From dynamic assessment of cognitive abilities to educational interventions: Trends in cognitive education

Open access

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adey P. (2003). Changing minds. Educational and Child Psychology 20(2) 19-30.

  • Adey P. Shayer M. & Yates C. (1992). Thinking science. Philadelphia PA: Research for Better Schools.

  • Arbitman-Smith R. & Haywood H. C. (1980). Cognitive education for learning-disabled adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 8(1) 51-64.

  • Ashman A. F. & Conway R. N. F. (1989). Teaching planning skills in the classroom: the development of an integrated model. International Journal of Disability Development and Education 36(3) 225-240.

  • Ashman A. F. & Conway R. N. F. (1997). Cognition and cognitive concepts. In An introduction to cognitive education: Theory and applications (pp. 41-61). London UK: Routledge.

  • Binet A. & Simon T. (1916). The development of intelligence in the child. The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins.

  • Blair C. & Razza R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control executive function and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development 78(2) 647-663.

  • Budoff M. (1987a). The validity of learning potential assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 52-81). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Budoff M. (1987b). Measures for assessing learning potential. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 173-195). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Buchel F. P. & Scharnhorst U. (1993). The learning potential assessment device (LPAD): discussion of theoretical and methodological problems. In J. H. M. Hamers K. Sijtsma & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.) Learning Potential assessment: Theoretical methodological and practical issues (pp. 13-18). Amsterdam: Swets Zeitlinger.

  • Campione J. C. & Brown A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82-109). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Das J. P. (1999). PASS Reading Enhancement Program (PREP). Edmonton AB: J. P.

  • Das Centre on Learning and Developmental Disabilities.

  • De Bono E. (1991). I am right you are wrong. From this to the new renaissance: From rock logic to water logic. UK: Penguin Books.

  • Dehn M. J. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention. Hoboken NJ: Jon Wiley & Sons.

  • Doidge N. (2007). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. US: Viking Press.

  • Drubach D. (2000). The brain explained. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall Health.

  • Duckworth A. L. & Seligman M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science 16(12) 939-944.

  • Dzuka J. & Kovalcikova I. (2008a). Dynamické testovanie latentných učebných schopností. Československá psychologie 52(4) 366-377.

  • Dzuka J. & Kovalcikova I. (2008b). Sociálne znevýhodňujúce prostredie a dieťa zo sociálne znevýhodňujúceho prostredia pojem a definícia. Československá psychologie 52(6) 633-637.

  • Engelmann S. & Carnine D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene OR: ADI Press.

  • Ferrara R. A. Brown A. L. & Campione J. C. (1986). Children’s learning and transfer of inductive reasoning rules: Studies of proximal development. Child development 57(5) 1087-1099.

  • Ferrer E. McArdle J. J. Shawitz B. A. Holahan J. N. Marchione K. & Shawitz S. E. (2007). Longitudinal models of developmental dynamics between reading and cognition from childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology 43 1460-1473.

  • Feuerstein R. (1970). A dynamic approach to causation prevention and alleviation of retarded performance. In C. Haywood (Ed.) Social-cultural aspects of mental retardation. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

  • Feuerstein R. Feuerstein R. S. Falik L. H. & Rand Y. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The learning propensity assessment device theory instruments and techniques. Jerusalem Israel: ICELP Press.

  • Feuerstein R. Rand Y. Hoffman M. B. & Miller R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment. Baltimore MD: University Park Press.

  • Filickova M. Kovalcikova I. & Ropovik I. (2015). The role of simultaneous and successive processing in EFL reading. International Journal of Psychology. Advance Online Publication.

  • Glaser R. (1988). Cognitive science and education. In J. Crowley (Ed.) International Social Science Journal 40(1) 21-44.

  • Greenberg K. H. (2000). Attending to hidden needs: The cognitive enrichment advantage perspective. Educational and Child Psychology: Psychological Influences upon Educational Intervention 17(3) 51-69.

  • Greenfield P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures. American psychologist 52(10) 1115-1124.

  • Guilford J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Boston MA: Creative Education Foundation.

  • Guthke J. (1993). Developments in learning potential assessment. In J. H. M. Hamers & K. Sijtsma (Eds.) Learning potential assessment: Theoretical methodological and practical issues (pp. 43-67). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

  • Hansen A. (2009). Basic conceptual systems (BCSs) - tools for analytic coding thinking and learning: A concept teaching curriculum in Norway. Thinking Skills and Creativity 4(3) 160-169.

  • Haywood H. C. (1977). A cognitive approach to the education of retarded children. Peabody Journal of Education 54(2) 110-116.

  • Haywood H. C. (2004). From the editor: Current concepts in cognitive development and education: A topical issue. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 4(2) 181-182.

  • Haywood H. C. Brooks P. H. & Burns M. S. (1992). Bright Start: Cognitive curriculum for young children. Watertown MA: Charlesbridge.

  • Haywood H. C. & Lidz C. (2007). Dynamic Assessment in Practice. London: Cambridge University Press.

  • Haywood H. C. & Tzuriel D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody Journal of Education 77(2) 38-61.

  • Howard-Jones P. (2010). The teacher’s handbook of twig: Minds brains and teaching with immersive gaming. Available at: www.lulu.com:NEnet.

  • Ihnot C. Kilkelly C. & Nichols M. (2000). Read naturally: Master’s edition reading level 5.8/6.0 (Blackline Masters). Saint Paul MI: Read Naturally.

  • Jitendra A. K. & Kameenui E. J. (1994). A review of concept learning models: Implications for special education practitioners. Intervention in School and Clinic 30(2) 91-98.

  • Karpov Y. (2008). Do all dynamic assessment techniques assess learning potential? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 7(3) 411-418.

  • Kirby J. R. & Robinson G. W. (1987). Simultaneous and successive processing in reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20(4) 243-252.

  • Klauer K. (1987). Criterion-referenced testing: The inference to the item pool. Zeitschrift für differentielle und diagnostische Psychologie 8 141-147.

  • Klauer K. J. & Phye G. D. (1995). Fallbuch der klinischen Psychologie: Modelle psychischer Storungen. Einzelfallstudien zum Lehrbuch der klinischen Psychologie. Germany: Hogrefe Verlag fur Psychologie.

  • Kolb D. A. Boyatzis R. & Mainemelis C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.) Perspectives on cognitive learning and thinking styles. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Kozulin A. (1999). Profiles of immigrant students` cognitive performance on Raven`s progressive matrices. Perceptual and Motor Skills 87(3) 1311-1314.

  • Kulistak P. (2003). Neuropsychologie. Praha: Portál.

  • Lebeer J. Candeias A. & Gracio M. L. (2011). With a different glance. Dynamic assessment and functioning of children oriented at development & inclusive learning. Belgium: Garant Publishers.

  • Lidz C. S. (1992). Dynamic assessment: Some thoughts on the model the medium and the message. Learning and individual differences 4(2) 125--36.

  • Lovett M. W. Lacerenza L. & Borden S. B. (2000). Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities 33(5) 458-476.

  • Luther M. & Wyatt F. (1996). A comparison of Feuerstein’s method of (LPAD) assessment with conventional IQ testing on disadvantaged North York high school students. In M. Luther E. Cole & P. Gamlin (Eds.) Dynamic assessment for instruction: From theory to application (pp. 168-181). Ontario: Captus Press.

  • Malda M. Van de Vijver F. R. Srinivasan K. Transler C. Sukumar P. & Rao K. (2008). Adapting a cognitive test for a different culture: An illustration of qualitative procedures. Psychology Science Quarterly 50(4) 451-468.

  • Marzano R. J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Aurora CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

  • Meeker M. (1965). A procedure for relating Stanford Binet behavior samplings to Guilford’s structure of the intellect. Journal of School Psychology 3(3) 26-36.

  • Miles D. & Forcht J. P. (1995). Mathematics strategies for secondary students with learning disabilities or mathematics deficiencies: A cognitive approach. Intervention in School and Clinic 31 91-96.

  • Minnaert A. (2002). Alternative assessment of students’ domain-specific learning competencies in the transition of secondary to higher education. In G. M. Van der Aalsvoort W. C. M. Resing & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.) Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (Volume 7 pp. 335-351). Amsterdam: JAI.

  • Murphy R. (2007). Exploring a meta-theoretical framework for dynamic assessment and intelligence. Dissertation thesis. University of Pretoria.

  • Nyborg M. (1993). Pedagogy: The study of how to provide optimum conditions of learning for persons who may differ widely in pre-requisites for learning. Norway: Nordisk undervisningsforlag.

  • OECD. (2007). OECD Factbook 2007 - Economic Environmental and Social Statistics. OECD.

  • Paour J. L. & Soavi G. (1992). A case study in the induction of logic structures. In H. C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.) Interactive Assessment (pp. 419-442). New York: Springer.

  • Primi R. Ferrão M. E. & Almeida L. S. (2010). Fluid intelligence as a predictor of learning: A longitudinal multilevel approach applied to math. Learning and Individual Differences 20(5) 446-451.

  • Rand Y. & Kaniel S. (1987). Group administration of the LPAD. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: an interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 196-214). NewYork: The Guilford Press.

  • Resing W. C. M. (2013). Dynamic testing and individualized instruction: Helpful in cognitive education? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 12(1) 81-95.

  • Resing W. C. M. Roth J. M. & Van der Werf T. J. M. (2002). Learning potential assessment and cognitive training in inductive reasoning: emergent relationship? In G. M. Van der Aalsvoort W. C. M. Resing & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.) Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (Volume 7 pp. 175-208). Amsterdam: JAI.

  • Ropovik I. (2014). Do executive functions predict the ability to learn problem-solving principles? Intelligence 44 64-74.

  • Sawyer R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. In A. Craft & R. Wegerif (Eds.) The International Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity 1(1) 41-48.

  • Sousa D. (2001). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks California: Corwin Press.

  • Stanovich K. E. Cunningham A. E. & Freeman D. (1984). Intelligence cognitive skills and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly 14 278-303.

  • Sternberg R. J. (2013). Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 12 (1) 4-5.

  • Sternberg R. J. & Grigorenko E. L. (2002). Dynamic Testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Stevenson C. E. (2012). Puzzling with potential. Dynamic testing of analogical reasoning in children (Doctoral dissertation Leiden University). Amsterdam the Netherlands: Ipskamp Drukkerij.

  • Swanson H. L. & Lussier C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research 71(2) 321-363.

  • Taub G. Floyd R. G. Keith T. Z. & McGrew K. S. (2008). Effects of general and broad cognitive abilities on mathematics. School Psychology Quarterly 23(2) 187-198.

  • Tokuhama-Espinosa T. (2010). Mind brain and education science. New York: W.W. Norton Company.

  • Tzuriel D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

  • Tzuriel D. (2002). Cognitive education: The menace and the hope. In G. M. Van der Aalsvoort W. C. M. Resing & A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds ) Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: actual research and perspectives in theory building and methodology (Volume 7 pp. 355-363). Amsterdam: JAI.

  • Tzuriel D. & Klein P. S. (1987). Assessing the young child: Children’s analogical thinking modifiability. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.). Dynamic assessment: an interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 268-287). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Tzuriel D. & Shamir A. (2007). The effects of peer mediation with young children (PMYC) on children’s cognitive modifiability. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77 143-165.

  • Ukrainetz T. W. Harpell S. Walsh C. & Coyle C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners. Language speech and hearing services in schools 31(2) 142-154.

  • Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press

  • Walsh. K. (1978). Neuropsychology: A clinical approach. New York: Churchill Livingston.

  • Wolf O. T. Schommer N. C. Hellhammer D. H. Reischies F. M. & Kirschbaum C. (2002). Moderate psychosocial stress appears not to impair recall of words learned four weeks prior to stress exposure. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress 5(1) 59-64

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.126
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.266

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 493 186 8
PDF Downloads 296 125 6