Dynamic assessment.

Robinson-Zañartu, Carol; Carlson, Jerry S.

doi:10.1037/14049-007

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, critics argue that most of these static instruments predominantly measure the effects of past learning experiences and do not result in sufficient information about underlying cognitive processes and strategies in relation to children's (potential for) learning, or instructional needs in order to provide in-depth input for educational interventions (e.g. Fabio 2005;Grigorenko 2009;Robinson-Zañartu and Carlson 2013). Nor do they provide in-depth information about the relationship between other aspects of a child's cognitive abilities, such as executive functions, and their relationship with the learning process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of cognitive flexibility in young children’s potential for learning under dynamic testing conditions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current study was to investigate to what extent children's potential for learning is related to their level of cognitive flexibility. Potential for learning was measured through a dynamic testing procedure that aimed to measure how much a child can profit from a training procedure integrated into the testing process, including the amount and type of feedback the children required during this training procedure. The study followed a pre-test-training-post-test control group design. Participants were 153 6-7-year-old children. Half of this group of children were provided with a standardised graduated prompts procedure. The other half of the participants performed a non-inductive cognitive task. Children's cognitive flexibility was measured through a card sorting test and a test of verbal fluency. Results show that cognitive flexibility was positively related to children's performance, but only for children in the practice-only condition who received no training. These outcomes suggest that dynamic testing, and more in particular, the graduated prompting procedure, supports children's cognitive flexibility, thereby giving children with weaker flexibility the opportunity to show more of their cognitive potential as measured through inductive reasoning.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of cognitive flexibility in young children’s potential for learning under dynamic testing conditions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These tests, however, have been shown not to be advantageous for all children, and do not unveil information about psychological processes involved in learning (e.g., Grigorenko, ). As conventional tests, for a large part, rely on past learning experiences (Elliott, Grigorenko, & Resing, ), children who have had less than favorable learning experiences, have been documented to underperform on these tests (Robinson‐Zañartu & Carlson, ). Dynamic tests, in contrast, are much more focused on a child's potential for learning (Sternberg & Grigorenko, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic testing of gifted and average-ability children's analogy problem solving: Does executive functioning play a role?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, dynamic testing principles were applied to examine progression of analogy problem solving, the roles that cognitive flexibility and metacognition play in children's progression as well as training benefits, and instructional needs of 7-to 8-year-old gifted and average-ability children. Utilizing a pretest training posttest control group design, participants were split in four subgroups: gifted dynamic testing (n = 22), gifted unguided practice (n = 23), averageability dynamic testing (n = 31), and average-ability unguided practice (n = 37). Results revealed that dynamic testing led to more advanced progression than unguided practice, and that gifted and average-ability children showed equivalent progression lines and instructional needs. For children in both ability categories, cognitive flexibility was not found to be related to progression in analogy problem solving or training benefits. In addition, metacognition was revealed to be associated with training benefits. Implications for educational practice were provided in the discussion.

show abstract

“…This finding lends support to the claims of many researchers that dynamic testing can offer a more complete picture of children's cognitive capacities than conventional static approaches (e.g., Elliott, ; Elliott et al ., ; Sternberg & Grigorenko, ). By focusing on what children can learn within a short time frame, rather than on what children have already learned, dynamic testing appears to unveil children's potential for learning (Robinson‐Zañartu & Carlson, ), which, as shown in the current investigation as well as in a myriad of other studies, does not always correspond with their scores on conventional, static tests. The results of the current study also indicate that, although all groups of children showed progression from session to session, there were also large individual differences between children, revealing individual differences in their potential for learning (e.g., Sternberg & Grigorenko, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the literature on dynamic testing has indicated that static tests may underestimate the cognitive potential of socially or educationally disadvantaged children. Examples include ethnic minority, learning disabled, or those who have not had access to educationally stimulating environments (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1998;Haywood & Lidz, 2007;Robinson-Zañartu & Carlson, 2013). In contrast, dynamic tests are considered to have less test bias towards such children (Elliott, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%