Measuring word learning: Dynamic versus static assessment of kindergarten vocabulary

Burton, Vera Joanna; Watkins, Ruth V.

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2006.06.015

Cited by 33 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study adopted the interventionist approach to DA for providing mediating prompts to the participants. That is, based on the previous L2 interventionist studies (e.g., Davin, ; Lantolf & Poehner, ) and, in particular, previous research that incorporated DA for child vocabulary development (e.g., Adan–Dirks, ; Burton & Watkins, ), a list of mediating prompts as dynamic glosses were prepared by the researcher in advance, arranged in a hierarchical order for offering mediation to the learners during each mobile‐mediated treatment session. The arrangement of the prompts listed in Table was also based on the characterization of mediation from Aljaafreh & Lantolf (), which, as mentioned earlier, states that mediation should be contingent, graduated, and dialogic.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learners are presented with graduated and incremental hints to help them identify and learn the correct definition for an unfamiliar word among a set of options instead of being presented with predetermined fixed definitions for the unknown words. In fact, a number of studies in the context of child language acquisition implemented DA for teaching and assessing children's vocabulary knowledge (e.g., Burton & Watkins, ; Camilleri & Botting, ; Peña, Iglesias, & Lidz, ). These studies used graduated and incremental prompts and assistance with contextual and semantic cues during task‐based interactions to probe children's word‐learning ability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Mobile‐Mediated Dynamic and Nondynamic Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective

Rassaei

2020

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the effects of 2 forms of text‐based second language (L2) vocabulary glosses, namely dynamic and nondynamic glosses on EFL learners' vocabulary knowledge. Dynamic glosses were operationalized as a set of incrementally ordered mediating annotations designed to help learners identify the correct word definition while nondynamic glosses were operationalized as traditional fixed word definitions. During 2 treatment sessions, the participants in the 2 experimental groups as well as the control condition were presented with several short passages that included a number of unknown words via the Telegram application using learners' smartphones. The participants in the dynamic glossing condition were presented with a set of graduated prompts ordered from the most implicit to the most explicit for each unfamiliar word to identify its correct definition while reading the short passages. For the mobile‐mediated nondynamic glossing condition, the learners were directly provided with a first language (L1) definition for each target word while reading the same text via their smartphones. The results of posttests and delayed posttests provided evidence for the benefits of the 2 mobile‐mediated glossing conditions and also the superiority of the dynamic glossing condition over nondynamic glossing condition for L2 vocabulary learning.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Mobile‐Mediated Dynamic and Nondynamic Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective

Rassaei

2020

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These criterion-referenced measures identified dialect features as the appropriate reflections of the language variant they represented, rather as than a disorder of language or speech. Similarly, other researchers developed expressive assessments of word learning, which also relied on assessment in naturalistic environments (Brackenbury & Pye, 2005; Burton & Watkins, 2007). In 1998, The Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-S) was developed with funding from the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders.…”

Section: Developing a Culture-fair Assessment Of Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Analysis of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation Assessment

Petscher¹,

Connor

Otaiba

2011

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the psychometrics of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation–Screening Test (DELV-S) test using confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and differential item functioning (DIF). Responses from 1,764 students in kindergarten through second grade were used in the study, with results indicating that the DELV-S is multidimensional and measures syntactic skills and nonword repetition ability. Item response theory suggested that most items were easy and that the measured skills were most reliable for students who had low language abilities. Standardized effect sizes for DIF suggested small differences existed on syntactic skills between white and minority students. Scores were vertically scaled to produce reference tables to assess performance at specific points in time, as well as growth over time.

show abstract

“…21,22 Another approach uses successive cuing. Its use has been both to evaluate ability beyond that provided by a static test (e.g., articulation stimulability) 23 and to evaluate readiness for intervention. 24 These approaches can be used for the purposes of designating a point of departure for instruction and then monitoring student progress as well as for documenting the student's responsiveness to intervention and generating hypotheses for future instruction.…”

Section: Da Applications In Speech-language Pathologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Intervention and Dynamic Assessment: Do We Just Appear to Be Speaking the Same Language?

Lidz

Peña

2009

Semin Speech Lang

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we compare and contrast two frameworks for assessment that appear to share the same language yet produce very different approaches and outcomes: response to instruction/intervention and dynamic assessment. We explore the nature of each, elaborate their similarities and differences, and suggest there are sufficient similarities in goals and principles that the two should be melded into a single model that promotes development of learning competence in children. We specifically consider the relevance of the combined model of response to intervention plus dynamic assessment for professionals involved with language development and disorders.

show abstract

Measuring word learning: Dynamic versus static assessment of kindergarten vocabulary

Cited by 33 publications

References 39 publications

Effects of Mobile‐Mediated Dynamic and Nondynamic Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective

Effects of Mobile‐Mediated Dynamic and Nondynamic Glosses on L2 Vocabulary Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective

Psychometric Analysis of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation Assessment

Response to Intervention and Dynamic Assessment: Do We Just Appear to Be Speaking the Same Language?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About