This is the abstract of the paper I presented at the BALEAP Biennial conference (19 - 21 April 2013) at the University of Nottingham, UK:

Dynamic assessment and academic writing: evidence of learning transfer?

Dr Prithvi Shrestha, Department of Language, The Open University

Abstract

In the context of higher education, many higher order skills and knowledge are expected to be transferable by lecturers. Sustaining these skills and knowledge is therefore central to learning and disciplinary writing development. English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses can contribute to this purpose as they aim to enable Higher Education students to participate in their chosen academic communities as fully as possible. Despite learning transfer being a key purpose in ESP, research in this area is still limited (Cheng, 2007).

In this context, this paper reports on a small-scale study investigating the transfer of academic writing skills and conceptual knowledge among undergraduate business studies students. The data are derived from a larger study (Shrestha, 2011) conducted at a British university. One assignment text each was collected from four students who studied an ESP course for business studies. While three students had received interactive feedback on their previous two assignments, following a Vygotsky-inspired dynamic assessment (DA) approach, one student was provided with traditional tutor feedback. DA blends instruction with assessment by targeting and further developing students’ potential abilities (Poehner, 2011) whereas traditional tutor feedback is less interactive and hence, may not sufficiently target learners’ potential abilities. The student texts were analysed by drawing on Vygotskian sociocultural theory of learning (Vygotsky, 1978), and genre theory (Martin & Rose, 2007) based on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). The findings suggest that the transfer of academic writing skills and conceptual knowledge occurred more in the texts of the students that underwent dynamic assessment than that of the student who followed a traditional assessment approach for their first two assignments. Implications of this for ESP instruction and assessment design will be presented. [281 words]

Key words: academic writing; dynamic assessment; learning transfer; business studies

References

Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre awareness: Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy framework. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 287-307. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.002

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.

Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic Assessment: fairness through the prism of mediation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 99-112.

Shrestha, P. (2011). Dynamic assessment of academic writing for business studies. EdD Doctoral thesis, The Open University, Milton Keynes.  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DA for widening participation

DA is generally associated with special education in general education. In particular, Feuerstein and his colleagues have always worked in this field when it comes to the development and research of DA. However, Vygotsky did not develop his concepts of mediation and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), both central tenets of DA, for special education but for general education. Nor did he develop any assessment approach applying these concepts to assessment. It was later psychologists and educationists who extended these concepts for assessment and instruction. My own DA research goes beyond special education and face-to-face learning as it investigates business studies students' academic writing trajectory in a distance education institution. There are some interesting findings that I will be sharing on this blog.

As higher education institutions in the UK and elsewhere grapple with their agenda of widening participation, they will have to find various options for assessment regarding fair access and opportunities. DA can prove to be one of them. I would like to push this forward int eh institution where I work. But it remains to be seen how easily the institution buys this idea.

Some thorny issues around DA?

As before somewhere else, after the presentation at BALEAP PIM, there were questions regarding the difference between DA and formative assessment, and DA and what a good EAP teacher does in his/ her classroom. I do agree that DA is a form of formative assessment as it is strongly linked with learning and development of a learner. The main point of DA is that it has a strong learning theory (i.e., sociocultural theory) underpinning it and sees assessment as a part of learning rather than it being separate.

On the other hand, it was difficult to convince people how it was different from those EAP tutors who do do certain things that are promoted in DA. Yet, my own view is that the EAp tutors do not follow a particular theory of learning per se; rather they use their discretion as to how to scaffold the learner. Often such support is ad hoc or provided in a 'hit or miss' fashion. To me, in order for DA to happen, there should be INTENTIONALITY from the part of the tutor and the learner, RECIPROCITY (learner responding to the tutor), TRANSCENDENCE (transfer of skills and knowledge to a more challenging task) and MEDIATION of MEANING (conveying the meaning to the learner in a learning-friendly environment that promotes better relationship with the learner through emotional support (affect) and positive outcomes). I do not think these are considered in a general EAP teaching session all the time.

Presentation at BALEAP PIM, Nottingham University

Yesterday I gave a presentation on my dynamic assessment research at the British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic Purposes (BALEAP) Professional Issues Meeting (PIM). My main focus in the presentation was two aspects of Textual metafunction: macro-Theme and hyper-Theme which emerged as one of the key areas that the students needed support with. The presentation was well received as there were over 25 people in this concurrent session and raised lots of interest in the EAP community. I was also pleased that Professor Liz Hamp-Lyons, the keynote speaker, mentioned my paper as an option in EAP assessment in higher education.

In this blog, I will be posting my research related to Dynamic Assessment of academic writing, which is driven by the Russian psychologist Lev S. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of learning and Michael Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the genre theory developed by Jim Martin and his colleagues in Australia. Although the latter has been extensively used in open and distance learning (ODL) for textual analysis, the former has not been examined in ODL. As an attempt to fill this gap, my study examines business studies students' trajectory of academic writing in the discipline over time.

Watch out for more postings here as I continue to reflect on my research journey.

Any thoughtful comments are welcome!