Static vs. dynamic assessment of students’ writing exams: a comparison of two assessment modes

References

• Alavi, S. M., Kivanpanah, S., & Shabani, K. (2013). Group dynamic assessment: An inventory of mediational strategies for teaching listening. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 165(4), 27–58.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospect. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154. doi:10.1023/A:1022185502996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F., & Cohen, A. D. (1989). Language testing-SLA interfaces: An update. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 1–31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, M. S., Vye, N. J., Bransford, D. B., Delclos, V., & Ogan, T. (1987). Static and dynamic measures of learning in young handicapped children. Diagnostique, 12(2), 59–73. doi:10.1177/073724778701200201
   Google Scholar
• Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254–270. doi:10.1177/0022466907310366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camp, R. (1993). Changing the model for the direct assessment of writing. In M. M. Williamson & B. A. Huot (Eds.), Validating holistic scoring for writing assessment (pp. 45–78). Creskill, NJ: Hampton.
   Google Scholar
• Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: A critical examination of constructs and practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davin, K. J., Herazo, J. H., & Sagre, A. (2016). Learning to mediate: Teacher appropriation of dynamic assessment. Language Teaching Journal, 1–20. doi:10.1177/1362168816654309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Dynamic assessment of reading comprehension ability: Group or individualized. Education Journal, 4(6), 325–331. doi:10.11648/j.edu.20150406.11
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K. N., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2011). Two-stage screening for math problem-solving difficulty using dynamic assessment of algebraic learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 372–380. doi:10.1177/0022219411407867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamaroff, R. (1999). Rater reliability in language assessment: The bug of all bears. System, 28, 31–53. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00059-7
   Google Scholar
• Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247–273. doi:10.2307/3588504
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S., Herbert, M., Sandbank, M., & Harris, K. R. (2014). Assessing the writing achievement of young struggling writers: Application of generalizability theory. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(2), 72–82. doi:10.1177/0731948714555019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111–132. doi:10.1177/0022219408326207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hidri, S. (2014). Developing and evaluating a dynamic assessment of listening comprehension in an EFL context. Language Testing in Asia, 4(4), 1–19. doi:10.1186/2229-0443-4-4
   Google Scholar
• Hidri, S. (2015). Conceptions of assessment: Investigating what assessment means to secondary and university teachers. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 19–43.
   Google Scholar
• Hidri, S. (2017). Specs validation of a dynamic reading comprehension test for EAP learners in an EFL context. In S. Hidri & C. Coombe (Eds.), Evaluation in foreign language education (pp. 315–337). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Hidri, S. (2018). Assessing spoken language ability: A many-facet rasch analysis. In S. Hidri (Ed.), Revisiting the assessment of second language abilities: From theory to practice (pp. 1–33). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, Y., & Pyun, D. O. (2013). Mediation strategies in L2 writing processes: A case study of two Korean language learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 52–67. doi:10.1080/07908318.2012.762012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaniel, S. (2010). Domain specific vs domain general: Implications for dynamic assessment. Gifted Education International, 26, 95–109. doi:10.1177/026142941002600112
   Google Scholar
• Kantor, P. T., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2011). Comparing two forms of dynamic assessment and traditional assessment of preschool phonological awareness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 313–321. doi:10.1177/0022219411407861
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20. doi:10.1111/lang.1966.16.issue-1-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khabbazbashi, N. (2017). Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing, 34(1), 23–48. doi:10.1177/0265532215595666
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb, K. H., Longest, K. C., & Jensen, M. J. (2013). Assessing the writing process: Do writing-intensive first-year seminars change how students write? Teaching Sociology, 41(1), 20–31. doi:10.1177/0092055X12448777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127. doi:10.1177/0143034302023001733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19, 141–157. doi:10.1080/13803611.2013.767616
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lay, A., Patten, E., & Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2017). A case for the use of the ability-in language-user-in context orientation in game-based assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 7(16), 2–17. doi:10.1186/s40468-017-0045-0
   Google Scholar
• Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
   Google Scholar
• Lidz, C. S. (2002). Mediated learning experiences (MLE) as a basis for an alternative approach to assessment. School Psychology International, 23(1), 68–84. doi:10.1177/0143034302023001731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidz, C. S. (2014). Leaning toward a consensus about dynamic assessment: Can we? Do we want to? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13, 292–307. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.13.3.292
   Google Scholar
• Lumley, T. (2005). Assessing second language writing: The rater’s perspective. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Macrine, S., & Sabbatino, E. D. (2008). Dynamic assessment and remediation approach: Using the DARA approach to assist struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 24(1), 52–76. doi:10.1080/10573560701753112
   Google Scholar
• Malpique, A. A., & Simão, A. M. V. (2015). Assessing self-regulated strategies for school writing: Cross-cultural validation of a triadic measure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(2), 141–153. doi:10.1177/0734282914547873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London, UK: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, T., & Roever, K. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, R. (2011). Dynamic assessment, intelligence and measurement. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587. doi:10.1177/0265532209340192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poehner, M. E. (2011). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through L2 dynamic assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 244–263. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2010.00277.x
   Google Scholar
• Purves, A. (1992). Reflection on research and assessment in written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 108–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sahragard, R., & Heidari, K. (2017). How much mediation in dynamic assessment for gifted students? Up to critical thinking please! Gifted Education International, 33(1), 34–44. doi:10.1177/0261429414558976
   Google Scholar
• Shabani, K. (2014). Dynamic assessment of L2 listening comprehension in transcendence tasks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1729–1737. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.600
   Google Scholar
• Shohamy, E. (1983). Rater reliability of the oral interview speaking test. Foreign Language Annals, 219–222. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1983.tb01456.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written Communication, 18(4), 506–548. doi:10.1177/0741088301018004004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trace, J., Janssen, G., & Meier, V. (2017). Measuring the impact of rater negotiation in writing performance assessment. Language Testing, 34(1), 3–22. doi:10.1177/0265532215594830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzuriel, D. (2000). Dynamic assessment of young children: Educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385–435. doi:10.1023/A:1009032414088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzuriel, D. (2013). Mediated learning experience and cognitive modifiability. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(1), 59–80. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.12.1.59
   Google Scholar
• Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 21–32. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00204.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzuriel, G. (2011). Revealing the effects of cognitive education programmes through dynamic assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 118(2), 113–131.
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• White, E. M. (1995). An apologia for the times impromptu essay test. College Composition and Communication, 46, 30–45. doi:10.2307/358868
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar