, 2007, p. 6).

The theoretical core of the dynamic assessment created the conception of the zone of proximal development (Vygotskij, 1986) and the mediated-learning experience (Feuerstein, Klein, & Tannenbaum, 1991). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.