Measurements of learning potential

2.2.3.1 Dynamic Assessment

Dynamic assessment emerged through the quest to address the inadequacy of conventional intelligence tests which did not test the potential to learn but rather static measures of certain individual abilities, which often did not lead to prediction of the ability to learn (Schneider- Lidz, 1987). Dynamic assessment is a measurement method which includes instructional intervention during the testing process. It is viewed as a mechanism to alleviate the effects of environmental variables which influence performance and distort the measurement of latent capacity (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). According to Minick (1987), all forms of dynamic assessment have been motivated by the conviction that the static intelligence approach to testing of learning potential had failed to provide information that could be useful to facilitate the psychological development of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The underlying assumption of dynamic assessment is that the child learns through interaction with adults and other peers (Vygotsky, 1978). Another assumption is that cognitive activities are learned and performed within a cultural context, which means that learning, thinking, and problem solving, which are instances of higher mental activities, are of social origin (Minick, 1987). Learning ability or learning potential are used interchangeably and have the same meaning; the approach is based on exposing the candidate to training first and assessing learning potential afterwards. Changes noted as the result of training intervention in terms of quality or quantity are indicative of learning potential (Guthke, 1993). In the study of development in learning potential, Guthke (1993) pointed out that ZPD in its original theoretical meaning was designed as a model of the relationship between education and development processes and was only later developed into diagnostic principles.

De Beer (2006) noted that the test-train-retest approach is a dynamic assessment which stems from Vygotsky’s theory of the ZPD, wherein the main focus is not on the current level of

22

ability, but the potential level that the individual can reach with an appropriate level of training opportunities being provided.

2.2.3.2 Budoff’s Learning Potential Measurement Approach

Budoff was motivated by the concerns of validity of static intelligence measurement, which he believed was relevant to understanding the abilities of certain children but tended to compromise the results of children from disadvantaged economic backgrounds due to cultural incompatibility of school and home environment (Poehner, 2008; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). Budoff is credited with the engineering of the sandwich format of Dynamic Assessment borrowed from classical research design in experimental psychology (pre-test- treatment-post-test) (Poehner, 2008). He attributed the effects of low performance to lack of quality educational opportunity and further argued that exposure to the test and certain assistance in solving test problems would mitigate the results of the test (Poehner, 2008). Budoff’s approach starts with conducting a pre-test with the candidate. Based on the results, training is provided so as to improve the candidate’s test performance; he believed that the degree of improvement on the test score is an indication of potential for future learning (Poehner, 2008; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). Though Budoff’s approach does not advocate a focus on cognitive development as a goal of his interactions, he acknowledged that cognitive abilities are permeable to change, given appropriate opportunities (Poehner, 2008; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).

2.2.3.3 Guthke Lerntest Approach

While working with his colleagues at the University of Leipzig, Guthke extended the work of Budoff by developing a number of dynamic testing procedures (Guthke, 1993). He differed from Vygotsky’s view of cognitive development by advocating that there is more than one ZPD for general intelligence or learning ability (Guthke, 1993; Poehner, 2008). He adopted an approach different from that of Budoff’s by combining mediation into the test itself; together with his colleagues, Guthke developed five standardized units to be utilised during completion of the test (Poehner, 2008). The proponents of learning potential testing believed that learning in the training phase of the test was the reflection of learning performance at school; their research found that the predictive validity of learning potential tests is higher

23

than that of static tests and that post-tests have more predictive validity than pre-tests (Guthke, 1993).

2.2.3.4 Brown’s Graduated Prompt Approach

Brown and her colleagues’ focus was on designing Dynamic Assistant procedures for particular domains, such as reading and mathematics for both normal and special needs children (Poehner, 2008). The Brown’s Graduated Prompt Approach uses standardised hints and leading questions for each item or problem in the test; the mediation clues are arranged from more complex to the most obvious clue leading to an answer (Poehner, 2008; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). The Graduated Prompt Approach differs from the Vygotskian perspective because it includes certain transfer tasks (Poehner, 2008). Budoff’s approach advocates that the most important development should be noted in the improvement on different kinds of task performance rather than on repetition of a test parallel to the original test. The candidate should be given a new test but with similar principles combined with a completely new task (Poehner, 2008).

Once the candidates are able to solve the novel exemplars of the initial tasks, they are given new tasks of “near transfer” which combine tasks using similar principles to previous questions; after this the test candidates are given “far transfers” tasks which require new rules in addition to the familiar principles (Poehner, 2008; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). Lastly, the candidates are given “very far transfer” tasks which are more difficult; on the basis of their performance the examiner can compile a report which indicates how quickly the examinee could learn and to what degree they could use the knowledge in solving novel problems (Poehner, 2008; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).

2.2.3.5 Feuerstein Mediated Learning Experience

The Feuerstein approach did not adopt the perspective of Vygotsky, but many of Feuerstein’s procedures seem to be a continuation of defectology work by Vygotsky and Luria which dates back more than 7 decades, where his point of departure was that assessment and instruction do not exist separately (Poehner, 2008). Feuerstein and Feuerstein (1999, p.7) defined Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) “as quality of interaction between the

24

mediate the stimuli affecting the individual rather than generalised interaction between the world and organism (Feuerstein & Feuerstein, 1999). The MLE view of the human being as an open system whose cognitive ability is amenable to change, as well as the notion that cognitive abilities are fixed traits that are determined by biology, like height and colour of hair, are rejected (Poehner, 2008). Feuerstein and his colleagues indicated that an individual living in a modern and changing society could not be viewed as having stable and predictable patterns; therefore, they viewed modifiability and auto plasticity as proper characterisations (Poehner, 2008).

The underlying assumption of Feuerstein and his colleagues stems from the basic belief that intervention could be made in the development of human cognitive abilities; this conviction is termed Structural Cognitive Modification (SCM) (Poehner, 2008). The modification of the cognitive structure could be achieved through MLE (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002). MLE is the way in which stimuli created by the environment are transformed by mediating agents such as parents, siblings or any other caregivers in an effort to create cognitive structural changes (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).

Feuerstein’s theory is said to be supported by a number of individual success stories, one of which includes a young boy who was classified as retarded but went on to obtain his PhD in psychology (Poehner, 2008). APIL SV stems from the learning potential theory and assesses the individual’s potential to learn new things instead of crystallised abilities. Similar to Thorndike’s definition and approach, this study embraces intelligence as the ability to learn and, as he did, the assumption that everyone has a similar learning history is rejected (Guthke, 1993).