Dynamic testing (DT) is a method of testing that includes the provision of a form of feedback and guidance to the testing procedure, and can be used to examine children’s potential for learning in...Show moreDynamic testing (DT) is a method of testing that includes the provision of a form of feedback and guidance to the testing procedure, and can be used to examine children’s potential for learning in various cognitive functions, including working memory (WM). Furthermore, intrinsic motivation (IM) seems to be related to enhanced WM performance and learning, especially in feedback-contexts. However, research on the effectiveness of DT of WM in this age group, as well as the influence of IM, is lacking. Therefore, the current thesis aimed to study the effectiveness of our DT of WM, as well as the influence of IM. The study had a pretest-training-posttest design with two groups. The experimental group received training, whereas control group did not. The sample included 100 typically developing primary school children between 8 and 9 years old (Mage = 8.46, SD = 0.50, 51% girls). Contrary to previous findings, our results showed a decrease from pretest to posttest in WM performance in the control group and a slight increase in performance in the experimental group. Moreover, the children’s IM did not significantly influence the WM improvements when tested dynamically. The findings suggest that the training element in our DT could have protected against the decrease in WM from pretest to posttest and that IM did not have a significant influence on these results. These findings contribute to the field of research by highlighting the importance of factors such as sustained attention and time-on-task effects in the prevention of this decline in WM performance during DT. Besides these factors, future research should look into the effects of age, cognitive load and engagement on the DT of WM and IM to gain a better understanding on how to improve its effectiveness, especially in 8- to 9-year-old children. Further exploration could aid educational professionals in implementing the dynamic approach and supporting children’s learning processes and cognitive development.Show less
This research was performed to see how useful dynamic testing of reading and writing would be for children with and without dyslexia and to explore the relationship between dynamic testing of...Show moreThis research was performed to see how useful dynamic testing of reading and writing would be for children with and without dyslexia and to explore the relationship between dynamic testing of reading and writing and intelligence, specifically fluid and crystallised intelligence. To research this, this research had an experimental pretest-training-posttest design with two groups—dyslexic and non-dyslexic—as well as two conditions—training and no-training. The participants were children in primary school between the ages of 7 and 9. The study consisted of two sessions: a preliminary investigation and a dynamic test. The dynamic test used was the EPALE-NL. It consists of four subtests: phonemic awareness, prosodic awareness, sounds and verbs, and context words. A significant difference was found between the group that was trained and the group that was not trained, in specific for the subtest prosodic awareness, with the trained group showing more improvement in accuracy. For the performance on the posttest by the dyslexic group and non-dyslexic group, no significant difference was found between the groups. No significant relationship was found between the gain score and fluid and crystallised intelligence. Dynamic testing of reading and writing has shown potential to be used in the classroom for its previously discovered benefits, as well as its ability to teach both dyslexics and non-dyslexics of varying intelligence.Show less
Reading and writing are important skills in life. However, children with dyslexia, a neurodevelopmental learning disorder with a genetic basis, have difficulty with these skills. Dynamic assessment...Show moreReading and writing are important skills in life. However, children with dyslexia, a neurodevelopmental learning disorder with a genetic basis, have difficulty with these skills. Dynamic assessment might be a better predictor of children’s cognitive abilities and reading and writing skills than static tests. Dynamic assessment is based on the idea that learning is a social proces and uses feedback. This study investigated the effectiveness of dynamic assessment on reading and writing performance, specifically phonemic awareness, prosodic awareness and spelling, and whether there were group differences between dyslexic and non dyslexic children, and boys and girls. The participants included 91 children aged seven to nine, with 45.1% diagnosed with dyslexia. The participants were divided in an experimental condition with a pretest-training-posttest design, and a control condition with a pretestposttest-training design. It was found that the children in the experimental condition improved more over time than the children in the control condition on prosodic awareness. No group differences were found in the effectiveness of the dynamic test. These results show that the dynamic test can be an effective tool in education for increasing the reading and writing skills in children and examining their learning potential.Show less
As children start school, more and more emphasis is placed on their academic performance, their cognitive capabilities, and their intelligence. Current forms of intelligence testing – static...Show moreAs children start school, more and more emphasis is placed on their academic performance, their cognitive capabilities, and their intelligence. Current forms of intelligence testing – static testing and assessment – have been heavily scrutinised for being biased due to for example the influence of socioeconomic status (SES), leading to unequal educational outcomes. Therefore, different forms of testing – dynamic testing and assessment – are being investigated, with this study focusing on a new form of the Dynamic Screener (DS). This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the DS to increase children’s test performance. A second aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes. Participants included 52 children (mean age = 13.14) in the first year of secondary school. The study employed a single-session experimental test-training-test design. Half of the children (n= 27) received a graduated prompts training between the pre-test and post-test, while the other half (n= 25) were the control group and did not receive the training. Five different tests were administered, including a test for working memory, mathematics, language, planning, and inductive reasoning. No significant results were found for trained participants’ performance in comparison with the control group on any of the subtests. Furthermore, no significant difference was found for the predictive value of SES for learning potential, nor for results on pre- versus post-test for the training group. Overall, no definitive conclusions on the effectiveness of the DS, nor on the predictive value of SES for learning potential and DS outcomes, can be drawn from the current study. Future research is needed to determine whether these results are due to the small sample size or are inherent to the DS.Show less
This study investigated the effect of a dynamic test in reading and writing compared to a static test for 87 children in elementary schools in the Netherlands (aged 7-9 years old). Static tests...Show moreThis study investigated the effect of a dynamic test in reading and writing compared to a static test for 87 children in elementary schools in the Netherlands (aged 7-9 years old). Static tests measure the knowledge a child already has at the moment of testing, while on the other hand in a dynamic test children are provided with feedback, prompts or training in order to demonstrate more of their learning potential. Dynamic tests are especially useful for children with intellectual disabilities or learning impairments. Children with and without the diagnosis of dyslexia were allocated to either the experimental or the control condition. Children in the experimental condition of this study received a training in between pretest and posttest, whereas those in the control condition received the training after the posttest. Results showed a positive effect of training on the subtests prosodic awareness, spelling sounds and verbs and context dependent spelling, meaning that the group who received the dynamic test showed more progress from pretest to posttest in these subtests than the group who received the static test. This difference in progress did not apply to the subtest phonemic awareness. No significant gender differences and differences in performance between the dyslexic and the non-dyslexic children were found.Show less
