大学英语写作教学的动态评价研究
|
摘要
长期以来，我国大学英语写作教学大多以终结性的测试为主导，这种评价方式内容单一，标准机械，过分强调结果，忽略学习过程，不利于促进学生的写作能力发展。2007年教育部颁布的《大学英语课程教学要求》中专门对教学评估内容进行了补充，强调评估的过程性和发展性。因此，探索和建立新的大学英语写作评价模式已迫在眉睫。
本文以Vygotsky的心智的社会文化理论（Sociocultural Theory of Mind，简称SCT）为依据，参考国内外评估理论的最新成果，借鉴过程写作理论，提出了评估与教学相融、渐进式序列化交互设计、改善互动环境等三条建构原则，以此构建了大学英语写作教学的动态评价（Dynamic Assessment，简称DA）模式，包括英语写作网络教学系统的建立、写作各阶段的“支架式”介入干预策略的设计、动态综合作文评改标准的制订、以及相应的支撑性参考资源库的建设等。采用实验对比的方法，以洛阳师范学院51名非英语专业文理本科生为研究对象，进行了两个学期的小范围内教学改革实践。利用自行设计的有关英语写作认识、写作策略、写作动机等各种调查问卷，通过量化分析和微变化分析，深入研究了大学英语写作教学的DA框架下学生写作行为的变化情况，回答了本文设定的四个问题：
1. DA介入干预实践对学生英语写作认识、策略及积极性的影响如何？
2. DA介入干预实践对学生英语写作成绩的影响如何？
3. DA介入干预实践对学生英语写作过程各阶段的具体影响如何？
4.教师和学生对大学英语DA介入干预实践活动的评价如何？
根据量化分析，DA介入干预实践对学生的英语写作认识、写作策略及积极性的影响如下：1）调动了学生对英语写作的兴趣，使更多的学生认识到，在写作教学的评价中自己可以发挥主动作用，不再单纯依靠教师对自己作品的评判鉴定，对同伴互改和现代写作评改工具持欢迎态度。2）提高了学生英语写作策略的使用意识，尤其是日常写作及修改策略的使用意识；与高水平学生相比，对低水平学生的日常英语写作策略的DA教学干预取得了更为显著的成效。3）提升了不同层次学生的总体英语写作动机水平，其最大影响是提升了学生对英语写作的内在兴趣。
数据分析表明，DA介入干预实践提高了不同水平学生的英语写作成绩，其在文章的篇幅长度、思想内容、语言表述的丰富性等方面的提高尤为明显，但是低水平学生在语言表达方面还需要更多的DA干预。
对DA框架下学生写作行为的微变化分析表明：1）在日常写作方面，DA框架下开展的各种“支架式”干预活动激发了学生对英语写作的内在动机，维持其在英语学习上不断投入，从而促进了其在英语写作上的ZPD区域不断被开发，带动其英语整体水平的提高。2）在写前阶段，DA干预不仅仅着眼于对学生施加影响，其职能还可以体现在其对学生写作问题根源的识别与判断上。其中的头脑风暴活动能够激发学生的创新思维，不仅可以为学生提供“支架”，还可以为学生提供一种自建“支架”的方法。3）在互评阶段，经由教师的中介干预，学生在提升互改质量的同时也提高了其对写作的掌控能力。其中高水平学生会通过自我反思，主动寻求教师的“支架”式教学干预，直至完全内化教师的干预指导，逐步迁移至其它写作任务，并开始外化为一种对他人的干预。具体明晰的互评要求及评分标准，可以帮助低水平学生有序建构其对英语写作的掌控能力。4）在修改阶段，教师提供的各种“支架式”DA教学干预活动促进了低水平学生实现由被动模仿到主动寻求方法“支架”的转型。对于高水平学生而言，大量的参考资源和恰当的写作方法指导等教学干预活动能够迅速提升其ZPD区域的不断扩大，帮助其向着更高的目标迈进。5）在终稿→自主阶段，通过自主观摩，高水平学生会把同伴作品视为通往更高水平道路上的一个“路标式”支架，并主动探寻更多的“支架”去丰富自己。因此，对其DA干预重在帮助其精细使用这些资源，尽快完成他人调适（即观摩学习），做到完全“内化”（化为己用）。对于低水平学生而言，教师通过提供及时的肯定鼓励、精修范文的示范引领，实现对其进行直接或间接的干预指导。
此外，分析表明，绝大多数学生对研究所推行的DA模式实验是满意的，在四大教学介入举措中，学生对资源介入的满意度最高。而教师则感觉在帮助学生的同时，自己也在业务上有了很大的进步。
本文设计的大学英语写作教学DA模式的成功之处在于其构建了一个英语写作的学习共同体，发挥了其中教师和学生的主体作用，合理分配了彼此间的角色，从而能够促使师生双方共同参与写作这一文化构建的活动中，使教师与学生、学生与学生之间形成了良好的互动。
该模式的成功实施有助于改变当前我国大学英语教学终结性测试为主导的局面，减少目前评价方式对学生英语学习的负面影响，使评价朝过程性、发展性、多元化方向发展，重视针对性的学习策略干预及介入资源建设，及时为学生提供教学补救措施，从根本上促进学生英语学习能力的发展。其主要创新之处在于：1）在综合国内外有关DA界定及研究的基础上，提出了自己的DA定义及其诠释；2）首次把DA理论引入了以汉语为母语的外语学习者的大学英语写作教学实践；3）构建了大学英语写作教学的DA理论框架及应用模式；4）设计了系统的外语学习支持性介入手段，探究了DA的诸成功要素，检验了DA在大学英语写作教学领域中的可行性。
但是，由于目前西方二语习得研究者才刚刚开始步入这个领域，国内大学英语写作教学领域还缺乏过程性的DA设计尝试，因此，该评价体系还有待于长期的教学实践来检验和完善。未来研究可以结合优秀在线写作评改系统的支持，借鉴目前英语写作表现测量指标方面的研究成果，利用语料库分析软件，实现大规模、精细化的大学英语写作教学DA实践研究。此外，在实验的时间跨度上也可以进一步拓展，对整个大学英语写作教学的全过程进行跟踪评估，以观测更为完整的教学评估与介入程序。
总之，本文为大学英语教学评价体系的改革提供了更多的选择，也为整体外语教学改革探索了新方法和新途径。其研究成果为国内其它同类院校提供了理论借鉴与实践支持，对DA在国内其它各学科中的推广也有一定的参考价值。
Over the years, summative tests prevail in college English writing classes all overmainland China. With uniform content and mechanical criteria, such assessment modesfocus too much on the learning results, ignoring the learning process, thus they are notconducive to promoting the development of the students' writing competence. Issued bythe Ministry of Education in2007, College English Curriculum Requirements specificallysupplement the contents of the teaching evaluation, with emphasis on the procedure anddevelopmentality of assessment. Therefore, it is high time to explore and establish a newassessment mode in college English writing class.
Based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of mind (SCT hereafter), and with referenceto the latest development of assessment theories both at home and abroad, threeconstructional principles for writing assessment were proposed in light of process writingtheories: the integration of assessment and instruction, the design of graduated andserialized interaction, and the improvement of interactive environment. Based on suchthree principles, a dynamic assessment (DA hereafter) mode was constructed for collegeEnglish writing classes, incorporating such interventional teaching measures as thedevelopment of a network-based EFL composition teaching system, the design ofscaffolding mediational strategies for each stage of writing process, the formulation ofdynamic comprehensive essay scoring criteria, and the establishment of a relevantreference resources corpus. After a two-semester small-scale experiment with51non-English-major undergraduates from Luoyang Normal University, the students’ writingbehavior changes in the framework of such a DA mode were investigated thoroughly bothquantitatively and qualitatively with the help of self-designed questionnaires concerningthe students’ knowledge of English writing together with their writing strategies andmotives, providing answers to the four questions put forward in this dissertation:
Research Question1: In what way have the interventional efforts in the framework ofsuch a DA mode affected the students’ understanding of English writing, their writingstrategies and initiatives?
Research Question2: In what way have the interventional efforts in the frameworkof such a DAmode affected the students’English writing performance?
Research Question3: In what way have the interventional efforts in the framework ofsuch a DA mode affected the students’ writing behavior at each stage of Englishwriting process?
Research Question4: In what way have the teachers and students appreciated theinterventional efforts in the framework of such a DAmode?
According to the statistical analyses, the interventional efforts in the framework ofsuch a DA mode have affected the students’understanding of English writing, their writingstrategies and initiatives in the following ways:1) Such efforts have stimulated thestudents’ interest in English writing, making more students aware of the importance oftheir initiatives in the assessment of their own writings. Consequently the students nolonger simply resort to their teachers’ help for the evaluation of their writing assignments,and embrace peer feedback and the online automated essay scoring tool as possiblealternatives instead.2) Such efforts have improved the students’ use of writing strategies,their use of daily writing strategies and revision strategies in particular. Compared withthose higher proficiency students (HPSs hereafter), lower proficiency students (LPSshereafter) have made more remarkable progress in their adoption of daily writing strategieswith the help of such interventional measures.3) Such efforts have promoted the overallEnglish writing motive level of students of different proficiency, with greater influenceexerted on the enhancement of the students’intrinsic interest in English writing.
Statistical analyses of the data indicate that such DA intervention practice hasimproved the English writing performance of the students of different proficiency,especially in their article length, ideas and language richness, but LPSs need more DAinterventions for their improvement in language accuracy.
Microgenetic analyses reveal that in the framework of such a DA mode, the students’writing behavior changes in the following ways:1) In their daily writing, with thescaffolding DA intervention in various forms, the students’ intrinsic interest in Englishwriting has been inspired, which maintains their efforts invested continually into theirEnglish study, and consequently their ZPDs in English writing have been further developed,leading to the overall improvement of their English competence.2) At the prewriting stage,such DAinterventional efforts have not only focused their attention on their influence upon the students, but also committed themselves to the identification and diagnosis of thestudents’ problems in English writing. And such scaffolding interventional efforts asbrainstorming activities can stimulate the student's innovative thinking by providing themwith both scaffolding and means of building such scaffolding by themselves.3) Atpeer-feedback stage, with the teacher’s intervention, the students have learned to providetheir peers with feedback of better quality, and meanwhile improved their command ofEnglish writing. Through self-reflection, HPSs have learned to seek the teachers’scaffolding interventions on their own initiative until they have internalized suchinterventions and gradually transfer what they have internalized to the performance ofsome other writing tasks, and then such competence can be externalized in the form oftheir intervention in their peers’ writing activities. With the specific and lucidpeer-feedback guidelines and criteria provided by the teacher, LPSs have learned toimprove their command of English writing step by step.4) At the revision stage, suchscaffolding DAinterventions provided by the teacher have helped the LPSs transform frompassive imitation to their active quest for strategies scaffolding on their own initiative.Massive reference resources and appropriate writing strategies instruction can broaden theHPSs’ ZPDs in English writing rapidly, leading them to stride forward for higher goals.5)At the post-writing→independent-writing stage, by emulating independently the modelwritings provided by the teachers, HPSs have learned to take their peers’model writings as“the guidepost type” scaffolding on the way to higher level of writing, and initiated thequest for more scaffolding to enrich themselves, and therefore the pivot of the interventionin their writing is on their selective use of such resources, escorting them in the processfrom other-regulation (in the form of observation and emulation) to self-regulation untilcomplete internalization (taking what they have learned from such model writings for theirown use). LPSs have learned to count on the teacher’s timely encouragement and modelingtutoring (in the form of the preparation of detailedly-edited model writings) for direct orindirect interventional instructions.
In addition, both quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that the overwhelmingmajority of the students in the experiment are satisfied with such a DA mode, especiallywith the reference writing resources among the four major groups of interventionsprovided in the experiment. And all the teachers involved feel that while helping thestudents, they have made great progress in their writing instruction practice, too.
The success of the DA mode for college English writing class designed in thisdissertation lies in its construction of an English writing learning community, in which notonly the teachers but also the students have performed an active role, along with a moresensible distribution of their jobs among themselves. As a result, both sides are stimulatedto take active part in such a culturally constructed activity as writing, in which betterinteraction has been formed among students and between the teachers and students.
The successful implementation of such a DA mode will hopefully help to changecurrent summative-tests-dominant situation in college English teaching in China, andreduce the negative effect of current ways of evaluation on the students’ English study,making assessment procedural, developmental, and diversified, with focus on pertinentlearning strategies interventions, the building of relevant interventional resources corpuses,and prompt remedial instructions, so that the all-around development of the students’English competence would be promoted fundamentally. The innovation of this study lies inthe following four aspects:1) Based on the definations of and studies concerning DA bothat home and abroad, a working definition of DA was put forward along with itsinterpretation in the context of this study;2) It has introduced for the first time the DAtheory into Chinese EFL writing teaching practice on the tertiary level;3) It hasconstructed a theoretical DA framework and its application mode pertinent for collegeEnglish writing instruction in China;4) It has designed systematic scaffoldinginterventional strategies for EFL writing classes, probed into the key elements to successfulDA implementation, and verified the feasibility of DA theories in the field of collegeEnglish writing instruction.
However, because at present the western SLA researchers have just stepped into thisdomain, and few scholars have ever attempted the design of a procedural DA mode in thefield of domestic college English writing teaching, the DAsystem designed in this study isexpected to be verified and improved in the long-term teaching practice. For further study,a more thorough study of the DA for college English writing class in a larger scale mightbe realized with the help of an excellent online automated essay scoring system and corpusanalysis software, with reference to the current study of the English writing performancemeasures. Furthermore, the time span of the experiment can also be extended to track thewhole process of the students’ development of English writing competence, so that a morecomplete picture of DA together with its interventional procedure can be observed in this field.
In short, this study is expected to provide more options for the reform of collegeEnglish teaching assessment system, and contribute to the exploration of new methods andways for the reform of the entire EFL teaching system in China. The research results mightprovide theoretical reference and practical support for other similar institutions in China,and possibly be enlightening for the domestic promotion of DAin other disciplines.
本文以Vygotsky的心智的社会文化理论（Sociocultural Theory of Mind，简称SCT）为依据，参考国内外评估理论的最新成果，借鉴过程写作理论，提出了评估与教学相融、渐进式序列化交互设计、改善互动环境等三条建构原则，以此构建了大学英语写作教学的动态评价（Dynamic Assessment，简称DA）模式，包括英语写作网络教学系统的建立、写作各阶段的“支架式”介入干预策略的设计、动态综合作文评改标准的制订、以及相应的支撑性参考资源库的建设等。采用实验对比的方法，以洛阳师范学院51名非英语专业文理本科生为研究对象，进行了两个学期的小范围内教学改革实践。利用自行设计的有关英语写作认识、写作策略、写作动机等各种调查问卷，通过量化分析和微变化分析，深入研究了大学英语写作教学的DA框架下学生写作行为的变化情况，回答了本文设定的四个问题：
1. DA介入干预实践对学生英语写作认识、策略及积极性的影响如何？
2. DA介入干预实践对学生英语写作成绩的影响如何？
3. DA介入干预实践对学生英语写作过程各阶段的具体影响如何？
4.教师和学生对大学英语DA介入干预实践活动的评价如何？
根据量化分析，DA介入干预实践对学生的英语写作认识、写作策略及积极性的影响如下：1）调动了学生对英语写作的兴趣，使更多的学生认识到，在写作教学的评价中自己可以发挥主动作用，不再单纯依靠教师对自己作品的评判鉴定，对同伴互改和现代写作评改工具持欢迎态度。2）提高了学生英语写作策略的使用意识，尤其是日常写作及修改策略的使用意识；与高水平学生相比，对低水平学生的日常英语写作策略的DA教学干预取得了更为显著的成效。3）提升了不同层次学生的总体英语写作动机水平，其最大影响是提升了学生对英语写作的内在兴趣。
数据分析表明，DA介入干预实践提高了不同水平学生的英语写作成绩，其在文章的篇幅长度、思想内容、语言表述的丰富性等方面的提高尤为明显，但是低水平学生在语言表达方面还需要更多的DA干预。
对DA框架下学生写作行为的微变化分析表明：1）在日常写作方面，DA框架下开展的各种“支架式”干预活动激发了学生对英语写作的内在动机，维持其在英语学习上不断投入，从而促进了其在英语写作上的ZPD区域不断被开发，带动其英语整体水平的提高。2）在写前阶段，DA干预不仅仅着眼于对学生施加影响，其职能还可以体现在其对学生写作问题根源的识别与判断上。其中的头脑风暴活动能够激发学生的创新思维，不仅可以为学生提供“支架”，还可以为学生提供一种自建“支架”的方法。3）在互评阶段，经由教师的中介干预，学生在提升互改质量的同时也提高了其对写作的掌控能力。其中高水平学生会通过自我反思，主动寻求教师的“支架”式教学干预，直至完全内化教师的干预指导，逐步迁移至其它写作任务，并开始外化为一种对他人的干预。具体明晰的互评要求及评分标准，可以帮助低水平学生有序建构其对英语写作的掌控能力。4）在修改阶段，教师提供的各种“支架式”DA教学干预活动促进了低水平学生实现由被动模仿到主动寻求方法“支架”的转型。对于高水平学生而言，大量的参考资源和恰当的写作方法指导等教学干预活动能够迅速提升其ZPD区域的不断扩大，帮助其向着更高的目标迈进。5）在终稿→自主阶段，通过自主观摩，高水平学生会把同伴作品视为通往更高水平道路上的一个“路标式”支架，并主动探寻更多的“支架”去丰富自己。因此，对其DA干预重在帮助其精细使用这些资源，尽快完成他人调适（即观摩学习），做到完全“内化”（化为己用）。对于低水平学生而言，教师通过提供及时的肯定鼓励、精修范文的示范引领，实现对其进行直接或间接的干预指导。
此外，分析表明，绝大多数学生对研究所推行的DA模式实验是满意的，在四大教学介入举措中，学生对资源介入的满意度最高。而教师则感觉在帮助学生的同时，自己也在业务上有了很大的进步。
本文设计的大学英语写作教学DA模式的成功之处在于其构建了一个英语写作的学习共同体，发挥了其中教师和学生的主体作用，合理分配了彼此间的角色，从而能够促使师生双方共同参与写作这一文化构建的活动中，使教师与学生、学生与学生之间形成了良好的互动。
该模式的成功实施有助于改变当前我国大学英语教学终结性测试为主导的局面，减少目前评价方式对学生英语学习的负面影响，使评价朝过程性、发展性、多元化方向发展，重视针对性的学习策略干预及介入资源建设，及时为学生提供教学补救措施，从根本上促进学生英语学习能力的发展。其主要创新之处在于：1）在综合国内外有关DA界定及研究的基础上，提出了自己的DA定义及其诠释；2）首次把DA理论引入了以汉语为母语的外语学习者的大学英语写作教学实践；3）构建了大学英语写作教学的DA理论框架及应用模式；4）设计了系统的外语学习支持性介入手段，探究了DA的诸成功要素，检验了DA在大学英语写作教学领域中的可行性。
但是，由于目前西方二语习得研究者才刚刚开始步入这个领域，国内大学英语写作教学领域还缺乏过程性的DA设计尝试，因此，该评价体系还有待于长期的教学实践来检验和完善。未来研究可以结合优秀在线写作评改系统的支持，借鉴目前英语写作表现测量指标方面的研究成果，利用语料库分析软件，实现大规模、精细化的大学英语写作教学DA实践研究。此外，在实验的时间跨度上也可以进一步拓展，对整个大学英语写作教学的全过程进行跟踪评估，以观测更为完整的教学评估与介入程序。
总之，本文为大学英语教学评价体系的改革提供了更多的选择，也为整体外语教学改革探索了新方法和新途径。其研究成果为国内其它同类院校提供了理论借鉴与实践支持，对DA在国内其它各学科中的推广也有一定的参考价值。
Over the years, summative tests prevail in college English writing classes all overmainland China. With uniform content and mechanical criteria, such assessment modesfocus too much on the learning results, ignoring the learning process, thus they are notconducive to promoting the development of the students' writing competence. Issued bythe Ministry of Education in2007, College English Curriculum Requirements specificallysupplement the contents of the teaching evaluation, with emphasis on the procedure anddevelopmentality of assessment. Therefore, it is high time to explore and establish a newassessment mode in college English writing class.
Based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of mind (SCT hereafter), and with referenceto the latest development of assessment theories both at home and abroad, threeconstructional principles for writing assessment were proposed in light of process writingtheories: the integration of assessment and instruction, the design of graduated andserialized interaction, and the improvement of interactive environment. Based on suchthree principles, a dynamic assessment (DA hereafter) mode was constructed for collegeEnglish writing classes, incorporating such interventional teaching measures as thedevelopment of a network-based EFL composition teaching system, the design ofscaffolding mediational strategies for each stage of writing process, the formulation ofdynamic comprehensive essay scoring criteria, and the establishment of a relevantreference resources corpus. After a two-semester small-scale experiment with51non-English-major undergraduates from Luoyang Normal University, the students’ writingbehavior changes in the framework of such a DA mode were investigated thoroughly bothquantitatively and qualitatively with the help of self-designed questionnaires concerningthe students’ knowledge of English writing together with their writing strategies andmotives, providing answers to the four questions put forward in this dissertation:
Research Question1: In what way have the interventional efforts in the framework ofsuch a DA mode affected the students’ understanding of English writing, their writingstrategies and initiatives?
Research Question2: In what way have the interventional efforts in the frameworkof such a DAmode affected the students’English writing performance?
Research Question3: In what way have the interventional efforts in the framework ofsuch a DA mode affected the students’ writing behavior at each stage of Englishwriting process?
Research Question4: In what way have the teachers and students appreciated theinterventional efforts in the framework of such a DAmode?
According to the statistical analyses, the interventional efforts in the framework ofsuch a DA mode have affected the students’understanding of English writing, their writingstrategies and initiatives in the following ways:1) Such efforts have stimulated thestudents’ interest in English writing, making more students aware of the importance oftheir initiatives in the assessment of their own writings. Consequently the students nolonger simply resort to their teachers’ help for the evaluation of their writing assignments,and embrace peer feedback and the online automated essay scoring tool as possiblealternatives instead.2) Such efforts have improved the students’ use of writing strategies,their use of daily writing strategies and revision strategies in particular. Compared withthose higher proficiency students (HPSs hereafter), lower proficiency students (LPSshereafter) have made more remarkable progress in their adoption of daily writing strategieswith the help of such interventional measures.3) Such efforts have promoted the overallEnglish writing motive level of students of different proficiency, with greater influenceexerted on the enhancement of the students’intrinsic interest in English writing.
Statistical analyses of the data indicate that such DA intervention practice hasimproved the English writing performance of the students of different proficiency,especially in their article length, ideas and language richness, but LPSs need more DAinterventions for their improvement in language accuracy.
Microgenetic analyses reveal that in the framework of such a DA mode, the students’writing behavior changes in the following ways:1) In their daily writing, with thescaffolding DA intervention in various forms, the students’ intrinsic interest in Englishwriting has been inspired, which maintains their efforts invested continually into theirEnglish study, and consequently their ZPDs in English writing have been further developed,leading to the overall improvement of their English competence.2) At the prewriting stage,such DAinterventional efforts have not only focused their attention on their influence upon the students, but also committed themselves to the identification and diagnosis of thestudents’ problems in English writing. And such scaffolding interventional efforts asbrainstorming activities can stimulate the student's innovative thinking by providing themwith both scaffolding and means of building such scaffolding by themselves.3) Atpeer-feedback stage, with the teacher’s intervention, the students have learned to providetheir peers with feedback of better quality, and meanwhile improved their command ofEnglish writing. Through self-reflection, HPSs have learned to seek the teachers’scaffolding interventions on their own initiative until they have internalized suchinterventions and gradually transfer what they have internalized to the performance ofsome other writing tasks, and then such competence can be externalized in the form oftheir intervention in their peers’ writing activities. With the specific and lucidpeer-feedback guidelines and criteria provided by the teacher, LPSs have learned toimprove their command of English writing step by step.4) At the revision stage, suchscaffolding DAinterventions provided by the teacher have helped the LPSs transform frompassive imitation to their active quest for strategies scaffolding on their own initiative.Massive reference resources and appropriate writing strategies instruction can broaden theHPSs’ ZPDs in English writing rapidly, leading them to stride forward for higher goals.5)At the post-writing→independent-writing stage, by emulating independently the modelwritings provided by the teachers, HPSs have learned to take their peers’model writings as“the guidepost type” scaffolding on the way to higher level of writing, and initiated thequest for more scaffolding to enrich themselves, and therefore the pivot of the interventionin their writing is on their selective use of such resources, escorting them in the processfrom other-regulation (in the form of observation and emulation) to self-regulation untilcomplete internalization (taking what they have learned from such model writings for theirown use). LPSs have learned to count on the teacher’s timely encouragement and modelingtutoring (in the form of the preparation of detailedly-edited model writings) for direct orindirect interventional instructions.
In addition, both quantitative and qualitative analyses indicate that the overwhelmingmajority of the students in the experiment are satisfied with such a DA mode, especiallywith the reference writing resources among the four major groups of interventionsprovided in the experiment. And all the teachers involved feel that while helping thestudents, they have made great progress in their writing instruction practice, too.
The success of the DA mode for college English writing class designed in thisdissertation lies in its construction of an English writing learning community, in which notonly the teachers but also the students have performed an active role, along with a moresensible distribution of their jobs among themselves. As a result, both sides are stimulatedto take active part in such a culturally constructed activity as writing, in which betterinteraction has been formed among students and between the teachers and students.
The successful implementation of such a DA mode will hopefully help to changecurrent summative-tests-dominant situation in college English teaching in China, andreduce the negative effect of current ways of evaluation on the students’ English study,making assessment procedural, developmental, and diversified, with focus on pertinentlearning strategies interventions, the building of relevant interventional resources corpuses,and prompt remedial instructions, so that the all-around development of the students’English competence would be promoted fundamentally. The innovation of this study lies inthe following four aspects:1) Based on the definations of and studies concerning DA bothat home and abroad, a working definition of DA was put forward along with itsinterpretation in the context of this study;2) It has introduced for the first time the DAtheory into Chinese EFL writing teaching practice on the tertiary level;3) It hasconstructed a theoretical DA framework and its application mode pertinent for collegeEnglish writing instruction in China;4) It has designed systematic scaffoldinginterventional strategies for EFL writing classes, probed into the key elements to successfulDA implementation, and verified the feasibility of DA theories in the field of collegeEnglish writing instruction.
However, because at present the western SLA researchers have just stepped into thisdomain, and few scholars have ever attempted the design of a procedural DA mode in thefield of domestic college English writing teaching, the DAsystem designed in this study isexpected to be verified and improved in the long-term teaching practice. For further study,a more thorough study of the DA for college English writing class in a larger scale mightbe realized with the help of an excellent online automated essay scoring system and corpusanalysis software, with reference to the current study of the English writing performancemeasures. Furthermore, the time span of the experiment can also be extended to track thewhole process of the students’ development of English writing competence, so that a morecomplete picture of DA together with its interventional procedure can be observed in this field.
In short, this study is expected to provide more options for the reform of collegeEnglish teaching assessment system, and contribute to the exploration of new methods andways for the reform of the entire EFL teaching system in China. The research results mightprovide theoretical reference and practical support for other similar institutions in China,and possibly be enlightening for the domestic promotion of DAin other disciplines.
引文
Ableeva, R. Dynamic Assessment of Listening Comprehension in Second Language Learning [D].Unpublished doctoral thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia,2010.
Allah, L.&G. P. Ducrey. Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal development [J]. Learning andInstruction,2000,(10):137-152.
Aljaafreh, A.&J. P. Lantolf. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zoneof proximal development [J]. The Modern Language Journal,1994,(78):465-483.
Antón, M. Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners [R]. Paper presented at theAmerican Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington D. C.,2003.
Antón, M. Dynamic Assessment of Advanced Second Language Learners [J]. Foreign LanguageAnnals,2009,42(3):576-598.
Arbib, M. A. The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of language [A]. In K. Dautenhahn&C. L.Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts (Complex adaptive systems)[C]. Cambridge,MA: MIT,2002:229-280.
Arnett, J. J. The Psychology of Globalization [J]. American Psychologist,2002,(57):774-783.
Bachman L. F. Fundamental considerations in language testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1990.
Baldwin, J. M. Mental development in the child and the race [M]. New York: McMillan,1895/1915.
Belz, J. A.&C. Kinginger. The cross-linguistic development of address form use intelecollaborativelanguage study: Two case studies [J]. Canadian Modern Language review/La revue canadiennedes langues vivnates,2002,59(2):189-214.
Belz, J. A.&C. Kinginger. Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence byclassroom learners of German: The case of address forms [J]. Language Learning,2003,(53):591-647.
Bhatia, S. Acculturation, Dialogical voices and the construction of the Diasporic [J]. Theory andPsychology,2002,12(1):55-57.
Boscolo, P. Writing in primary school [A]. In Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school,individual, text [C], ed. C. Bazerman. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum,2008:293-309.
Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development [J]. American Psychologist,1977,(32):513-531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development: Experiences by nature and design [M].Harvard University Press,1979.
Brown, A.&R. Ferrara. Diagnosing zones of proximal development [A]. In J. Wertsch(ed.). Culture,Communication and Cognition. Vygotskian Perspectives [C]. Cambridge. CUP,1985:273-305.
Budoff, M.&M. Friedman.“Learning potential” as an assessment approach to the adolescent mentallyretarded [J]. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1964,(28):434-439.
Budoff, M. Learning potential as a supplementary testing procedure [A]. In Learning Disorders [C].Vol.3. J. Hellmuth (Ed.). Seattle, WA: Special Child.1968.
Budoff, M. The validity of learning potential assessment [A]. In Dynamic Assessment: An InteractiveApproach to Evaluating Learning Potential [C]. C. S. Lidz (Ed.) New York: The Guilford Press,1987.
Calero, M.&E. Navarro. Relationship between plasticity, mild cognitive impairment and cognitivedecline [J]. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,2004,(19)：653-660.
Calkins, L. M. The art of teaching writing [M]. New ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,1994.
Campbell, C. Teaching second-language writing: interacting with text [M]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle,1998.
Campione, J. C., A. L. Brown, R. A. Ferrera&N. R. Bryant. The Zone of Proximal Development:Implications for Individual Differences and Learning [A]. In Children’s Learning in the “Zone ofProximal Development”[C]. B. Rogoff&J. V. Wertsch (Eds.). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass,1984.
Carlson, J. S.&K. H. Wiedl. Principles of Dynamic assessment: the application of a specific model [A].In Advance in Cognition and Educational Practice [C], Greenwich CT: JAI Press Inc.,1992,(1A):235-252.
Carlson, J. S.&K. H. Wiedl. The validity of dynamic assessment [A]. In C. S. Lidz&J. G. Elliott(Eds.). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications [C]. Amsterdam: JAI/ElsevierScience,2000:681-712
Cohen, A. Feedback on Writing: The Use of Verbal Report [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1991,13(2):133-191.
Cohen, A. D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,2000.
Cohen, A. D.&Ernesto Macaro. Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007.
Dann R. Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process [M]. New York:Routledge,2002.
Dillon, R.&J. S. Carlson. Testing for Competence in Three Ethnic Groups [J]. Educational andPsychological Measurement,1978,(38):437-443.
Donato, R. Collective scaffolding in second language learning [A].. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.),Vygotskyan approaches to second language research [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation,1994:35-56.
Duncker, C. P. On problem solving [J]. Psychological Monographs58(Whole number270),1945.
Elkonin, D. Epilogue. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol.5. Child Psychology [M]. NewYork:Plenum,1998.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: OUP,1994.
Ellis, R. Task-based Language Learning and Testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003.
Embretson, S. E. Improving the measurement of spatial aptitude by dynamic testing [J]. Intelligence,1987,(11):333-358
Emig, J. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders [M]. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachersof English,1971.
Eschholz, P. A. The prose models approach: Using products in the process [A]. In Timothy R.Donovan&Ben W. McClelland (eds). Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition [C]. Illinois:The National Council of Teachers of English,1980:21-36.
Fathman, A. K.&E. Whalley. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content [A].In B. KroII (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Ferris, Dana. Preparing teachers to respond to student writing [J], Journal of Second Language Writing,2007,(16):165–193.
Ferris, D.&J. S. Hedgcock. Teaching ESL Composition: purpose, process, and practice [M].2nd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2005.
Ferris, D. R. Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors?[J].CATESOL Journal,1995,8(1):41-62
Feuerstein R., Y. Rand&M. B. Hoffman. The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: TheLearning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques [M]. Baltimore, MD:University Park Press,1979.
Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand, M. B. Hoffmann&R. Miller. Instrumental Enrichment [M]. Baltimore, M D:University Park Press,1980.
Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand&J. E. Rynders. Don’t Accept Me as I Am. Helping Retarded Performers Excel[M]. New York: Plenum,1988.
Gal’perin, P. Ya. Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning [J]. SovietPsychology,1989,27(2):65-82.
Gergen, K. Psychological science in a postmodern context [J], American Psychologist,2001,56(10):803-813.
Gibbons, P. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-basedclassroom [J]. TESOL Quarterly,2003,(37):247-273.
Grabe, W.&R. B. Kaplan. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective [M].London: Longman,1996.
Grigorenko, E. L. Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention: Two Sides of One Coin [J].Journal of Learning Disabilities,2009,42(2):111-132.
Grigorenko, E. L.&R. J. Sternberg. Dynamic testing [J]. Psychological Bulletin,1998,124(1):75-111.
Gardner, R. C.&W. E. Lambert. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning [M]. Rowley,MA: Newbury House,1972.
Guk, Iju.&D. Kellogg. The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactionalmediation of tasks [J]. Language Teaching Research,2007,(11):281.
Güthke, J. The learning test concept—an alternative to the traditional static intelligence test [J]. TheGerman Journal of Psychology,1982,6(4):306–24.
Güthke, J. Current trends in theories and testing of intelligence [A]. In Learning Potential Assessment:Theoretical, Methodological and Practical Issues [C]. J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma&A. J. J. M.Ruijssenaars (Eds.). Amsterdam: Swets&Zeitlinger,1993.
Güthke, J., A. Heinrich&M. Caruso. The diagnostic program of “syntactical rule and vocabularyacquisition”—A contribution to the psychodiagnosis of foreign language learning ability [A]. InHuman Memory and Cognitive Capabilities. Mechanisms and Performances [C]. F. Klix and H.Hagendorf (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier,1986.
Güthke, J.&J. F. Beckmann. The learning test concept and its applications in practice [A]. In Dynamicassessment: prevailing models and applications [C]. C. S. Lidz&J. G. Elliott (Eds.). Amsterdam:Elsevier,2000.
GUTIE′RREZ, A. G. Microgenesis, Method and Object: A Study of Collaborative Activity in a Spanishas a Foreign Language Classroom [J]. Applied Linguistics,2008,29(1):120-148.
Hanson, F. A. Testing Testing. Social Consequences of the Examined Life [M]. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press,1993.
Haywood, H.&C. Lidz. Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications [M].Cambridge: CUP,2007.
Huang, J.&S. Andrews. Situated development and use of language learner strategies: voices from EFLstudents [J]. Language Learning Journal,2010,38(1):19-35.
Hurd, S.&T. Lewis，Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings [M]. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters,2009.
Hyland, K. A genre description of the argumentative essay [J]. RELC Journal,1990,21(1):66-78.Inbar-Lourie, Ofra. Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on languageassessment courses [J]. Language Testing,2008,25(3):385–402.
Jensen, M. R. Principles of change models in school psychology and education [A]. In J. Carson (Ed.),Advances in Cognition and educational practice [C], Greenwich, CT: JAI,1992,1.1B:47-72.
Julian G. Elliott, Dynamic Assessment in Educational Contexts: Purpose and promise [A], In C. S. Lidz&J. G. Elliottt (Eds.) Dynamic Assessment: A prevailing models and applications [M], New York,Elsevier Science Inc,2000:713-740.
Kar, B. C., U. N. Dash, J. P. Das&J. Carlson. Two Experiments on the Dynamic Assessment ofPlanning [J]. Learning and Individual Differences,1993,(5):13-29.
Kaufman, R.&R. Burden. Peer Tutoring between young adults with severe and complex learningdifficulties: the effects of mediation training with Feuerstein’s instrumental enrichmentprogramme [J]. European Journal of Psychology of Education,2004,(19):107-117.
Ken D.&K. B. Lovejoy. Writing: process, product, and power [M]. New Jersey： Prentice-Hall, Inc.1993.
Kinginger, C.&J. A. Belz. Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign languagelearning: Microgenetic and ontogenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics,2005,2(4):369-421.
Kozulin, A. Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1990.
Kozulin, A.&E. Garb. Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students [J]. SchoolPsychology International,2002,(23):112-127.
Krashen, S. D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning [M]. Oxford: PergamonPress,1981.
Krashen, S. D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon Press,1983.
Krashen S. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. London: Longman,1985.
Kroll, B. Teaching writing in the ESL/EFL writing course [A]. In Teaching English as a second orforeign language [C].3rd ed. M. CelceMurcia. Boston: Heinle and Heinle,1991:219-32.
Lantolf, J. P. Introducing sociocultural theory [A]. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory andsecond language learning [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000:1-26.
Lantolf, J. P. Second language learning as a mediated process [J]. Language Teaching,2000,(33):79-96.
Lantolf, J. P. Sociocultural theory and second language development: state-of-the-art [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition,2006,(28):67-109.
Lantolf, J. P. Sociocultural source of thinking and its relevance for second language acquisition [J].Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2007,10(1):31–33.
Lantolf, J. P. Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment [J].Language Teaching,2009,42(3):355-368.
Lantolf, J. P.&A. Aljaafreh. Second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development: Arevolutionary experience [J]. International Journal of Educational Research,1995,(23):619-632.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Dynamic assessment of L2development: Bringing the past into thefuture [J]. Journal of Applied Linguistics,2004,(1):49-72.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Dynamic Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom [M].University Park, PA: CALPER Publications,2007.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages [M].London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.,2008.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for secondlanguage development [J]. Language Teaching Research.2011,15(1):11-33.
Lantolf, J. P.&S. L. Thorne. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning [A]. In B.VanPatten&J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisiton [C]. Mahwah, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2007:201-24.
Lantolf, J. P.&S. L. Thorne. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006.
Leont’ev, D. A. Activity theory approach: Vygotsky in the present [A]. In Voices Within Vygotsky’sNon-classical Psychology: Past, Present, Future [C]. A. Stetsenko and D. Robbins (Eds.).Hauppage, NY: Nova,2002.
Leung C.&B. Mohan. Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts—assessment asdiscourse and assessment of discourse [J]. Language Testing,2004,(21):335-359.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic Assessment：An Interactional Approach to Evaluation of Learning Potential [M].New York: The Guilford Press,1987.
Lidz, C. S. Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment [M]. New York: Guilford Press.1991.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic Assessment: some Thoughts on the model, the medium. and the message [A], InAdvance in Cognition and educational Practice [C], Vol.l A,1992, JAI Press Inc,197-211.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic assessment approaches [A]. In D. Flanagan, J. Genshaft&P. Harrison (eds.).Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests and Issues [C]. NewYork：Guilford Press,1997:281-296.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic assessment (Learning potential testing, testing the limits)[A]. In R.Fernndez-Ballesteros (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment [Z]. London: SAGE.2003:337-343.
Lidz, C. S.&B. Gindis. Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children [A]. InVygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context [C]. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev,&S. M. Miller (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
Lidz, C. S.&J. Elliott. Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications [M]. Amsterdam: JAIElsevier Science,2000.
Li, Shaofeng. The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis [J]. LanguageLearning,2010,60(2):309-365.
Liu，J.&J. G. Hansen. Peer response in second language writing classroom [M]. Ann Arbor: MichiganUniversity Press,2002.
Lunt, I. The practice of assessment [A]. In Charting the Agenda. Educational Activity after Vygotsky[C]. H. Daniels (Ed.). London: Routledge,1993.
Luria, A. R. Study of the abnormal child [J]. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: A Journal ofHuman Behavior,1961,(31):1-16.
Luria, A. R. The working brain [M]. New York: Basic Books,1973.
Luria, A. R. Cognitive Development. Its Cultural and Social Foundations [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard,1976.
Meltzoff, A. N. Elements of a developmental theory of imitation [A]. In A. N. Meltzoff&W. Prinz(Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases [C]. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,2002:19-41.
Min, Hui-Tzu. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’revision types and writing quality [J].Journal of Second Language Writing,2006,(15):118–141.
Minick, N. Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment [A]. In Dynamic Assessment:An Interactive Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential [C]. C. S. Lidz (Ed.). New York: TheGuilford Press.1987.
Muncie, J. Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes [J]. ELT Journal,2000,54(1):47-53.
Nassaji, H.&M. Swain. A Vygotskyan perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: the Effect ofrandom vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles [J]. Language Awareness,2000,(9):34-51.
Nation, I. S. P. Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing [M]. New York: Routledge.2009.
Nelson G. L.&J. M. Murphy. Peer response groups: Do L2writers use peer comments in writing theirdrafts?[J]. TESOL Quarterly,1993,(27):135-142.
Neman，B. S. Teaching Students to Write [M].2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.,1995.
Newman, D., P. Griffin&M. Cole. The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989.
Newman, F.&L. Holzman. Lev Vygotsky. Revolutionary Scientist [M]. London: Routledge,1993.
O’Malley, J. M.&A. U. Chamot. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Oxford, R. L. Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know [M]. New York:Newbury House Publishers,1990.
Pedersen, P. Multiculturalism as a fourth force [M]. Taylor&Francis,1999.
Pienemann, M. Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability Theory [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1998.
Poehner, M. E. Dynamic Assessment of Oral Proficiency among Advanced L2Learners of French [D],Unpublished doctoral thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia,2005.
Poehner, M. E.&J. P. Lantolf. Dynamic Assessment in Language Classroom [J], Language TeachingResearch,2005,9(3):233-265.
Poehner, M. E. Beyond the test: L2dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning [J].The Modern Language Journal,2007,91(3):323-340.
Poehner, M. E. Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2Development [M]. Berlin: Springer,2008.
Poehner, M. E. Group Dynamic Assessment: Mediation for the L2Classroom [J]. TESOL Quarterly,2009,43(3):471-491.
Rea-Dickens, P.&S. Gardner. Snares and Bullets: disentangling the construct of formative Aseessment[J]. Language Testing,2000,(17):215-243.
Reid, J. Writing [A]. In The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other language [C]. R.Carter&D. Nunan (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:28-33.
Sternberg, R. J.&E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of LearningPotential [M]. Cambridge university press,2002.
Schmidt, R. The Role of consciousness in second language learning [J]. Applied Linguistics,1990,(11):129-158.
Schmidt, R. Awareness and second language acquisition [J]. Applied Linguistics,1993,(13):206-226.
Scribner, S.&M. Cole. The Psychological Consequences of Literacy [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard,1981.
Shamir, A.&D. Tzuriel. Peer mediation：a novel model for development of mediation skills andcognitive modifiablity of young children [A]. In Learning Potential Assessment and CognitveTraining7[C]. G. M. Van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M Resing,&A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.).Amsterdam: Elsevier,2002.
Sheppard, K. Two Feedback Types: Do They Make a Difference?[J]. RELC Journal,1992,(23):103-110.
Shohamy, E.“Closing the gap between research and practice: Applications of research results toclassroom testing.”[R]. Revised version of a paper delivered at the English Teachers’Association of Israel International Conference, Jerusalem,1988.
Silva, T. Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL [A]. InB. Kroll (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classrooms [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1990:11-23.
Sternberg R. J.&Elena L. Grigorenko (Eds). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement ofLearning Potential [M]. Cambridge University Press,2002.
Sue, D. W., R. P. Bingham, Porché-Burke, L.,&M. Vasquez. The diversification of psychology: Amulticultural revolution [J], American Psychologist,1999,54(12):1061-1069.
Summers, R. Dynamic assessment: Towards a model of dialogic engagement [D]. Theses andDissertations. Paper521. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/521,2008.
Swain, M. Examining Dialogue: another approach to content specification and to validating inferencesdrawn from test scores [J]. Language Testing,2001,(18):275-302.
Swain, M.&S. Lapkin. Interaction and Second Language learning: two adolescent French immersionstudents working together [J]. The Modern Language Jounal,1998,(83):320-337.
Swain, M.&S. Lapkin. Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation[J]. International Journal of Educational Research,2002,(37):285-304.
Swain, M. L. Brooks,&A. Tocalli-Beller. Peer-peer Dialogue as a Means of Second LanguageLearning [J]. Annal Review of Applied Linguistics,2002,(22):171-185.
Taylor, L.&G. Wigglesworth. Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2assessment contexts [J].Language Testing,2009,26(3):325-339.
Tomasello, M. The cultural origins of human cognition [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1999.
Tomasello, M. Constructing Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition [M].Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2003.
Tribble, C. Writing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1996.
Tulviste, P. The Cultural-Historical Development of Verbal Thinking [M]. Commack, NY: NovaScience Publishers,1991.
Tzuriel, D.&R. Kaufman. Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: Dynamic assessment ofyoung Ethiopian immigrant children to Israel [J]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,1999,(30):359-380.
Valsiner, J. Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development [J]. Human Development,2001,(44):84-97.
Valsiner, J.,&R. van der Veer. The social mind: Construction of the idea [M]. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,2000.
Van der Aalsvoort, G. M.&C. S. Lidz. Reciprocity in dynamic assessment in classrooms: takingcontextual influences on individual learning into account [A]. In Learning Potential Assessmentand Cognitive Training7[C]. G. M. Van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M. Resing, and A. J. J. M.Ruijssenaars (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier,2002.
Villamil, O. S.&M. C. M. de Guerrero. Peer revision in the L2classroom: Social-cognitive activities,mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,1996,5(1),51–75.
Vyatkina, N. A. Development of Second Language Pragmatic Competence: the Data Driven Teachingof German Modal Practices Based on a Learner Corpus [D]. Unpublished dissertation.Pennsylvania State University, University Park,2007.
Vygotsky, L. S. In R. W. Reiber&A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol.1.Problems of general psychology－Including the volume Thinking and Speech [M]. New York:Plenum Press,1978:73.
Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1986.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1989:107-109.
Vygotsky, L. S. The problem of age [A]. In R. W. Rieber (ed.). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky:Child Psychology (Vol5)[C]. New York: Plenum,1998:187-205.
Watson, C. B. The Use and Abuse of Models in the ESL Writing Class [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1982,16(1):5-14.
Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland,&R. Fisch. Change: Principles of Problem Formation and ProblemResolution [M]. New York: W. W. Norton and Co..1974.
Wertsch, J. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind [M]. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard UniversityPress,1985.
Wertsch, J. V.&M. Hickmann. Problem solving in social interaction: a microgenetic analysis [A]. InSocial and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought [C]. M. Hickmann (Ed). San Diego,CA: Academic,1987.
White, R.&V. Arndt. Process writing [M]. New York: Longman,1991.
Wiedl, K. H., J. Güthke,&S.Wingenfeld, Dynamic assessment in Europe: historical perspectives [A],In Jerry S. Carlson (Eds.). Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice: EuropeanContributions to Dynamic Assessment [C], by JAI Press Inc.,1995,(3):33-82.
Wigglesworth, G.&N. Storch, Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity andaccuracy [J]. Language Testing,2009,(26):445.
Williams J. Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center [J]. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing,2004,13(3):173-201.
Lei, Xiao. Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writingactivities [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2008,(17):217–236.
艾肯（Aiken. L. R.）著,张厚粲译.《心理测验与考试—能力和行为表现的测量》[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2002.
彼得﹒伯格（Peter Berger）（美）,托马斯﹒卢克曼（Thomas Luckmann）（美）著；汪涌译.《现实的社会构建》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
蔡俊.论指向教师专业发展的动态评估[J].教育与教学研究,2010,24(8):27-28,33.
陈德枝.基于认知诊断的小学儿童图形推理能力的动态评估研究[D].江西师范大学博士论文,2009.
陈立平、李志雪.英语写作教学:理论与实践[J].解放军外国语学院学报,1999,(1):66-69.
陈立平.从阅读与写作的关系看写作教学中的范文教学[J].外语与外语教学,2001,(4)：28-29,38.
董亚芬．我国英语教学应始终以读写为本[J].外语界,2003,(1):2-6.
范琳、王庆华.英语词汇学习中的分类组织策略实验研究[J],外语教学与研究,2002，(5):209-212.
范兆兰.动态评估理论与应用研究—智力测验的新进展[D].南京师范大学博士论文,2006.
范兆兰.动态评估的特征及其方法论意义[J].心理科学,2009,32(6):1414一1416.
高一虹、程英、赵媛、周燕.中国大学本科生英语学习动机类型[J].现代外语,2003,26(1):28-38.
股城百科,头脑风暴法_什么是头脑风暴法_管理理论[OL], http://baike.gucheng.com/baike_read_9.html (2011年10月读取)
顾佩娅、朱敏华.网上英语写作与项目教学法研究[J].外语电化教学,2002,(6):3-7.
韩宝成.动态评价理论、模式及其在外语教育中的应用[J].外语教学与研究,2009,41(6):452-458.
黄光扬.动态评价的理论基础、主要模式及可用性初探[J].比较教育研究,2002,23(11):44-48.
黄莹、陈建平.大学生英语课外写作策略研究[J].外语界,2006(2):35-40.
黄源深.好文章是“写”出来的[J].外语界,2006,(5):13-16.
金瑜主编.《心理测验》[M].上海：华东教育出版社,2001.
琚圆圆.动态评估及其在特殊教育中的应用[J].中国特殊教育,2007,(2):55-58.
刘东刚.特殊教育中的动态评估[J].中国特殊教育,1998,11(1):30-34.
刘红梅.计算机网络辅助大学英语写作阶段实验报告[J].电化教育研究,2004,130(2):61-64.
刘润清、戴曼纯.《中国高校外语教学改革现状与发展策略研究》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
刘晓玲、杨高云.一种基于网络的同伴写作评改方法[J].中国外语,2008,(2):54-58.
刘玉萍.新范文教学法在研究生英语写作教学中的尝试[J]西安外国语学院学报,2004,(4):18-21.
麻彦坤、叶浩生.维果茨基最近发展区思想的当代发展[J].心理发展与教育,2004,20(2):89-93.
麻彦坤.维果茨基对现代西方心理学的影响[D].南京师范大学博士论文,2005.
戚焱.反馈在英语写作教学中的作用—英语专业议论文写作研究[J].国外外语教学,2004,(1):47-53.
秦晓晴.《外语教学问卷调查法》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2009.
R. J.斯腾伯格（美）著,俞晓琳、吴国宏译.《超越IQ:人类智力的三元理论》[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2000.
束定芳.外语课堂教学新模式刍议[J].外语界,2006,(4):23-31.
苏运连.论听力学习策略的可教性－一项基于中国外语初学者的实验研究[J].现代外语,2003,(1):48－58.
滕春红.英语语法与写作―对美国堪萨斯大学中国留学生英文水平的调查[J].外语教学与研究,1993,(4):65-69.
互动百科,头脑风暴法[OL], http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%e5%a4%b4%e8%84%91%e9%a3%8e%e6%9a%b4%e6%b3%95(2011年10月读取)
叶浩生.文化模式及其对心理与行为的影响[J].心理科学,2004,27(5):1032-1036.
王初明、牛瑞英、郑小湘.以写促学—一项英语写作教学改革的实验[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(3):207-212.
王穗平、张卫、莫雷.学习潜能评估：一种动态的智力观[J].心理科学,1997,20(4):347-351.
文秋芳.《英语学习策略论》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1996.
文秋芳、王立非.中国英语学习策略实证研究20年[J].外国语言文学,2004,(1):39-45.
文秋芳.《应用语言学研究方法与论文写作》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007.
文秋芳.《二语习得重点问题研究》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2010.
吴锦、张在新.英语写作教学新探―论写前阶段的可行性[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(3):213-218.
吴萍.从语言生成谈范文的作用[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2007,(3):122-124.
杨惠中.关于大学英语教学的几点思考[J].外语教学与研究,2012,(2):293-297.
杨敬清.提高英语写作评改有效性的反馈机制—实验与分析[J].外语界,1996,(3):41-45.
杨永林.一种基于数字化教学理念的写作训练系统[J].外语电化教学,2004,(4):40-43.
曾用强.过程化的写作评估模式[J].福建外语,2002,(3):26-31.
张雪梅.大学英语写作教学现状之调查[J].外语界,2006,(5):28-32.
张艳红,程东元.网络环境下大学英语写作能力培养模式的设计与实践[J].外语电化教学,2007,(4):26-31.
张艳红.大学英语网络写作教学的动态评估模式研究[J].外语界,2008,(4):73-81.
张艳红.非专业学生英语学习动机变化规律研究[J].中国科教创新导刊,2008,25:107-108.
张艳红.非英语专业学生写作策略研究[J].社科纵横,2009,24(8):172-173.
张艳红.大学英语写作教学的动态评价体系建构[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,33(1):46-52.
张在新、吴红云、王晓露、张俊香.我国英语写作教学中的主要问题[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(4):43-50.
邹申. TEM8写作能力评估—要求、问题与对策[J].外语界,1999,(4).
邹申.考试评估中的信息反馈—谈间接数据的应用[J].国外外语教学,1999,(4):2-6.
邹申.《语言测试》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
邹申.关于考试科学属性的思考—兼谈高校英语专业四、八级考试大纲（2004年新版）的修订[J].中国外语,2006,(2):14-18,42.
邹申.提升考试公平性—以英语专业四、八级考试为例[J].外语测试与教学,2011,(1):42-50.
邹申.基于语料库的写作测试效度研究—以《英语专业写作教学语料库》为例[J].外语电化教学,2012,(1):16-21.
邹申、杨任明.他们如何使用写作评分标准?—TEM4新老评分员调查[J].国外外语教学,2002,(3):1-6.
邹申、方秀才、陈炜.2011年英语专业四、八级考试分析报告[J].外语测试与教学,2012,(1):1-10.
左年念.外语作文评阅与学生写作能力提高之间的关系—研究综述[J].外语教学与研究,2002,(5):355-359.
教育部高等教育司.《大学英语课程教学要求》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007:1-17.
Allah, L.&G. P. Ducrey. Assessment of-or in-the zone of proximal development [J]. Learning andInstruction,2000,(10):137-152.
Aljaafreh, A.&J. P. Lantolf. Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zoneof proximal development [J]. The Modern Language Journal,1994,(78):465-483.
Antón, M. Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners [R]. Paper presented at theAmerican Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington D. C.,2003.
Antón, M. Dynamic Assessment of Advanced Second Language Learners [J]. Foreign LanguageAnnals,2009,42(3):576-598.
Arbib, M. A. The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of language [A]. In K. Dautenhahn&C. L.Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts (Complex adaptive systems)[C]. Cambridge,MA: MIT,2002:229-280.
Arnett, J. J. The Psychology of Globalization [J]. American Psychologist,2002,(57):774-783.
Bachman L. F. Fundamental considerations in language testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1990.
Baldwin, J. M. Mental development in the child and the race [M]. New York: McMillan,1895/1915.
Belz, J. A.&C. Kinginger. The cross-linguistic development of address form use intelecollaborativelanguage study: Two case studies [J]. Canadian Modern Language review/La revue canadiennedes langues vivnates,2002,59(2):189-214.
Belz, J. A.&C. Kinginger. Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence byclassroom learners of German: The case of address forms [J]. Language Learning,2003,(53):591-647.
Bhatia, S. Acculturation, Dialogical voices and the construction of the Diasporic [J]. Theory andPsychology,2002,12(1):55-57.
Boscolo, P. Writing in primary school [A]. In Handbook of research on writing: History, society, school,individual, text [C], ed. C. Bazerman. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum,2008:293-309.
Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development [J]. American Psychologist,1977,(32):513-531.
Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development: Experiences by nature and design [M].Harvard University Press,1979.
Brown, A.&R. Ferrara. Diagnosing zones of proximal development [A]. In J. Wertsch(ed.). Culture,Communication and Cognition. Vygotskian Perspectives [C]. Cambridge. CUP,1985:273-305.
Budoff, M.&M. Friedman.“Learning potential” as an assessment approach to the adolescent mentallyretarded [J]. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1964,(28):434-439.
Budoff, M. Learning potential as a supplementary testing procedure [A]. In Learning Disorders [C].Vol.3. J. Hellmuth (Ed.). Seattle, WA: Special Child.1968.
Budoff, M. The validity of learning potential assessment [A]. In Dynamic Assessment: An InteractiveApproach to Evaluating Learning Potential [C]. C. S. Lidz (Ed.) New York: The Guilford Press,1987.
Calero, M.&E. Navarro. Relationship between plasticity, mild cognitive impairment and cognitivedecline [J]. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,2004,(19)：653-660.
Calkins, L. M. The art of teaching writing [M]. New ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,1994.
Campbell, C. Teaching second-language writing: interacting with text [M]. Boston: Heinle and Heinle,1998.
Campione, J. C., A. L. Brown, R. A. Ferrera&N. R. Bryant. The Zone of Proximal Development:Implications for Individual Differences and Learning [A]. In Children’s Learning in the “Zone ofProximal Development”[C]. B. Rogoff&J. V. Wertsch (Eds.). San Francisco: Jossy-Bass,1984.
Carlson, J. S.&K. H. Wiedl. Principles of Dynamic assessment: the application of a specific model [A].In Advance in Cognition and Educational Practice [C], Greenwich CT: JAI Press Inc.,1992,(1A):235-252.
Carlson, J. S.&K. H. Wiedl. The validity of dynamic assessment [A]. In C. S. Lidz&J. G. Elliott(Eds.). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications [C]. Amsterdam: JAI/ElsevierScience,2000:681-712
Cohen, A. Feedback on Writing: The Use of Verbal Report [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1991,13(2):133-191.
Cohen, A. D. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,2000.
Cohen, A. D.&Ernesto Macaro. Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007.
Dann R. Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the Learning Process [M]. New York:Routledge,2002.
Dillon, R.&J. S. Carlson. Testing for Competence in Three Ethnic Groups [J]. Educational andPsychological Measurement,1978,(38):437-443.
Donato, R. Collective scaffolding in second language learning [A].. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.),Vygotskyan approaches to second language research [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation,1994:35-56.
Duncker, C. P. On problem solving [J]. Psychological Monographs58(Whole number270),1945.
Elkonin, D. Epilogue. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol.5. Child Psychology [M]. NewYork:Plenum,1998.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: OUP,1994.
Ellis, R. Task-based Language Learning and Testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003.
Embretson, S. E. Improving the measurement of spatial aptitude by dynamic testing [J]. Intelligence,1987,(11):333-358
Emig, J. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders [M]. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachersof English,1971.
Eschholz, P. A. The prose models approach: Using products in the process [A]. In Timothy R.Donovan&Ben W. McClelland (eds). Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition [C]. Illinois:The National Council of Teachers of English,1980:21-36.
Fathman, A. K.&E. Whalley. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content [A].In B. KroII (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Ferris, Dana. Preparing teachers to respond to student writing [J], Journal of Second Language Writing,2007,(16):165–193.
Ferris, D.&J. S. Hedgcock. Teaching ESL Composition: purpose, process, and practice [M].2nd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2005.
Ferris, D. R. Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors?[J].CATESOL Journal,1995,8(1):41-62
Feuerstein R., Y. Rand&M. B. Hoffman. The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: TheLearning Potential Assessment Device, Theory, Instruments, and Techniques [M]. Baltimore, MD:University Park Press,1979.
Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand, M. B. Hoffmann&R. Miller. Instrumental Enrichment [M]. Baltimore, M D:University Park Press,1980.
Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand&J. E. Rynders. Don’t Accept Me as I Am. Helping Retarded Performers Excel[M]. New York: Plenum,1988.
Gal’perin, P. Ya. Organization of mental activity and the effectiveness of learning [J]. SovietPsychology,1989,27(2):65-82.
Gergen, K. Psychological science in a postmodern context [J], American Psychologist,2001,56(10):803-813.
Gibbons, P. Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-basedclassroom [J]. TESOL Quarterly,2003,(37):247-273.
Grabe, W.&R. B. Kaplan. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective [M].London: Longman,1996.
Grigorenko, E. L. Dynamic Assessment and Response to Intervention: Two Sides of One Coin [J].Journal of Learning Disabilities,2009,42(2):111-132.
Grigorenko, E. L.&R. J. Sternberg. Dynamic testing [J]. Psychological Bulletin,1998,124(1):75-111.
Gardner, R. C.&W. E. Lambert. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning [M]. Rowley,MA: Newbury House,1972.
Guk, Iju.&D. Kellogg. The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactionalmediation of tasks [J]. Language Teaching Research,2007,(11):281.
Güthke, J. The learning test concept—an alternative to the traditional static intelligence test [J]. TheGerman Journal of Psychology,1982,6(4):306–24.
Güthke, J. Current trends in theories and testing of intelligence [A]. In Learning Potential Assessment:Theoretical, Methodological and Practical Issues [C]. J. H. M. Hamers, K. Sijtsma&A. J. J. M.Ruijssenaars (Eds.). Amsterdam: Swets&Zeitlinger,1993.
Güthke, J., A. Heinrich&M. Caruso. The diagnostic program of “syntactical rule and vocabularyacquisition”—A contribution to the psychodiagnosis of foreign language learning ability [A]. InHuman Memory and Cognitive Capabilities. Mechanisms and Performances [C]. F. Klix and H.Hagendorf (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier,1986.
Güthke, J.&J. F. Beckmann. The learning test concept and its applications in practice [A]. In Dynamicassessment: prevailing models and applications [C]. C. S. Lidz&J. G. Elliott (Eds.). Amsterdam:Elsevier,2000.
GUTIE′RREZ, A. G. Microgenesis, Method and Object: A Study of Collaborative Activity in a Spanishas a Foreign Language Classroom [J]. Applied Linguistics,2008,29(1):120-148.
Hanson, F. A. Testing Testing. Social Consequences of the Examined Life [M]. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press,1993.
Haywood, H.&C. Lidz. Dynamic Assessment in Practice: Clinical and Educational Applications [M].Cambridge: CUP,2007.
Huang, J.&S. Andrews. Situated development and use of language learner strategies: voices from EFLstudents [J]. Language Learning Journal,2010,38(1):19-35.
Hurd, S.&T. Lewis，Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings [M]. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters,2009.
Hyland, K. A genre description of the argumentative essay [J]. RELC Journal,1990,21(1):66-78.Inbar-Lourie, Ofra. Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on languageassessment courses [J]. Language Testing,2008,25(3):385–402.
Jensen, M. R. Principles of change models in school psychology and education [A]. In J. Carson (Ed.),Advances in Cognition and educational practice [C], Greenwich, CT: JAI,1992,1.1B:47-72.
Julian G. Elliott, Dynamic Assessment in Educational Contexts: Purpose and promise [A], In C. S. Lidz&J. G. Elliottt (Eds.) Dynamic Assessment: A prevailing models and applications [M], New York,Elsevier Science Inc,2000:713-740.
Kar, B. C., U. N. Dash, J. P. Das&J. Carlson. Two Experiments on the Dynamic Assessment ofPlanning [J]. Learning and Individual Differences,1993,(5):13-29.
Kaufman, R.&R. Burden. Peer Tutoring between young adults with severe and complex learningdifficulties: the effects of mediation training with Feuerstein’s instrumental enrichmentprogramme [J]. European Journal of Psychology of Education,2004,(19):107-117.
Ken D.&K. B. Lovejoy. Writing: process, product, and power [M]. New Jersey： Prentice-Hall, Inc.1993.
Kinginger, C.&J. A. Belz. Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign languagelearning: Microgenetic and ontogenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad[J]. Intercultural Pragmatics,2005,2(4):369-421.
Kozulin, A. Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress,1990.
Kozulin, A.&E. Garb. Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students [J]. SchoolPsychology International,2002,(23):112-127.
Krashen, S. D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning [M]. Oxford: PergamonPress,1981.
Krashen, S. D. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Pergamon Press,1983.
Krashen S. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications [M]. London: Longman,1985.
Kroll, B. Teaching writing in the ESL/EFL writing course [A]. In Teaching English as a second orforeign language [C].3rd ed. M. CelceMurcia. Boston: Heinle and Heinle,1991:219-32.
Lantolf, J. P. Introducing sociocultural theory [A]. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory andsecond language learning [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000:1-26.
Lantolf, J. P. Second language learning as a mediated process [J]. Language Teaching,2000,(33):79-96.
Lantolf, J. P. Sociocultural theory and second language development: state-of-the-art [J]. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition,2006,(28):67-109.
Lantolf, J. P. Sociocultural source of thinking and its relevance for second language acquisition [J].Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2007,10(1):31–33.
Lantolf, J. P. Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment [J].Language Teaching,2009,42(3):355-368.
Lantolf, J. P.&A. Aljaafreh. Second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development: Arevolutionary experience [J]. International Journal of Educational Research,1995,(23):619-632.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Dynamic assessment of L2development: Bringing the past into thefuture [J]. Journal of Applied Linguistics,2004,(1):49-72.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Dynamic Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom [M].University Park, PA: CALPER Publications,2007.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages [M].London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.,2008.
Lantolf, J. P.&M. E. Poehner. Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for secondlanguage development [J]. Language Teaching Research.2011,15(1):11-33.
Lantolf, J. P.&S. L. Thorne. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning [A]. In B.VanPatten&J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisiton [C]. Mahwah, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2007:201-24.
Lantolf, J. P.&S. L. Thorne. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006.
Leont’ev, D. A. Activity theory approach: Vygotsky in the present [A]. In Voices Within Vygotsky’sNon-classical Psychology: Past, Present, Future [C]. A. Stetsenko and D. Robbins (Eds.).Hauppage, NY: Nova,2002.
Leung C.&B. Mohan. Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts—assessment asdiscourse and assessment of discourse [J]. Language Testing,2004,(21):335-359.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic Assessment：An Interactional Approach to Evaluation of Learning Potential [M].New York: The Guilford Press,1987.
Lidz, C. S. Practitioner’s Guide to Dynamic Assessment [M]. New York: Guilford Press.1991.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic Assessment: some Thoughts on the model, the medium. and the message [A], InAdvance in Cognition and educational Practice [C], Vol.l A,1992, JAI Press Inc,197-211.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic assessment approaches [A]. In D. Flanagan, J. Genshaft&P. Harrison (eds.).Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests and Issues [C]. NewYork：Guilford Press,1997:281-296.
Lidz, C. S. Dynamic assessment (Learning potential testing, testing the limits)[A]. In R.Fernndez-Ballesteros (ed.). Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment [Z]. London: SAGE.2003:337-343.
Lidz, C. S.&B. Gindis. Dynamic assessment of the evolving cognitive functions in children [A]. InVygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context [C]. A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev,&S. M. Miller (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2003.
Lidz, C. S.&J. Elliott. Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications [M]. Amsterdam: JAIElsevier Science,2000.
Li, Shaofeng. The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis [J]. LanguageLearning,2010,60(2):309-365.
Liu，J.&J. G. Hansen. Peer response in second language writing classroom [M]. Ann Arbor: MichiganUniversity Press,2002.
Lunt, I. The practice of assessment [A]. In Charting the Agenda. Educational Activity after Vygotsky[C]. H. Daniels (Ed.). London: Routledge,1993.
Luria, A. R. Study of the abnormal child [J]. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry: A Journal ofHuman Behavior,1961,(31):1-16.
Luria, A. R. The working brain [M]. New York: Basic Books,1973.
Luria, A. R. Cognitive Development. Its Cultural and Social Foundations [M]. Cambridge, MA:Harvard,1976.
Meltzoff, A. N. Elements of a developmental theory of imitation [A]. In A. N. Meltzoff&W. Prinz(Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases [C]. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,2002:19-41.
Min, Hui-Tzu. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’revision types and writing quality [J].Journal of Second Language Writing,2006,(15):118–141.
Minick, N. Implications of Vygotsky’s theories for dynamic assessment [A]. In Dynamic Assessment:An Interactive Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential [C]. C. S. Lidz (Ed.). New York: TheGuilford Press.1987.
Muncie, J. Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes [J]. ELT Journal,2000,54(1):47-53.
Nassaji, H.&M. Swain. A Vygotskyan perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: the Effect ofrandom vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles [J]. Language Awareness,2000,(9):34-51.
Nation, I. S. P. Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing [M]. New York: Routledge.2009.
Nelson G. L.&J. M. Murphy. Peer response groups: Do L2writers use peer comments in writing theirdrafts?[J]. TESOL Quarterly,1993,(27):135-142.
Neman，B. S. Teaching Students to Write [M].2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.,1995.
Newman, D., P. Griffin&M. Cole. The Construction Zone: Working for Cognitive Change in School[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989.
Newman, F.&L. Holzman. Lev Vygotsky. Revolutionary Scientist [M]. London: Routledge,1993.
O’Malley, J. M.&A. U. Chamot. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Oxford, R. L. Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know [M]. New York:Newbury House Publishers,1990.
Pedersen, P. Multiculturalism as a fourth force [M]. Taylor&Francis,1999.
Pienemann, M. Language Processing and Second Language Development. Processability Theory [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1998.
Poehner, M. E. Dynamic Assessment of Oral Proficiency among Advanced L2Learners of French [D],Unpublished doctoral thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia,2005.
Poehner, M. E.&J. P. Lantolf. Dynamic Assessment in Language Classroom [J], Language TeachingResearch,2005,9(3):233-265.
Poehner, M. E. Beyond the test: L2dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning [J].The Modern Language Journal,2007,91(3):323-340.
Poehner, M. E. Dynamic Assessment: A Vygotskian Approach to Understanding and Promoting L2Development [M]. Berlin: Springer,2008.
Poehner, M. E. Group Dynamic Assessment: Mediation for the L2Classroom [J]. TESOL Quarterly,2009,43(3):471-491.
Rea-Dickens, P.&S. Gardner. Snares and Bullets: disentangling the construct of formative Aseessment[J]. Language Testing,2000,(17):215-243.
Reid, J. Writing [A]. In The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other language [C]. R.Carter&D. Nunan (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001:28-33.
Sternberg, R. J.&E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement of LearningPotential [M]. Cambridge university press,2002.
Schmidt, R. The Role of consciousness in second language learning [J]. Applied Linguistics,1990,(11):129-158.
Schmidt, R. Awareness and second language acquisition [J]. Applied Linguistics,1993,(13):206-226.
Scribner, S.&M. Cole. The Psychological Consequences of Literacy [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard,1981.
Shamir, A.&D. Tzuriel. Peer mediation：a novel model for development of mediation skills andcognitive modifiablity of young children [A]. In Learning Potential Assessment and CognitveTraining7[C]. G. M. Van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M Resing,&A. J. J. M. Ruijssenaars (Eds.).Amsterdam: Elsevier,2002.
Sheppard, K. Two Feedback Types: Do They Make a Difference?[J]. RELC Journal,1992,(23):103-110.
Shohamy, E.“Closing the gap between research and practice: Applications of research results toclassroom testing.”[R]. Revised version of a paper delivered at the English Teachers’Association of Israel International Conference, Jerusalem,1988.
Silva, T. Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL [A]. InB. Kroll (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classrooms [C]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1990:11-23.
Sternberg R. J.&Elena L. Grigorenko (Eds). Dynamic Testing: The Nature and Measurement ofLearning Potential [M]. Cambridge University Press,2002.
Sue, D. W., R. P. Bingham, Porché-Burke, L.,&M. Vasquez. The diversification of psychology: Amulticultural revolution [J], American Psychologist,1999,54(12):1061-1069.
Summers, R. Dynamic assessment: Towards a model of dialogic engagement [D]. Theses andDissertations. Paper521. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/521,2008.
Swain, M. Examining Dialogue: another approach to content specification and to validating inferencesdrawn from test scores [J]. Language Testing,2001,(18):275-302.
Swain, M.&S. Lapkin. Interaction and Second Language learning: two adolescent French immersionstudents working together [J]. The Modern Language Jounal,1998,(83):320-337.
Swain, M.&S. Lapkin. Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation[J]. International Journal of Educational Research,2002,(37):285-304.
Swain, M. L. Brooks,&A. Tocalli-Beller. Peer-peer Dialogue as a Means of Second LanguageLearning [J]. Annal Review of Applied Linguistics,2002,(22):171-185.
Taylor, L.&G. Wigglesworth. Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2assessment contexts [J].Language Testing,2009,26(3):325-339.
Tomasello, M. The cultural origins of human cognition [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1999.
Tomasello, M. Constructing Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition [M].Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,2003.
Tribble, C. Writing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1996.
Tulviste, P. The Cultural-Historical Development of Verbal Thinking [M]. Commack, NY: NovaScience Publishers,1991.
Tzuriel, D.&R. Kaufman. Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: Dynamic assessment ofyoung Ethiopian immigrant children to Israel [J]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,1999,(30):359-380.
Valsiner, J. Process structure of semiotic mediation in human development [J]. Human Development,2001,(44):84-97.
Valsiner, J.,&R. van der Veer. The social mind: Construction of the idea [M]. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press,2000.
Van der Aalsvoort, G. M.&C. S. Lidz. Reciprocity in dynamic assessment in classrooms: takingcontextual influences on individual learning into account [A]. In Learning Potential Assessmentand Cognitive Training7[C]. G. M. Van der Aalsvoort, W. C. M. Resing, and A. J. J. M.Ruijssenaars (Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier,2002.
Villamil, O. S.&M. C. M. de Guerrero. Peer revision in the L2classroom: Social-cognitive activities,mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,1996,5(1),51–75.
Vyatkina, N. A. Development of Second Language Pragmatic Competence: the Data Driven Teachingof German Modal Practices Based on a Learner Corpus [D]. Unpublished dissertation.Pennsylvania State University, University Park,2007.
Vygotsky, L. S. In R. W. Reiber&A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol.1.Problems of general psychology－Including the volume Thinking and Speech [M]. New York:Plenum Press,1978:73.
Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1986.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes [M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1989:107-109.
Vygotsky, L. S. The problem of age [A]. In R. W. Rieber (ed.). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky:Child Psychology (Vol5)[C]. New York: Plenum,1998:187-205.
Watson, C. B. The Use and Abuse of Models in the ESL Writing Class [J]. TESOL Quarterly,1982,16(1):5-14.
Watzlawick, P., J. Weakland,&R. Fisch. Change: Principles of Problem Formation and ProblemResolution [M]. New York: W. W. Norton and Co..1974.
Wertsch, J. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind [M]. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard UniversityPress,1985.
Wertsch, J. V.&M. Hickmann. Problem solving in social interaction: a microgenetic analysis [A]. InSocial and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought [C]. M. Hickmann (Ed). San Diego,CA: Academic,1987.
White, R.&V. Arndt. Process writing [M]. New York: Longman,1991.
Wiedl, K. H., J. Güthke,&S.Wingenfeld, Dynamic assessment in Europe: historical perspectives [A],In Jerry S. Carlson (Eds.). Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice: EuropeanContributions to Dynamic Assessment [C], by JAI Press Inc.,1995,(3):33-82.
Wigglesworth, G.&N. Storch, Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity andaccuracy [J]. Language Testing,2009,(26):445.
Williams J. Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center [J]. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing,2004,13(3):173-201.
Lei, Xiao. Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writingactivities [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2008,(17):217–236.
艾肯（Aiken. L. R.）著,张厚粲译.《心理测验与考试—能力和行为表现的测量》[M].北京：中国轻工业出版社,2002.
彼得﹒伯格（Peter Berger）（美）,托马斯﹒卢克曼（Thomas Luckmann）（美）著；汪涌译.《现实的社会构建》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
蔡俊.论指向教师专业发展的动态评估[J].教育与教学研究,2010,24(8):27-28,33.
陈德枝.基于认知诊断的小学儿童图形推理能力的动态评估研究[D].江西师范大学博士论文,2009.
陈立平、李志雪.英语写作教学:理论与实践[J].解放军外国语学院学报,1999,(1):66-69.
陈立平.从阅读与写作的关系看写作教学中的范文教学[J].外语与外语教学,2001,(4)：28-29,38.
董亚芬．我国英语教学应始终以读写为本[J].外语界,2003,(1):2-6.
范琳、王庆华.英语词汇学习中的分类组织策略实验研究[J],外语教学与研究,2002，(5):209-212.
范兆兰.动态评估理论与应用研究—智力测验的新进展[D].南京师范大学博士论文,2006.
范兆兰.动态评估的特征及其方法论意义[J].心理科学,2009,32(6):1414一1416.
高一虹、程英、赵媛、周燕.中国大学本科生英语学习动机类型[J].现代外语,2003,26(1):28-38.
股城百科,头脑风暴法_什么是头脑风暴法_管理理论[OL], http://baike.gucheng.com/baike_read_9.html (2011年10月读取)
顾佩娅、朱敏华.网上英语写作与项目教学法研究[J].外语电化教学,2002,(6):3-7.
韩宝成.动态评价理论、模式及其在外语教育中的应用[J].外语教学与研究,2009,41(6):452-458.
黄光扬.动态评价的理论基础、主要模式及可用性初探[J].比较教育研究,2002,23(11):44-48.
黄莹、陈建平.大学生英语课外写作策略研究[J].外语界,2006(2):35-40.
黄源深.好文章是“写”出来的[J].外语界,2006,(5):13-16.
金瑜主编.《心理测验》[M].上海：华东教育出版社,2001.
琚圆圆.动态评估及其在特殊教育中的应用[J].中国特殊教育,2007,(2):55-58.
刘东刚.特殊教育中的动态评估[J].中国特殊教育,1998,11(1):30-34.
刘红梅.计算机网络辅助大学英语写作阶段实验报告[J].电化教育研究,2004,130(2):61-64.
刘润清、戴曼纯.《中国高校外语教学改革现状与发展策略研究》[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003.
刘晓玲、杨高云.一种基于网络的同伴写作评改方法[J].中国外语,2008,(2):54-58.
刘玉萍.新范文教学法在研究生英语写作教学中的尝试[J]西安外国语学院学报,2004,(4):18-21.
麻彦坤、叶浩生.维果茨基最近发展区思想的当代发展[J].心理发展与教育,2004,20(2):89-93.
麻彦坤.维果茨基对现代西方心理学的影响[D].南京师范大学博士论文,2005.
戚焱.反馈在英语写作教学中的作用—英语专业议论文写作研究[J].国外外语教学,2004,(1):47-53.
秦晓晴.《外语教学问卷调查法》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2009.
R. J.斯腾伯格（美）著,俞晓琳、吴国宏译.《超越IQ:人类智力的三元理论》[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2000.
束定芳.外语课堂教学新模式刍议[J].外语界,2006,(4):23-31.
苏运连.论听力学习策略的可教性－一项基于中国外语初学者的实验研究[J].现代外语,2003,(1):48－58.
滕春红.英语语法与写作―对美国堪萨斯大学中国留学生英文水平的调查[J].外语教学与研究,1993,(4):65-69.
互动百科,头脑风暴法[OL], http://www.hudong.com/wiki/%e5%a4%b4%e8%84%91%e9%a3%8e%e6%9a%b4%e6%b3%95(2011年10月读取)
叶浩生.文化模式及其对心理与行为的影响[J].心理科学,2004,27(5):1032-1036.
王初明、牛瑞英、郑小湘.以写促学—一项英语写作教学改革的实验[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(3):207-212.
王穗平、张卫、莫雷.学习潜能评估：一种动态的智力观[J].心理科学,1997,20(4):347-351.
文秋芳.《英语学习策略论》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1996.
文秋芳、王立非.中国英语学习策略实证研究20年[J].外国语言文学,2004,(1):39-45.
文秋芳.《应用语言学研究方法与论文写作》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2007.
文秋芳.《二语习得重点问题研究》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2010.
吴锦、张在新.英语写作教学新探―论写前阶段的可行性[J].外语教学与研究,2000,(3):213-218.
吴萍.从语言生成谈范文的作用[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2007,(3):122-124.
杨惠中.关于大学英语教学的几点思考[J].外语教学与研究,2012,(2):293-297.
杨敬清.提高英语写作评改有效性的反馈机制—实验与分析[J].外语界,1996,(3):41-45.
杨永林.一种基于数字化教学理念的写作训练系统[J].外语电化教学,2004,(4):40-43.
曾用强.过程化的写作评估模式[J].福建外语,2002,(3):26-31.
张雪梅.大学英语写作教学现状之调查[J].外语界,2006,(5):28-32.
张艳红,程东元.网络环境下大学英语写作能力培养模式的设计与实践[J].外语电化教学,2007,(4):26-31.
张艳红.大学英语网络写作教学的动态评估模式研究[J].外语界,2008,(4):73-81.
张艳红.非专业学生英语学习动机变化规律研究[J].中国科教创新导刊,2008,25:107-108.
张艳红.非英语专业学生写作策略研究[J].社科纵横,2009,24(8):172-173.
张艳红.大学英语写作教学的动态评价体系建构[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2010,33(1):46-52.
张在新、吴红云、王晓露、张俊香.我国英语写作教学中的主要问题[J].外语教学与研究,1995,(4):43-50.
邹申. TEM8写作能力评估—要求、问题与对策[J].外语界,1999,(4).
邹申.考试评估中的信息反馈—谈间接数据的应用[J].国外外语教学,1999,(4):2-6.
邹申.《语言测试》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
邹申.关于考试科学属性的思考—兼谈高校英语专业四、八级考试大纲（2004年新版）的修订[J].中国外语,2006,(2):14-18,42.
邹申.提升考试公平性—以英语专业四、八级考试为例[J].外语测试与教学,2011,(1):42-50.
邹申.基于语料库的写作测试效度研究—以《英语专业写作教学语料库》为例[J].外语电化教学,2012,(1):16-21.
邹申、杨任明.他们如何使用写作评分标准?—TEM4新老评分员调查[J].国外外语教学,2002,(3):1-6.
邹申、方秀才、陈炜.2011年英语专业四、八级考试分析报告[J].外语测试与教学,2012,(1):1-10.
左年念.外语作文评阅与学生写作能力提高之间的关系—研究综述[J].外语教学与研究,2002,(5):355-359.
教育部高等教育司.《大学英语课程教学要求》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2007:1-17.