Talk:Dynamic assessment

Hey, don't take this away! It's "big thing" in psychology! Google it if you don't believe me! I try to expand it...

PROMOTIONAL PAGE

This needs to come down asap. This is not the definition of Dynamic Assessment. Anyone in the educational psychology world would merely laugh at this. I suggest visiting www.dynamicassessment.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ready2think (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad, bad, bad application

As prior notes said, the application pp on this entry is a total distortion. Someone is adding clickers to sell without having any understanding of dynamic assessment, an in depth process in which the assessor (mediator) takes several days to determine the depth and width of a student's cognitive potential. A clicker response is dynamic only in the press of the finger and has nothing to do with the meaning of the term "dynamic assessment." Clickers may assesses surface and immediate responses to a superficial yes/no question; beyond that they have no value for a dynamic assessment. §Jim Bellanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.197.187 (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Significant revision

I deleted the short lead tag by making the lead even shorter and giving headings for the remaining words. But what is required is input from an expert in the topic--a substantial revision. I have added a tag to that effect.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Another revision

I made a revision to minimize some of the gross errors. Now, this could use a good:

• Copy edit
• Flushing out the section on modes of measurement
• Discussions about common misconceptions and controversy.

I think it's helpful to address misconceptions and controversy head-on. A lot of textbooks incorrectly define dynamic assessment and ZPD (esp. ones where it's a 1-2 paragraph aside in a general text). There were also research communities which went in odd directions (for example, a branch of the community, building on Feuerstein's work, redefined DA as an innate learning potential, and somehow got themselves associated with eugenics). There's enough garbage out there that if we don't provide a text on controversies and/or misconceptions, well-intentioned visitors are likely to edit those into the main text based on erroneous tertiary sources.

For reference, the canonical source is the original Vygotsky. The most common translation is the 1978 edition, which for the purposes of an article like this one, is good enough. If you are editing, PLEASE read this (or a similar) source first. Just because a book is a college textbook doesn't mean it's accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.17.150.215 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ZAD

What does ZAD stand for? 87.218.84.86 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)