You are here:

Assessing Second Language Learners’ Written Texts: An Interventionist and Interactionist Approach to Dynamic Assessment

, Dublin City University, Ireland

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Toronto, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-81-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


Dynamic assessment is commonly viewed as an approach which integrates both teaching and assessment activities at the same time, and is generally classified into two categories: interventionist and interactionist. While interventionist approach is used in computer-based assessment and is well adapted to large-scale assessment, the interactionist approach is said to be more in line with Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, mostly with regards to its qualitative orientation, where the aim of the individualised tutoring is to address learners’ issues in a highly flexible way. Following a brief presentation of the main approaches to dynamic assessment, this paper proposes a web-based application based on interventionist as well as interactionist approaches in order to assess unrestricted written language of learners of French. Based on a preliminary use of this web-based application, strengths and limitations of this work-in-progress are discussed.


Thouësny, S. (2010). Assessing Second Language Learners’ Written Texts: An Interventionist and Interactionist Approach to Dynamic Assessment. In J. Herrington & C. Montgomerie (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2010--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3517-3522). Toronto, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Allal, L., & Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment of –or in– the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 137-152. Doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00025-0.
  2. Budoff, M. (1967). Learning potential among institutionalized young adult retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72(3), 404-411.
  3. Campione, J.C., & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-115). New York: Guilford.
  4. Carlson, J.S., & Wiedl, K.H. (1979). Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven matrices. Intelligence, 3(4), 323-344.
  5. Daniel, M.H. (1997). Intelligence testing: Status and trends. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1038-1045.
  6. Dearborn, W.F. (1921). Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--XII. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(4), 210212.
  7. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M.B. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
  8. Jantzen, W., & Braemer, G. (1994). Bibliographie der Arbeiten von A.R. Lurija. In W. Jantzen (Ed.), Die neuronalen Verstrickungen des Bewußtseins. Zur Aktualit ä t von A.R. Lurijas Neuropsychologie (pp. 267-345). Münster: Lit Verlag.
  9. Keane, K.J. (1987). Assessing deaf children. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 360-376). New York: Guilford.
  10. Lantolf, J.P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368. .
  11. Lantolf, J.P., & Poehner, M.E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49. .
  12. Lidz, C.S., & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V.S. Ageyev, & S.M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 99-116). Cambridge:
  13. 16.Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky’ s theories for dynamic assessment. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.
  14. Moore-Brown, B., Huerta, M., Uranga-Hernandez, Y., & Pena, E.D. (2006). Using Dynamic Assessment to Evaluate Children With Suspected Learning Disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 209-217.
  15. Poehner, M.E. (2008). Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2 Development. Milton Keynes: Springer.
  16. Poehner, M.E., & Lantolf, J.P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265. .
  17. Samuels, M.T. (2000). Assessment of post-secondary students with learning difficulties: using dynamic assessment in a problem solving process. In C.S. Lidz, & J.G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications, Volume 6 (Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice) (pp. 521-542). New York: JAI, an imprint of Elsevier Science.
  18. Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of Learning Potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Thorne, S.L. (2005). Epistemology, Politics, and Ethics in Sociocultural Theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 393-409.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact