However, it is unlikely that adopting an RTI model for identification will speed up the process, and might even delay it. In the context of eligibility determination for special education services, the traditional aptitude-achievement assessment model has been criticized as a “wait to fail” model because most children with learning disabilities are not identified and provided special education services until the end of first grade or later. Arguments in support of using RTI models as a source of assessment information mirror the three key assumptions of dynamic assessment. RTI models can be used as the basis of service delivery and also as a source of assessment information ( Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Obvious parallels exist between fundamental assumptions of dynamic assessment and those of recent response-to-intervention (RTI) models (see Grigorenko, 2009, for a comprehensive and insightful recent comparison between dynamic assessment and response to intervention). The third and final assumption is that the reason for assessment lies in intervention, and consequently, that the results of assessment should have direct implications for selecting or modifying interventions. The second assumption is that we should be interested more in where children can be tomorrow if given adequate education or intervention, rather than in where children are now given their previous educational history. The first assumption is that conventional assessment does not work for children who have diverse educational and cultural experiences. The origins of dynamic assessment can be traced to Thorndike (1924), Rey (1934), and Vygotsky (1962), who shared three basic assumptions ( Grigorenko, 2009). Dynamic assessment refers to assessment that combines elements of instruction for the purpose of learning something about an individual that cannot be learned as easily or at all from conventional assessment.
0 kommentar(er)
