“For L2 teachers to function as transformative intellectuals the intellectual tools of inquiry must permeate all dimensions of their professional development experiences.” (Johnson, 2006, p. 24)
Dynamic Assessment in L2 Teacher Education: The Use of Video Protocols • Paula Golombek, University of Florida, email@example.com • Davis Reis, The Pennsylvania State University, firstname.lastname@example.org • 6th International Language Teacher Education Conference--May 30, 2009
The argument • Because of our changed conception of teachers ways of knowing and teacher professional development, assessment of pre-service teachers should harmonize with these conceptions. • DA unifies assessment and development and can be injected into teacher education programs through the use of video protocols.
The Plan • Discuss alternative assessments being used • Define DA and its goals • Explain video protocols and what mediational intervention might look like • Look at a data example • Summarize
Alternative Assessment Tools • Cases (Johnson, 1996)or stories (Johnson & Golombek, 2002) • Professional development schools--team meetings, peer observations, use of cases, and action research (Johnson, 1996; Gebhard, 1998) • Portfolios (Johnson, 1996, 1998). • Teacher research—action research (Edge & Richards, 1993; Burns, 1999), exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003), narrative inquiry (Johnson & Golombek, 2002).
Dynamic Assessment is a procedure • “that integrates assessment and instruction into a seamless, unified activity for simultaneously assessing and promoting learner development through appropriate forms of mediation that are sensitive to the individual’s (or in some cases a group’s) current abilities. In essence, DA is a procedure for simultaneously assessing and promoting development that takes account of the individual’s (or group’s) zone of proximal development (ZPD)” (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004, p. 50).
Through Interaction in the ZPD • Diagnose/Assess actual level of development of a pre-service teacher • Diagnose/Assess potential level of development of a pre-service teacher • Promote this development (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004) • Mediator=teacher educator • Learner=pre-service teacher
What is a Video Protocol? • A teacher is videotaped teaching a routine lesson. • The teacher educator and teacher view the tape. • The teacher educator or the teacher stop the tape when either views a teaching moment to be compelling. • The teacher educator provides some kind of mediation
What does mediation look like in DA? • Asking leading questions • Modeling • Hints • Suggestions • Explanations • Starting to solve the tasks and asking students to continue (Kozulin & Garb, 2002) • Mediator and learner negotiate the support needed
1 P: what could you have done ? • 2 A: and then I could’ve said “did any of the place you circled sound as if they 3 were (.5) pronounced (1.0) separately? Sort of like • 4 P: uh-hm • 5 A: physically going at it from the inverse= • 6 P: =yeah • 7 A: instead of saying “well did you hear linking?” • 8 P: uh-hm • A: “Well did you hear it (.5) did you hear each (.5) word pronounced • separately, (1.0) did you not hear linking” (1.0) so if they’d say “no no no • it wasn’t separate here: • 12 P: uh-huh= • 13 A: =y’know • 14 P: that may be going a step ahead of the game= • 15 A: =yeah • 16 P: I don’t know (1.0) what if you just simply said “okay let’s look at line one 17 together” (.5) “who can give me an example of linking here”
18 A:okay • 19 P: umm (.5) it would be a way to specify the way that the thing is rather • 20 than like choosing one or another you’re focusing attention • 21 A: yeah • 22 P: “does anybody have an example from one” um (1.5) um • 23 A: yeah • 24 P: that would be, that would be one way (1.0) to do [that] • 25 A: [“Did] anyone 26 pick any- was anyone able to identify how: two words were being linked 27 together in line one (1.0) • 28 P: uh-hm • 29 A: something like that • 30 P: I-II think to draw their attention to line one ra[ther] • 31 A: [yeah] • 32 P: than leaving it so: open (1.0) • 33 A: yeah: • 34 P: and when things are so: open, • 35 A: it’s a little (.5) not so easy ta figure out what to do • 36 P: uh-hm (1.0) and so you wanna help them know what to do.
Co-constructing a ZPD through DA • Provides insights into individual teacher’s pedagogical reasoning and affective concerns, particularly cognitive and emotional dissonance (Golombek & Johnson, 2004) • Allows for mediational intervention that is contingent and responsive to teacher’s needs, or “the right help at the right time” (Verity, 1995) • SR allows teachers to develop alternative idealized activities or conceptualizations, encouraging recontextualizing in practice
Qualified Implications • DA is obviously time consuming—number of teachers is an important determiner • DA is not the panacea—use in conjunction with other ways of sense-making and assessment
References • Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language • learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78. pp. 465-483. • Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teacher. • Language Teaching Research, 7, pp. 113-141. • Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: • Cambridge University Press. • Darling-Hammond L. & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. • Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, pp. 523-545. • Edge, J. & Richards, K. (Eds.). (1993). Teachers Develop Teachers Research. Oxford: • Heineman. • Erben, T., Ban, R., & Summers, R. (2008). Changing exam structures within a college of • education: The application of dynamic assessment in pre-service ESOL endorsement courses in Florida. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages, (pp. 87-114). London: Equinox.
References (p. 2) • Gebhard, M. (1998). A case for professional development schools. TESOL Quarterly, 32. pp. • 501-510. • Golombek, P. R. (1998). A Case Study of Second Language Teachers' Personal Practical Knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 447-464. • Golombek, P. R. & Johnson, K. E. (2004). Narrative Inquiry as a mediational space: Examining cognitive and emotional dissonance in second language teachers’ development. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 10, 307-327. • Johnson, K. E. (1996). The role of theory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 30, pp. • 765-771. • Johnson, K. E. (1998). Portfolio assessment in second language teacher education. TESOLJournal, 6, pp. 11-14.
References (p. 3) • Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher • education. TESOL Quarterly, 40, pp. 235-257. • Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (2002). (Eds.) Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional • development. NY: Cambridge University Press. • Johnson, K. E. & Golombek, P. R. (2003). ‘Seeing’ teacher learning. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 729-737. • Lantolf, J. P. & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic Assessment: Bringing the past into the • future.Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, pp. 49-74. • Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language • development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Lidz, C. (1991). Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment. New York: The Guilford Press. • Poehner, M. E. (2008a). Both sides of the conversation: the interplay between mediation and • learner reciprocity in dynamic assessment. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds.). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. (pp. 33-56). London: Equinox. • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. • Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Memory and Identity. Cambridge: • Cambridge University Press.