Dynamic Assessment Project

Phonological Awareness

Dynamic assessment of phonological awareness evaluates a learner’s ability to recognize, manipulate, and work with sounds in spoken language. By observing strategies and responses in real time, it highlights strengths, identifies challenges, and guides instruction tailored to each individual.

Overview: Phonological Awareness

Key Terminology

Test-Teach-Retest

After administering a subtest section as a pretest-type probe, revisit items that were missed or where understanding was unclear (e.g., was it a misunderstanding or language difference?). Provide teaching using RISE+ and document child’s learning when provided with scaffolded supports. The goal is to gain insight into a child’s responsiveness to teaching.

Modifiability

A child’s “changeability” when they are given the opportunity to learn in a supportive environment through mediated learning (Feuerstein, 1980; Vygotsky, 1986). The notion that observation of modifiability can help to describe child abilities is grounded in Vygotsky’s “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD).

RISE +

“RISE Plus” is a treatment framework developed by Ukrainetz (2015, 2024). All of the DA-leveled categories incorporate various aspects of RISE+.
The acronym stands for: Repeated opportunities for practice & learning Intensity Systematic Support Explicit Skill Focus + Plus the Learner Factor motivation, strengths, interests, background knowledge)

Scaffolding

This category refers to the toolbox of scaffolding techniques (from higher levels of support to lower levels of support) that speech-language pathologists use. Examples of clinician behaviors of scaffolding further include modeling, providing prompts and cues, providing multiple opportunities for practice, providing specific feedback, and adjusting task difficulty. Clinicians adjust the level of support students need based on student performance. If students are making connections with more independence, clinicians fade supports.

Set up

This category refers to the clinician intentionally setting the child up with what they are practicing and why it is important. Examples of clinician setting-up behaviors include saying explicitly what the child is practicing in this moment and why that skill is important. Set Up behaviors by the clinician also include thinking about, and planning for, how to connect examples and discussion within the teaching to the child’s background and interests.

Retrial

This category refers to the clinician presenting the stimulus or task in a different way. Examples of clinician re-trialing behaviors include recognizing what might be causing confusion and contingently rewording, giving another example, and providing more practice (and feedback) with demo items.

Key Terminology

Set up

This category refers to the clinician intentionally setting the child up with what they are practicing and why it is important. Examples of clinician setting-up behaviors include saying explicitly what the child is practicing in this moment and why that skill is important. Set-up behaviors by the clinician also include thinking about, and planning for, how to connect examples and discussion within the teaching to the child’s background and interests.

Retrial

Scaffolding

RISE +

“RISE Plus” is a treatment framework developed by Ukrainetz (2015, 2024). All of the
DA-leveled categories incorporate various aspects of RISE+. The acronym stands for:
Repeated opportunities for practice and learning
Intensity
Systematic Support
Explicit Skill Focus
+ Plus the Learner Factor (motivation, strengths, interests, background knowledge)

Testing the Limits

A post-standardization dynamic assessment procedure used after completing a norm-referenced test using standrardized protocols. It involves revisiting missed or borderline items to:
-clarify the reason for the child’s incorrect response (e.g., was it a misunderstanding, language difference, or
processing error?)
-provide elaborated feedback, explanations, or teaching prompts

-gauge the learner’s responsiveness to support or instruction without re-administering the full assessment

Note: The goal is not to change the score ub tot gain insight into learning potential, strategy use, and cognitive
modifiability.

Questions to support analysis of the
assessment tool across tasks, items,
and cultural relevance:

What is the specific skill this subtest is designed to measure?
What underlying cognitive-linguistic skills does success on this subtest require?
Are there cultural biases in the instructions/stimulus items/task?
Are there linguistic biases in the instructions/stimulus items/task?
Are there other ways to assess the targeted skill that can circumvent cultural and/or linguistic differences?
Are there alternative tasks that can contribute additional insight on specific tasks?
What do the quantitative and qualitative data say about the student as a learner?
What steps can you identify for SLPs/test administrators as they administer the test (i.e., think about how to convey these steps in a flow chart)?
In what ways does the subtest/task fall short for historically marginalized students?