The Application of Dynamic Assessment in College English Writing Instruction: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Students’ Perceptions and Proficiency-Based Differences

College English writing instruction in China has long been plagued by challenges such as the ineffectiveness of traditional static assessment, insufficient personalized feedback due to the disproportionate teacher-student ratio, and students’ difficulties in improving writing performance and behaviors (Wei, 2010; Ning, 2021; Zhang, 2023). Dynamic Assessment (DA), which integrates instruction and assessment through contingent mediation based on Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and Zone of Proximal Development, has been proposed as a potential solution to address these issues (Lantolf & Poehner, 2004). This study aims to explore non-English major students’ perceptions of DA in college English writing instruction and examine whether there are significant differences in these perceptions across students of high, medium, and low proficiency levels. A mixed-method research design was adopted, with 196 second-year undergraduate students from Hebei Finance University completing a modified Tripod Student Perception Survey covering seven dimensions: CARE, CONTROL, CLARIFY, CHALLENGE, CAPTIVATE, CONFER, and CONSOLIDATE. Results indicate that students hold overall positive perceptions of DA, with CONSOLIDATE (M=4.5) and CARE (M=4.48) receiving the highest scores, while CONTROL (M=3.91) scored the lowest. Kruskal-Wallis H tests revealed significant differences only in the CONFER dimension (p=0.016), with post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests showing that high-proficiency students scored significantly higher than medium-proficiency students (p=0.004). These findings provide empirical support for the applicability of DA in group classroom settings and offer insights for optimizing college English writing instruction tailored to students of different proficiency levels.

Dynamic Assessment, English writing instruction

1. Afshari, M., Izadpanah, A., & Sadeghi, K. (2020). The impact of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ writing performance: A systematic review. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(3), 456-465. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1103.12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barnard, R. (2017). Dynamic assessment in second language writing: A scoping review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(5), 589-606. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1327643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ferguson, R. F. (2010). The Tripod Survey: Measuring teaching practices that matter for student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3), 343-366. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373710374709 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V. S., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 15(1), 31-43. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kusumaningrum, R., & Karma, D. (2018). EFL students’ perceptions of dynamic assessment in writing classes. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 87-98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom: A teacher’s guide. Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2004.00324.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediated development in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 445-463. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809342761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Liu, Y., & Qi, L. (2024). Classroom management challenges in large-scale college English classes in China. Journal of Higher Education in China, 7(1), 67-82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ning, Y. (2021). Alleviating EFL writing anxiety through dynamic assessment. System, 98, 102568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102568 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Poehner, M. E. (2009). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Shrestha, R., & Coffin, C. (2012). Feedback integration in second language writing: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 103-118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Wallace, T. L., & Chhuon, V. (2014). Teacher-student rapport and classroom behavior: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 789-801. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036652 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Wei, M. (2010). Time management in EFL writing classes: Comparing traditional and dynamic assessment approaches. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 56-70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind and society (pp. 79-91). Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Zhang, H. (2023). Individualized mediation in dynamic assessment: Supporting EFL learners’ writing development. Journal of Asia TEFL, 20(2), 345-362. https://doi.org/10.18823/jate.2023.20.2.345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study