Need for instruction: dynamic testing in special education

Differences in Need for Instruction: Dynamic Testing in Children with Arithmetic Difficulties

“…Regarding the use of the newly developed multiple protocols that had to be followed during the graduated prompts training, we found that these protocols, as expected, provided information about both the types and numbers of prompts in the feedback children were provided, which is in agreement with previous studies with a graduated prompts training (Bosma & Resing 2012;Jeltova et al, 2007;Fabio 2005). Moreover, children's needs of different prompts at different times in the solution process could be detected clearly.…”

“…Other studies have shown how the use of graduated prompts techniques enabled identification of strengths and weaknesses of children between groups with different ethnic backgrounds based on the number and type of prompts children needed (Resing et al, 2009(Resing et al, , 2017Resing et al, 2009;Stevenson, Heiser & Resing, 2016 ). Within group variability was also found in a population of children with intellectual disability (Bosma & Resing, 2012).…”

Working memory as a moderator of training and transfer of analogical reasoning in children

“…In principle, dynamic testing formats do not differ from cognitive training formats, although cognitive training is often geared towards more extensive interventions. In dynamic testing, various indices are used to examine learning, such as performance improvement following feedback interventions (e.g., Hessels, 2009), the amount and type of instruction that best aides task solution (e.g., Bosma & Resing, 2012;, and the ability to transfer these newly developed skills to other problems (Campione & Brown, 1987). The current study uses a simple test-intervention-test format and aims to investigate children's progression and transfer in the domain of inductive reasoning.…”

Can Intelligence Testing Inform Educational Intervention for Children with Reading Disability?

“…However, there is variability to the extent that some approaches are adaptive, that is, hints/scaffolds are provided which are differentially contingent upon the individual's responses (e.g., [115][116][117][118]). Testers who seek to use these approaches will typically focus upon changes in problem-solving processes and the use of strategy patterns during testing.…”

“…Thus, laboratory-based researchers have often sought to build a superior intelligence test (for the purposes of classification and prediction), or sought to examine the nature of thinking and reasoning processes, rather than seek to develop measures that can help teachers operate more powerful classroom practices that can cater for struggling learners. While it is fair to conclude that dynamic approaches have proven capable of improving prediction, particularly for those who have not grown up under optimal learning conditions [123,124] and have yielded valuable insights into differences in complex problem-solving [118] the current value of dynamic measures for informing classroom practice for identified individuals with learning difficulties remains minimal [115,125]. Although proponents have produced interesting case studies (e.g., [94,96]) these have not proven sufficiently persuasive to justify to the field the adoption of comparatively complex, time-consuming and costly approaches.…”