Application of Dynamic Assessment in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

ELT VOICES – INDIA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

JUNE 2014 | VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 | ISSN 2230-9136 (PRINT) 2321-7170 (ONLINE)

Application of Dynamic Assessment in Second and Foreign Language Teaching SOUDABEH TABATABAEI1, MORTEZA BAKHTIARVAND2

ABSTRACT

A test is a method of measuring a person’s ability or knowledge in a given area. A test is first a

method and that method generally requires some performances or activities on the part of either

the testee or the tester or both. Testing is an inextricable part of the instructional process. If a

test is to provide meaningful information on which teachers and administrators can base their

decisions, then many variables and concerns must be considered. No EFL program can deny the

significance of testing for evaluating learner’s acquisition of the target language. Testing is

used for two purposes. On the one hand, it is a means to reinforce learning and to motivate

students and on the other hand, it is a device to assess learners’ performance in the language.

Nowadays educators are recommended to use multiple assessments to evaluate what students

have learned. This study reports on the use of an innovative assessment, dynamic assessment

(DA), in EFL and ESL. This study can contribute valuable new knowledge to the scarcity of

DA literature in SLA. It can also empower educators to become researchers when they

implement and further investigate this innovative approach to language assessment. The present

article is a literature review which aim to look critically at the emergence of DA as an

alternative approach to the previous traditional approaches. Also, after taking a look at the

theoretical framework as well as different models of DA, the researcher goes on to discuss the

merits and demerits as well as the application and implication of DA in the scope of language

teaching and language testing.

Index Terms—Dynamic Assessment (DA), models of DA, theoretical framework of DA

1. Linguistics Department, University of Mysore, India

2. Department of English Language, Ministry of Education, Andimeshk, Iran.

ELT VOICES – INDIA April 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 2

54|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

Introduction

Undoubtedly, assessment is one of the most grueling parts of any educational course. In

traditional form, assessment has been used as an activity to gain insight into learners’ current

level of knowledge or ability. Traditional assessment measures learners’ actual development or

what they have already learned, and that’s why some researchers called it as “static

assessment” (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). Poehner (2008) indicated that most

educators, including L2 teachers, were frustrated by static assessments because they were seen

as activities that are “distinct from, and perhaps even at odds with, the goals of teaching” (p. 4).

The central concept of the dynamic assessment (DA) is grounded in the concept of Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) introduced by the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky.

Measuring learners’ performance through static assessment indicates what they have already

learned, whereas measuring their performance through dynamic assessment shows what they

can learn from interaction with a teacher or a more experienced peer. Learning a foreign

language is a complex task which its effectiveness may associate with different factors such as

teachers’ own language proficiency, self-efficacy, and experience (Fahim, Hamidi, & Sarem,

2013; Khatib, Sarem, & Hamidi, 2012). An experienced teacher knows when to mediate and

when to ask peers to help their classmates. Teo (2006) states this learning ability might serve as

a better indicator of the students' educational needs than the static scores. In other words,

unlike static assessment which considers only teaching and testing phase of instruction,

dynamic assessment stresses the role of teachers’ mediation in students' learning processes

during or after the final exam.

Dynamic Assessment

There are a number of constructs which are very important in DA procedures: mediation and

zone of proximal development. Mediation is the most important construct in sociocultural

theory. According to Montazeri, Hamidi, and Hamidi (2015), Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory

is embraced by many SLA scholars in that much of the language learning is an interactional

and a psychological issue rather than being a linguistic factor!

Learners develop an L2 by participating in social interaction which mediates the mental

processing. Zone of proximal development refers to the difference between an individual’s

actual and potential levels of development or his/her actual and potential levels of skills. If



he/she is assisted and helped, he/she can move from the skills that he/she already has (i.e.,

actual levels) to the skill levels that he/she is capable of performing when he is given assistance

(i.e., potential levels). Then the new level of skills becomes the actual level from which the

learner can develop further skills (Ellis, 2003). All in all, DA is a structured approach to

interaction in which a teacher or assessor cooperatively engage with learners, helping them

extend their performance beyond the level they could reach independently (Haywood & Lidz,

2007; Pohner, 2008). DA provides language learners opportunities to learn from interaction

with the teacher and at the same time helps teacher to gain insight on differences between

students and their capabilities. Lantolf and Poehner (2004) define dynamic assessment as an

approach that integrates assessment with instruction to build up learner’s development through

appropriate forms of mediation. Vygotsky in Russia and Feuerstein in Israel both developed an

alternative to traditional forms of IQ testing. Although the terminology used by both

researchers is slightly different, their concepts are nevertheless very much alike (Lantolf and

Poehner, 2009). Whilst Feuerstein considered linking assessment with intervention as a means

to measure one’s ability to benefit from mediation, Vygotsky investigated the potential

development of an individual through the analysis of his or her independent and mediated

performance (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2002). Different definitions have been proposed for

the concept of “dynamic assessment” by different researchers.

Lussier and Swanson (2005) define dynamic assessment as a "procedure that attempts to

modify performance, via examiners’ assistance, in an effort to understand learning

potential"(p.66). According to Beak & Kim (2003), DA requires the interaction between tester

and student. When a student has difficulty in solving a problem or answering a question, the

tester attempts to move the student from failure to success by modifying the format, providing

additional examples or trials, modeling an appropriate strategy for success, or offering

increasingly more direct cues or prompts.

Stanley (1993, as cited in Beak & Kim, 2003) presented dynamic assessment procedures in a

very concrete form. First, the examiner tests the learner working alone (static mode) to provide

a measurement of skills on a task to establish a baseline. Second, the examiner provides a

controlled protocol of assistance and instruction (dynamic mode) while the child works on a

comparable task. Third, a post-test is given with an alternate form of the original measurement

while the learner works alone (static mode) on the task. Fourth, the examiner compares the test



and retest measurements to establish the learners’ zone of proximal development (ZPD,

Vygotsky, 1978). Fifth, the examiner analyzes the learner’s performance on both product and

process.

Dynamic assessment (DA) is usually defined as an approach which integrates both teaching

and assessment activities simultaneously. In other word, DA conceive instruction and

assessment as two sides of the same coin that are not separable in sense that good instruction

involves assessment and good assessment involves instruction. So, instruction and assessment

are two complimentary aspects of methodology which should optimally result in true learning.

Since DA offers individuals an opportunity to learn, it gives important information about

learners’ learning and thinking process, learners’ strategies and ways in which these strategies

may be enhanced. Therefore; it offers potentially useful suggestions about teaching. According

to Poehner and Lantolf (2005), the goal of dynamic assessment is not just to assist learners to

get through a specific task but also, through mediation that is negotiated between the instructor

and learners, to help the learners with their future tasks.

Lantolf and Pohner’s (2004) points out that DA procedures have been used for a variety of

purposes, including:

• Differentiating between people whose learning disability is primarily biological and those

whose difficulties are the result of their social or cultural background

• Offering a more valid and fine-grained assessment of students’ general intellectual abilities as

well as their potential for improving those abilities

• Identifying the underlying causes of poor performance in classes and on standardized tests

• Making recommendations for the placement of learners into appropriate instructional

programs and making recommendation on the necessary instructional support they need to

succeed.

The Concept of Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky (1978) defines the concept of the zone of proximal development as “the distance

between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the

level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or



in collaboration with more capable peers” (p.86). He asserts that what the child is able to do

independently represents a view of the child’s past development, but what the child is able to

achieve with mediation, provides insight into the child’s future development. Vygotsky

described the difference between what a child can do independently and what the same child

can accomplish with mediation, the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Expressed in a

different way, the zone of proximal development illustrates “those functions that have not yet

matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are

currently in an embryonic state”(Vygotsky, 1978, p.86).

Vygotsky (1978) placed more emphasize on the role of social factors in cognitive development

and believed that the normal learning occur when the learner is engaged in a cooperative

activity with a teacher or an experienced peer in which the more mature one provides

mediation or scaffolding to the learner. Scaffolding is the kind of help the learner receives from

the adult or informed guide when s/he fails to perform the task independently. For example,

when the learner is unable to perform a task, the teacher or adult provides help to him by

focusing his attention on a task, guiding him to reach the objectives, highlighting the

significant features of a task and showing related strategies. The learners interact with the

teacher to fulfill their lack of knowledge and the teacher gains insight through interaction with

the learners on their instructional needs and realizes that different learners need different levels

of assistance in order to produce a correct form.

According to Vygotsky, new cognitive functions and learning abilities originate within this

interpersonal interaction, and later they are internalized and transformed to become the

student’s inner cognitive processes. Thus, through cooperation and mutual interaction between

the learner and his/her more mature partner, the learner may reveal certain emergent functions

that have not yet been internalized. While the results of static tests reveal the existing

knowledge of the learner, the ZPD helps us to assess the learner’s ability to learn from the

interaction with the teacher or a more skilled guide. Therefore, ZPD predicts the learners’

ability and helps teacher to realize the learners’ potentials and educational needs. Vygotsky

believed that learners with the same actual level of development might have different levels of

potential development and different ZPDs; consequently, they need different levels of

assistance.



To describe and explain what he meant by the ZPD, Vygotsky (1934/1986 cited in Minick,

1987) uses the example of two children, both with, for example, a mental age of eight years.

Vygotsky argues we should rather attempt to determine how each of these children will solve

tasks that were meant for older children. This can be done by assisting each child through

leading questions and by introducing the initial elements of task solution. With the help or

collaboration from the adult, the one child is able to solve problems characteristic of a twelve-

year-old, whereas the other is only able to solve problems characteristic of a nine-year-old. The

difference between the child's actual level of development and the level of performance the

child achieved in collaboration with the adult, defines the zone of proximal development. In

this example, the zone can be expressed by the number four for one child and the number one

for the other. Vygotsky argues that because of this, we cannot assume that these two children

stand at identical levels of mental development.

The Concept of Mediation

Vygotsky (1997b) specified that mediation can be achieved through the help of another more

knowledgeable person. Mediated activities can be considered as a means to direct someone’s

attention to the object of consideration through interactions. Interactions, according to

Vygotsky (1978), are an essential phase of the learners’ cognitive development. Learning and

development, and more specifically the development of higher mental functions, occurs

initially as a result of interactions between people on the interpsychological level and then on

the intrapsychological level (Vygotsky, 1978). Interactions are materialised through the use of

tools and signs to satisfy a specific need or solve a particular problem. Mediation and

interactions between learners and more knowledgeable adults reveals the learners’ abilities

while simultaneously promoting those abilities. The purpose of mediation in DA is not only to

help learners to find a correct answer but also to prepare learners for future tasks. In this

regard, DA is a systematic and developmental framework for individual and group teaching.

Dynamic Assessment Approaches

Dynamic assessment is commonly described according to the type of “mediated assistance”

provided to learners to attain their goal (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004, p.54). For example, Daniel

(1997) distinguishes two groups with different intervention processes: the first approach

provides “standard interventions” and the second one “nonstandardised interventions”



(p.1041). While the former relates to the use of measures to determine the amount of prompts

learners require to be able to provide a correct alternative, the latter refers to Feuerstein et al.’s

(1979) idea of associating intervention with assessment (Daniel, 1997, p.1041). Lantolf and

Poehner (2004) refer to both approaches as “interventionist” and “interactionist”, respectively

(p.54). While interventionist focuses on a scripted and quantitative approach to assessment

such as psychometric testing, interactionist centers on an interactive and qualitative approach

to assessment (Pohner, 2008, p. 44-45).

The decision of which DA approach best fits a particular context needs to take into

consideration whether the main focus is on the procedure itself and the need to generate scores

to make comparisons or selections among learners, or whether it is on the learners’ abilities

and the goal of optimally promoting their development.

Interventionist DA

A quantitative DA puts a quantitative interpretation on ZPD. Poehner (2008) states that the

defining characteristic of interventionist DA is the use of “standardized administration

procedures and forms of assistance in order to produce easily quantifiable results that can be

used to make comparisons between and within groups, and can be contrasted with other

measures and used to make predictions about performance on future tests” (p.18). In this

model, typical of test-teach-retest designs, the learners’ ZPD is quantitatively computed as the

difference between the learners' performances and scores before and after teacher’s

intervention.

Sternberg and Grigorenko (2002) discern two subcategories within the interventionist

approach: the “sandwich” and the “cake” format (p.27). In the sandwich format, the learners

receive intervention for some sessions, in other words, the instruction is given between the

pretest and the posttest and finally they are given a posttest to see the effect of intervention on

learners’ progress. Whereas in the cake format, the teacher assists the learners during the

assessment session based on some predetermined criteria (e.g., giving hints, cues, examples).

Mediation within the sandwich structure can be either individualised or group directed. In the

case of a group, the instruction is not personalised, it is identical for all learners. The assistance

provided to learners tend to be more explicit when provided to individuals, and more implicit

when administered to group settings (Sternberg 2005). Within a cake format, learners are



given questions one by one. If they answer the first question correctly, then the second question

is given. Otherwise, they are provided with graded assistance, “like layers of icing on a cake”,

designed to make the solution more obvious each time (Sternberg, 2005, p.25). The

information is then used by the teacher to determine “how many and what kinds of hints the

examinee needs in order to solve the item” (Sternberg, 2005, p.25). In most interventionist

approaches, the help provided to the learner is organised from more implicit to more explicit

(Poehner, 2008).

During an interventionist approach, the examiner is not free to react to learners’ need but s/he

must follow a highly scripted approach to mediation in which all leading questions, prompts

and hints have been arranged in advance hierarchically (Poehner, 2008). In other words,

teacher provides standard interventions.

Interactionist DA

An interactionist DA puts a qualitative interpretation on ZPD. In this approach, DA is

conceived as “a means of gaining insight into the kinds of psychological processes that the

learner might be capable of displaying in the next or proximal phase of development and a

means of identifying the kinds of instruction, or assistance that will be required if the learner is

to realize these potentials" (Minick,1987, p. 127). It assesses and promotes the learner’s

cognitive development following Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development.

This qualitative approach to DA emphasizes learning over assessment. During this kind of DA,

leading questions, hints, or prompts are not arranged in advance and they emerge from

mediated dialogue (Lantolf & Pohner, 2004). Throughout the interaction, the examiner reacts

to the examinee’s needs and constantly re-calibrates his/her mediation (Ableeva, 2010).

Interactionist DA follows Vygotsky‟s tendency for dialogic interaction. In this approach,

assistance emerges from the interaction between the mediator and the learner, and is therefore

highly sensitive to the learner’s ZPD.

Dynamic Versus non-dynamic Assessment

DA differs from static (traditional) testing in terms of the nature of the examiner–student

relationship, the content of feedback, and the emphasis on process rather than on product

(Grigorenko& Sternberg, 1998). In traditional testing, the examiner is a neutral participant who



provides standardized directions and does not typically provide performance-contingent

feedback. Contrary to static assessment, in DA examiner not only gives performance-

contingent feedback but also offers instruction in response to student failure to change or

improve the student’s attainment. In static assessment, the examiner is oriented toward the

product of student learning (i.e. level of performance), whereas in DA, the examiner is

interested in both in the product and in the process (i.e. rate and path of growth) of student

learning. DA offers information on the child’s responsiveness to teaching, learner’s future

learning potential, or pedagogical needs.

As Tzuriel (2001) states static test refers to a test where the examiner presents the items to the

learner and records his or her responses without any endeavor to mediate in order to change,

guide or improve the learner’s performance. In static assessment, which is usually done for

summative purposes, learners have to perform in isolation and assistance offered during the

assessment is considered unacceptable, unfair or even cheating. In particular, changes in the

learners’ performances during the assessment process are considered threats to the reliability of

test scores (Lidz, 1991). On the other hand, proponents of DA believe that assistance offered to

the learner during the assessment provide useful information about the learner’s abilities and

his or her learning process. The main goal of DA is changing learners’ performance during the

assessment itself (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004). The underlying assumption of dynamic

assessment is that all learners are capable of some degree of learning (change and

modifiability). This contrasts with the underlying assumption of standardized psychometric

testing that the learning ability of most individuals is inherently stable.

Findings of Research on DA

Many scholars have conducted research on DA such as Nassaji and Swain (2000), Kozulin and

Grab (2002), Poehner (2005), Hessel (2009) and Ableeva (2010). They have come to the

conclusion that teaching within learners’ ZPD can enhance learning.

Nassaji and Swain (2000) conducted a study to investigate whether mediation sensitive to

learner’s ZPD was essential to enhance learner’s performance and which type of the

mediations was more effective to promote development. To this end, they compared the

performance of two groups (ZPD group and NON-ZPD group) based on random and non-

random feed back to find out the differential effect of different kinds of feedback on the



learner’s development. The results show that non randomly provided mediation to the ZPD

group was more effective than randomly provided feedback to non-ZPD group.

In 2002, Kozulin and Grab investigated the possibility of the learners’ development and

implementation of the dynamic assessment in Israel with at-risk students using the pre-test,

mediation phase and a post test. They concluded that dynamic assessment provides useful

information on learners’ learning process and their potential which is unobtainable through the

static assessment.

Poehner (2005) explored the effect of dynamic assessment on learners’ speaking abilities.

Participants were asked to orally construct a series of past-tense narratives after watching short

videos. The learners had to create the first narrative independently while in a second narrative

they received some mediation from the teacher. They concluded that providing mediation

would improve the learners’ awareness and result in speaking more accurately. According to

Poehner, “DA is an effective means of understanding learners' abilities and helping them to

overcome linguistic problems. The approach is especially relevant to L2 classrooms as a

method for rendering formative assessment practices more systematic” (p. iv).

Hessels (2009) used a dynamic measure to validate the Hessels Analogical Reasoning Test

(HART), a standardized test of children’s learning potential and concluded that: (a) young

children need to be familiarized with a test to be able to respond to the item in the way that is

expected; (b) the HART posttest measure is a better predictor of learning than the static pretest;

and (c) dynamic measures of learning are preferred to static measures.

Ableeva (2010) conducted a study on the effects of DA on improving listening comprehension

of students learning French as a foreign language and compared the results to a traditional test

of listening comprehension. The results indicated that DA clarifies the sources of learners’

poor performance that were unknown during traditional assessments. The results also indicated

that DA revealed not only the actual level of learners’ listening ability but also their potential

level of development while simultaneously enhancing this development.

Conclusion

Summarizing the distinction between static assessment and dynamic assessment, the former

traditionally excludes all forms of external mediation while the latter is specifically designed to



provide such assistance. From a DA perspective we would make very different predictions of

each learner’s future development and would therefore prescribe different types of instruction.

Although the understanding of each students’ learning potential is a tough work for the teacher,

it can help the teachers modify their lesson plan to meet each student’s needs. With all these

evidence from different studies, DA seems to be very effective in promoting students’ learning

and also helps teachers modify their method of teaching and testing to fulfill the learners’

instructional needs to be proficient language learners.

It has been suggested that DA may be especially useful in assessing bilingual children, as well

as those from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Usmani, 1999). Indeed, in a

number of situations, including disability and disadvantage, in which individual functioning

poses challenges to school provision, DA is intuitively appealing as educational psychologists

search for approaches that seek to explore learning potential rather than confirm poor current

performance (Usmani, 1999).

In general, we can affirm that the paradigm of dynamic assessment is useful not only in the

field of general cognitive performance but also in such curricular domain as EFL learning. At

the same time one should be aware of those characteristic features of the dynamic assessment

procedure that impose certain limitations on the generalizability of the results. Any dynamic

assessment that includes an element of intervention depends on the quality of mediation

provided by the assessor. In this respect dynamic assessment is closer to a situation of

instruction rather than examination. All in all, DA is a practical tool for learning and

assessment in educational settings, but more research should be done on the effectiveness of

dynamic assessment to realize DA’s potential contributions to the development of language

learners.



References

[1] Ableeva, R. (2010). Dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in second language

learning. Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

[2] Beak, S., & Kim, K. (2003). Effect of dynamic assessment based instruction on children’s

learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 4 (2), 189-198.

[3] Daniel, M.H. (1997). Intelligence testing: status and trends. Retrieved June, 2, 2014, from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.10.1038

[4] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 5-16). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

[5] Fahim, M., Hamidi, H., & Najafi, S. (2013). Investigating the role of teachers’ self-

monitoring in the learners’ willingness to communicate: A case of Iranian EFL learners.

Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (3), 624-63. doi:10.4304/jltr.4.3.624-635

[6] Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M.B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded

performers: the learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques.

Baltimore, MD: University Park Press

[7] Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and

educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[8] Khatib, M., Sarem, S. N., & Hamidi, H . (2012). A critical look at the effect of teachers’

self-efficacy on students’ academic success. Iranian EFL Journal, 8 (5), 295-306.

[9] Kozulin, A. & E. Garb. (2002). Dynamic Assessment of EFL text comprehension of at risk

students. School Psychology International, 23 (1), 112-127.

[10] Lantolf, J.P. & Poehner, M.E. (2004.) Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second

Languages. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.

[11] Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing

the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics [Online].1 (1), 40-49.



[12] Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford.

[13] Lussier, C. M. and Swanson, H. L. (2005). Dynamic assessment: A selective synthesis of

the Experimental literature. In G. M. van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M. Resting, & A. J. J. M.

Ruijssenaars (eds.), Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research and

perspectives in theory building and methodology. New York: Elsevier, 65-87.

[14] Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for dynamic assessment. In C. Lidz

(Ed.), Dynamic assessment (pp. 116-140). New York: Guilford Press.

[15] Montazeri, M., Hamidi, H., Hamidi, B. (2015, in press). A closer look at different aspects

of private speech in SLA. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5 (3).

[16] Nassaji H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective on corrective feedback in L2:

The Effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language

Awareness, 9, 34-51.

[17] Poehner, M.E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2

learners of French. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

[18] Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding

and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.

[19] Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom.

Language Teaching Research, 9 (3), 233 – 65.

[20] Stanley, N. V. (1993). Gifted and the zone of proximal development. Gifted Educational

International, 9, 78-81.

[21] Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and

measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[22] Teo, A. (2006). Social-Interactive writing for language learners. CATESOL Journal, 18

(1), 160-178.

[23] Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. NY: Springer.



[24] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[25] Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[26] Vygotsky, L.S. 1997. The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and

history of psychology. NY: Springer.

[27] Usmani, K. (1999). The influence of racism and cultural bias in the assessment of

bilingual children. Educational and Child Psychology, 16 (3), 44-54.

Doi:10.1080/0266736970120409.

Application of Dynamic Assessment in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

Documents

Transcript of Application of Dynamic Assessment in Second and Foreign Language Teaching