Home / Chapter 1

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 includes the following sections: 

1.1 Background of the Study (Times New Roman, bold, font 20)

For this section, a short review of the recent studies signifying your project suffices. (for a proposal, it is appropriate to be of 8 -10 lines)

A sample:

This study addresses the implications of DA training on mediators, as well as the behaviours that occur during DA mediation sessions among university-level students of French as they are taking a computerized exam. DA is sometimes misunderstood as formative or informal assessment and is therefore administered incorrectly (Lantolf & Thorne, 2005). To this end, this study will provide teachers with a theory-informed and principled approach to DA administration. Moreover, the investigation of DA training is urged by Erben, Ban and Summers (2008). The regulatory behaviours and activities that take place during DA sessions were recorded and analyzed. Taxonomies were created that highlight the differences in behaviour use among language experience level and the way that mediators and students externalized reciprocity, mediational sensitivity and management was investigated. The focus of this study is on how students and teachers engage in dialogic interaction. This follows the suggestions of Erben (2001) and Poehner (2005) where they detail the fact that the learner’s ability to respond and manage mediation is useful in creating an atmosphere where development can occur. While there is a great deal of work done in the fields of special education and psychology concerning DA (Elliot, 2003; Lidz, 1993, 2000; Sternberg & Grigorenko 2002). There are relatively few studies on DA in a second language acquisition (SLA) context (Antón cited in Lantolf and
Thorne, 2006; Kozulin & Garb 2002; Poehner 2005). None of these studies investigates DA training and its effects on mediation. DA provides an alternative viewpoint concerning teaching and assessment. Generally, pedagogy and assessment are considered to be separate areas within the broader field of education. In fact, the literature reveals that pedagogy and testing are seen as different specializations that often share different goals and methodologies (Bachman 1990; Shohamy 1998, 2001; McNamara 2001). [Extracted from:  Summers, R. (2008).  Dynamic assessment: Towards a model of dialogic engagement, (p. 12)]

1.2. Statement of the Problem (Times New Roman, bold, font 20)

In this section, in about 8-10 lines, try to highlight the

A sample:

This study stems from a concern about the limitations and potential dangers of using isolated (that is, using only (or purely)) psychometric assessment approaches, especially within the changing context of education and psychology in South Africa. Although many leading researchers within the field of cognitive education (for example Bosma & Resing, 2008; Woods & Farrell, 2006; Elliot, 2003; Tzuriel, 2001; Lidz & Elliot, 2000; Haney & Evans, 1999; Elliot, 1993) propagate the “use” and “value” of dynamic assessment, many have found that it has not been fully incorporated (if incorporated at all) into educational psychologists’ assessment practices. The question which comes to mind then is: If the dynamic assessment is such a “valuable” approach which, in addition to conventional psychometric measures, can provide a more accurate picture of a person’s intellectual functioning, then why is it not more widely employed by educational psychologists? Elliot (1993 in Elliot, 2000, p. 715) has suggested four reasons why educational psychologists have been slow to take up dynamic approaches. First, dynamic assessment does not consist of a single set of procedures that can be acquired easily through a short training course – the range of models, techniques, methods and purposes is vast and thus potentially confusing to the practitioner. Second, dynamic assessment is often time-consuming and may run counter to the demands of employers for rapid turnover assessments. Third, few opportunities for training exist, with only limited expertise and interest being evidenced in the UK or USA university departments. Finally, it was noted that dynamic assessment approaches, many of which are based upon qualitative rather than quantitative conceptions, do not fit easily into Western models of professional thinking and acting: “Our current system is proudly empiricist with a strong determination to view difference and change quantitatively, not qualitatively, i.e. through differences in amount rather than differences in kind” (Sutton, 1992 cited in Elliot, 2000, p. 716). Local researchers would seem to agree that this is also being evidenced in South Africa. [Extracted from Smit, M., (2010),  Educational psychologists’ views on the relevance of dynamic assessment for their practice, p. 4]