Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2020 | Artikelen

Dynamisch testen van hoog- en normaalbegaafde kinderen

Gebruik van een digitale test om potentieel om te leren in kaart te brengen

Auteurs: Dr. Bart Vogelaar, Prof. dr. Wilma C. M. Resing

Gepubliceerd in: Kind en adolescent | Uitgave 1/2020

Samenvatting

In dit onderzoek werd een nieuw ontwikkelde digitale dynamische test voor analogisch redeneren onderzocht. De vraag was of de test gebruikt kon worden om het potentieel om te leren te meten bij een groep hoog- (n = 40) en normaalbegaafde (n = 63) 7‑ en 8‑jarige kinderen. Er werd gebruikgemaakt van een voormeting-training-nameting-ontwerp, waarin de helft van de kinderen werd getraind middels graduated-prompts-technieken. De resultaten suggereerden dat de kinderen die getraind waren meer vooruitgang lieten zien in correct opgeloste analogieën dan degene die geen training hadden gekregen. Hoogbegaafde kinderen scoorden hoger op de voor- en nameting, maar lieten dezelfde mate van groei zien als hun normaalbegaafde leeftijdsgenoten. Ook hadden zij op groepsniveau minder instructies nodig tijdens de training dan de normaalbegaafde kinderen. Digitaal dynamisch testen lijkt dan ook een goede manier te zijn om zicht te krijgen op individuele leerpaden van hoog- en normaalbegaafde kinderen.

vorige artikel De Cognitieve Test Applicatie (COTAPP): geavanceerde computertest voor het meten van aandacht, informatieverwerking en executieve functies bij kinderen

volgende artikel Neuropsychologische profielen van kinderen met een autismespectrumstoornis in relatie tot hun intelligentie

Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen & M. Bishop (red.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pag. 505–518). Heidelberg, Berlin, New York: Springer.CrossRef

Calero, M. D., García-Martín, M. B., & Robles, M. A. (2011). Learning potential in high IQ children: the contribution of dynamic assessment to the identification of gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.025.CrossRef

Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (red.), Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential (pag. 82–109). New York: Guilford.

Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12472602.CrossRef

Chow, S., Shao, J., & Wang, H. (2008). Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC Biostatistics Series.

Elliott, J. G., Grigorenko, E. L., & Resing, W. C. M. (2010). Dynamic assessment: the need for a dynamic approach. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (red.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (pag. 220–225). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

Elliott, J. G., Resing, W. C. M., & Beckmann, J. F. (2018). Dynamic assessment: a case of unfulfilled potential? Educational Review, 70, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1396806.CrossRef

Hosenfeld, B., Boom, D. C. van den, & Resing, W. C. M. (1997). Constructing geometric analogies for the longitudinal testing of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1997.tb00524.x.CrossRef

Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as a process-oriented assessment in educational settings. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 9, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040701460390.CrossRef

Kanevsky, L. S. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg & R. F. Subotnik (red.), International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (pag. 283–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384733.n8.CrossRef

Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G. (2006). Use of dynamic assessment with gifted students. Gifted Education International, 21, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940602100307.CrossRef

McCutchen, K. L., Jones, M. H., Carbonneau, K. J., & Mueller, C. E. (2016). Mindset and standardized testing over time. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.027.CrossRef

Mulholland, T. M., Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1980). Components of geometric analogy solution. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 252–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90011-0.CrossRefPubMed

Passig, D., Tzuriel, D., & Eshel-Kedmi, G. (2016). Improving children’s cognitive modifiability by dynamic assessment in 3D immersive virtual reality environments. Computers & Education, 95, 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.009.CrossRef

Pereira Da Costa, M., & Lubart, T. I. (2016). Gifted and talented children: heterogeneity and individual differences. Anales de Psicología, 32, 662–671. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.3.259421.CrossRef

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 3: The Standard Progressive Matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press; San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Renzulli, J. S., & Sytsma, R. E. (2008). Intelligences outside the normal curve: co-cognitive traits that contribute to giftedness. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (red.), Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says (pag. 57–84). Waco: Prufrock.

Resing, W. C. M. (2000). Assessing the learning potential for inductive reasoning in young children. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (red.), Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications (pag. 229–262). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Resing, W. C. M. (2013). Dynamic testing and individualized instruction: helpful in cognitive education? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.12.1.81.CrossRef

Resing, W. C. M., & Elliott, J. G. (2011). Dynamic testing with tangible electronics: measuring children’s change in strategy use with a series completion task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 579–605.CrossRef

Resing, W. C. M., Steijn, W. M. P., Xenidou-Dervou, I., Stevenson, C. E., & Elliott, J. G. (2011). Computerized dynamic testing: a study of the potential of an approach using sensor technology. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10, 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.10.2.178 CrossRef

Resing, W. C. M., Bakker, M., Elliott, J. G., & Vogelaar, B. (2019). Dynamic testing: can a robot as tutor be of help in assessing children’s potential for learning? Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.1235814.CrossRef

Resing, W. C. M., Stevenson, C. E., & Bosma, T. (2012a). Dynamic testing: measuring inductive reasoning in children with developmental disabilities and mild cognitive impairments. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.11.2.159.CrossRef

Resing, W. C. M., Xenidou-Dervou, I., Steijn, W. M., & Elliott, J. G. (2012b). A “picture” of children’s potential for learning: looking into strategy changes and working memory by dynamic testing. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.002.CrossRef

Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

Robinson-Zañartu, C., & Carlson, J. (2013). Dynamic assessment. In K. F. Geisinger (red.), APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology (band 3, pag. 149–167). Washington: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14049-007.CrossRef

Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 84, 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.4.353.CrossRef

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stevenson, C. E., Bergwerff, C. E., Heiser, W. J., & Resing, W. C. M. (2014). Working memory and dynamic measures of analogical reasoning as predictors of children’s math and reading achievement. Infant and Child Development, 23, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1833.CrossRef

Stevenson, C. E., Heiser, W. J., & Resing, W. C. M. (2013). Working memory as a moderator of training and transfer of analogical reasoning in children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.02.001.CrossRef

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456079.CrossRef

Touw, K. W. J., Vogelaar, B., Bakker, M., & Resing, W. C. M. (2019). Using electronic technology in the dynamic testing of young primary school children: predicting school achievement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09655-6.CrossRef

Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00204.x.CrossRef

Vogelaar, B., & Resing, W. C. M. (2016). Gifted and average-ability children’s progression in analogical reasoning in a dynamic testing setting. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.15.3.349.CrossRef

Vogelaar, B., Bakker, M., Hoogeveen, L., & Resing, W. C. M. (2017). Dynamic testing of gifted and average-ability children’s analogy problem solving: does executive functioning play a role? Psychology in the Schools, 54, 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22032.CrossRef

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

Zeng, G., Hou, H., & Peng, K. (2016). Effect of growth mindset on school engagement and psychological well-being of Chinese primary and middle school students: the mediating role of resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1873. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01873.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Dynamisch testen van hoog- en normaalbegaafde kinderen
Gebruik van een digitale test om potentieel om te leren in kaart te brengen
Auteurs: Dr. Bart Vogelaar
Prof. dr. Wilma C. M. Resing
Publicatiedatum: 01-02-2020
Uitgeverij: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Gepubliceerd in: Kind en adolescent / Uitgave 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-2436
Elektronisch ISSN: 1876-5998
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12453-019-00232-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2020

Intelligentieonderzoek komt van Venus en neuropsychologisch onderzoek van Mars?

Opmerkelijk

Over aspecten van het executief functioneren die niet meetbaar zijn met formele tests

Opmerkelijk

Een vernieuwende blik op persoonlijkheidsproblematiek bij jongeren: van traditionele hokjes naar dimensioneel denken

Artikelen

Hoogbegaafdheid is niet te meten

Debat

Integratieve diagnostiek met de Intelligence and Development Scales-2 (IDS-2)

Artikelen

De Cognitieve Test Applicatie (COTAPP): geavanceerde computertest voor het meten van aandacht, informatieverwerking en executieve functies bij kinderen

Artikelen