The Experts below are selected from a list of 135003 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Horng-yih Lai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ICALT - Implementation of Web-Based Dynamic Assessment System and its Application on Science Learning
2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2010Co-Authors: Ah-fur Lai, Chih-hung Chen, Horng-yih LaiAbstract:The purpose of the study is to design a web-based Dynamic Assessment management system based on gradual prompting Assessment theory and probe into the learning effects of Dynamic Assessment. The study utilized the lever concept of elementary science as an example to design its digital intervention materials and conducted a learning experiment. The process of applying this method was, then, investigated for better understanding of the theoretical mode and principles of Dynamic Assessment. The results show that there is significant learning effects and learning retention for at-risk learners.
Carol A. Rashotte - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparing Two Forms of Dynamic Assessment and Traditional Assessment of Preschool Phonological Awareness
Journal of learning disabilities, 2011Co-Authors: Patricia Thatcher Kantor, Richard K. Wagner, Joseph K. Torgesen, Carol A. RashotteAbstract:The goal of the current study was to compare two forms of Dynamic Assessment and standard Assessment of preschool children's phonological awareness. The first form of Dynamic Assessment was a form of scaffolding in which item formats were modified in response to an error so as to make the task easier or more explicit. The second form of Dynamic Assessment was direct instruction of the phonological awareness tasks. The results indicate that preschool children's phonological awareness can be assessed using standard Assessment procedures, provided the items require processing units larger than the individual phoneme. No advantage was found in reliability or validity for either Dynamic Assessment condition relative to the standard Assessment condition. Dynamic Assessment does not appear to improve reliability or validity of phonological awareness Assessments when preschool children are given tasks that they can perform using standard administration procedures.
Richard K. Wagner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dynamic Assessment and Its Implications for RTI Models
Journal of learning disabilities, 2011Co-Authors: Richard K. Wagner, Donald L. ComptonAbstract:Dynamic Assessment refers to Assessment that combines elements of instruction for the purpose of learning something about an individual that cannot be learned as easily or at all from conventional Assessment. The origins of Dynamic Assessment can be traced to Thorndike (1924), Rey (1934), and Vygotsky (1962), who shared three basic assumptions (Grigorenko, 2009). The first assumption is that conventional Assessment does not work for children who have diverse educational and cultural experiences. The second assumption is that we should be interested more in where children can be tomorrow if given adequate education or intervention, rather than in where children are now given their previous educational history. The third and final assumption is that the reason for Assessment lies in intervention, and consequently, that the results of Assessment should have direct implications for selecting or modifying interventions. Obvious parallels exist between fundamental assumptions of Dynamic Assessment and those of recent response-to-intervention (RTI) models (see Grigorenko, 2009, for a comprehensive and insightful recent comparison between Dynamic Assessment and response to intervention). RTI models can be used as the basis of service delivery and also as a source of Assessment information (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Arguments in support of using RTI models as a source of Assessment information mirror the three key assumptions of Dynamic Assessment. In the context of eligibility determination for special education services, the traditional aptitude-achievement Assessment model has been criticized as a “wait to fail” model because most children with learning disabilities are not identified and provided special education services until the end of first grade or later. However, it is unlikely that adopting an RTI model for identification will speed up the process, and might even delay it. Even proponents of a prominent role of RTI models in identification of children with learning disabilities do not suggest that assessing response to intervention is sufficient for identification (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Rather, consistent with the consensus of the Learning Disabilities Summit (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002), identification requires a comprehensive individual examination in addition to review of a child’s response to intervention (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). If we assume that a comprehensive individual exam will not be scheduled until a child has not responded to three tiers of instruction/intervention, each each lasting 12 weeks, formal identification is unlikely to be speeded up relative to the traditional aptitude-achievement discrepancy model. This is not an argument for the traditional aptitude-achievement discrepancy model, which has been criticized justifiably on other grounds, and it should be pointed out that an advantage of an RTI model is that children receive intervention prior to formal identification. The point is merely that contact with special education personnel and services is unlikely to happen sooner under an RTI model. Might Dynamic Assessment be a faster way to obtain information that is provided by assessing response to intervention and is not available from conventional Assessment? This question motivated the contributions to this volume of the Journal of Learning Disabilities.
-
Comparing Two Forms of Dynamic Assessment and Traditional Assessment of Preschool Phonological Awareness
Journal of learning disabilities, 2011Co-Authors: Patricia Thatcher Kantor, Richard K. Wagner, Joseph K. Torgesen, Carol A. RashotteAbstract:The goal of the current study was to compare two forms of Dynamic Assessment and standard Assessment of preschool children's phonological awareness. The first form of Dynamic Assessment was a form of scaffolding in which item formats were modified in response to an error so as to make the task easier or more explicit. The second form of Dynamic Assessment was direct instruction of the phonological awareness tasks. The results indicate that preschool children's phonological awareness can be assessed using standard Assessment procedures, provided the items require processing units larger than the individual phoneme. No advantage was found in reliability or validity for either Dynamic Assessment condition relative to the standard Assessment condition. Dynamic Assessment does not appear to improve reliability or validity of phonological awareness Assessments when preschool children are given tasks that they can perform using standard administration procedures.
Ah-fur Lai - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ICALT - Implementation of Web-Based Dynamic Assessment System and its Application on Science Learning
2010 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2010Co-Authors: Ah-fur Lai, Chih-hung Chen, Horng-yih LaiAbstract:The purpose of the study is to design a web-based Dynamic Assessment management system based on gradual prompting Assessment theory and probe into the learning effects of Dynamic Assessment. The study utilized the lever concept of elementary science as an example to design its digital intervention materials and conducted a learning experiment. The process of applying this method was, then, investigated for better understanding of the theoretical mode and principles of Dynamic Assessment. The results show that there is significant learning effects and learning retention for at-risk learners.
Patricia Thatcher Kantor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparing Two Forms of Dynamic Assessment and Traditional Assessment of Preschool Phonological Awareness
Journal of learning disabilities, 2011Co-Authors: Patricia Thatcher Kantor, Richard K. Wagner, Joseph K. Torgesen, Carol A. RashotteAbstract:The goal of the current study was to compare two forms of Dynamic Assessment and standard Assessment of preschool children's phonological awareness. The first form of Dynamic Assessment was a form of scaffolding in which item formats were modified in response to an error so as to make the task easier or more explicit. The second form of Dynamic Assessment was direct instruction of the phonological awareness tasks. The results indicate that preschool children's phonological awareness can be assessed using standard Assessment procedures, provided the items require processing units larger than the individual phoneme. No advantage was found in reliability or validity for either Dynamic Assessment condition relative to the standard Assessment condition. Dynamic Assessment does not appear to improve reliability or validity of phonological awareness Assessments when preschool children are given tasks that they can perform using standard administration procedures.
