Analysis of the implementation of a dynamic assessment device of processes involved in reading with learning-disabled children

Learning and Individual Differences

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 168-175

  Navarro, Juan José ^a   Mora, Joaquín ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

Author keywords

Curriculum based dynamic assessment; Dynamic assessment; Metacognition; Reading disabilities; Reading processes

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952101059     PISSN: 10416080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Aguilera A., Saldaña D. La evaluación de las dificultades del aprendizaje [The assessment of learning difficulties]. Introducción a las dificultades del aprendizaje 2003, McGraw-Hill, Madrid. A. Aguilera (Ed.).
2. Beckmann J.F. Superiority: Always and everywhere? On some misconceptions in the validation of dynamic testing. Educational & Child Psychology 2006, 23:3.
3. Bransford J.D., Vye N.J., Adams L.T., Perfetto G.A. Learning skills and acquisition of knowledge. Foundation for a psychology of education 1989, 199-249. Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J. A. Lesgold, R. Glaser (Eds.).
4. Cattell R.B., Cattell A.K.S. Factor test (Escales 2 & 3) 1974/2001, TEA, Madrid.
5. Delclos V.R., Vye N.J., Burns M.S., Bransford J.D., Hasselbring T.S. Improving the quality of instruction: Roles for dynamic testing. Interactive testing 1992, 317-332. Springer-Verlag, New York. H.C. Haywood, D. Tzuriel (Eds.).
6. Elliott J. Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realising potential. Educational Review 2003, 55(1):15-32.
7. Gersten R., Dimino J. New directions in research RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly 2006, 41(1):99-108.
8. Grigorenko E. Dynamic assessment and response to intervention. Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2009, 42(2):111-132.
9. Guterman E. Toward dynamic assessment of reading: Applying metacognitive awareness guidance to reading assessment tasks. Journal of Research in Reading 2002, 25(3):283-298.
10. Hacker D. Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. Metacognition in educational theory and practice 1998, 165-192. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J. D. Hacher, J. Dunlosky, A. Graesser (Eds.).
11. Haywood H.C., Lidz C.S. Dynamic assessment in educational settings. Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications 2006, Edit, Cambridge. H.C. Haywood, C.S. Lidz (Eds.).
12. Jensen M.R. The MindLadder model: Using dynamic assessment to help students learn to assemble and use knowledge. Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications 2000, 187-227. Elsevier-JAI, Greenwich, CT. C.S. Lidz, J.G. Elliott (Eds.).
13. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. The psychology of reading and language comprehension 1987, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
14. Kalyuga S., Sweller J. Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive E-learning. ETR&D 2005, 53(3):83-93.
15. Kintsch W., Kintsch E. Comprehension. Children's reading comprehension and assessment 2005, 71-91. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. S.G. Paris, S.A. Stahl (Eds.).
16. Kozulin A., Garb E. Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the EARLI. Fribourg, Switzerland, 2001 2001.
17. Lidz C.S. The application of Cognitive Functions Scale (ACFS): An example of curriculum-based dynamic assessment. Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing models and applications 2000, 407-439. Elsevier-JAI, Greenwich, CT. C.S. Lidz, J.G. Elliott (Eds.).
18. Malmberg L.E., Little T.D. Profiles of ability, effort, and difficulty: Relationships with worldviews, motivation and adjustment. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(6):739-754.
19. Meltzer L.J., Katzir T., Miller L., Reddy R., Roditi B. Academic self-perceptions, effort, and strategy use in students with learning disabilities: Changes over time. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 2004, 19(2):99-108.
20. Meyer B.J.F. Text coherence and readability. Topics in Language Disorders 2003, 23(3):204-224.
21. Mora J. Comprehending and transforming. Bases, methodology and evaluation 1998, Repiso-Reguera, Sevilla.
22. Navarro, J. J. (2008). Evaluación dinámica de procesos implicados en la lectura [Dynamic assessment of processes involved in reading]. Doctoral thesis, University of Seville. http://fondosdigitales.us.es/tesis/tesis/778/evaluacion-dinamica-de-procesos-implicados-en-la-lectura/.
23. Rapp D., Broek P. Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2005, 14(5):276-279.
24. Repetto E., Téllez J.A., Beltrán S.G. Intervención psicopedagógica para la mejora de la comprensión lectora y del aprendizaje 2002, UNED, Madrid.
25. Ruijssenaars A.J.J.M., Castelijns J.H.M., Hamers J.H.M. The validity of learning potential tests. Learning potential testing 1993, 69-82. Swets and Zeitlinger, Amsterdam. J.H.M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma, A.J.J.M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.).
26. Souvignier E., Mokhlesgerami J. Using self-regulation as a framework for implementing strategy instruction to foster reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16(1):57-71.
27. Sternberg R.J., Grigorenko E.L. Dynamic testing 2002, Cambridge U.P, Cambridge.
28. Thiede K., Anderson M., Therriault D. Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning from texts. Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 95(1):66-73.
29. Thurman S., McGrath M. Environmentally based assessment practices: Viable alternatives to standardized assessment for assessing emergent literacy skills in young children. Reading & Writing Quarterly 2008, 24(1):7-24.
30. Vygotski L.S. Thinking and speech 1934/1995, Paidós, Barcelona.
31. Wells G. Dialogic inquiry: Toward a socio-cultural practice and theory of education 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.