Ableeva, R., & Lantolf, J. (2011). Mediated dialogue and the microgenesis of second language listening comprehension. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 133-149.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Allal, L., & Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment of or in the zone of proximal development. Learning and Instruction, 10, 137-152.
Anton, M. (2003, March). Dynamic assessment of advanced foreign language learners. Paper presented at American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.
Anton, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576-598.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.
Bair, C. R. (1999, November). Meta-Synthesis: A new research methodology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, Texas.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z. (1999). Vocabulary in dynamic reading assessment: Two case studies. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 213-236.
Bondas, T., & Hall, E. O. C. (2007). Challenges in approaching meta-synthesis research. Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 113-121.
Brown, C. P., & Lan, Y. (2015). A qualitative metasynthesis comparing U.S. teachers' conceptions of school readiness prior to and after the implementation of NCLB. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 1-13.
Camilleri, B., & Botting, N. (2013). Beyond static assessment of children’s receptive vocabulary: The dynamic assessment of word learning (DAWL). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48(5), 565-581.
Carney, J. J., & Cioffi, G. (1990). Extending traditional diagnosis: The dynamic assessment of reading abilities. Reading Psychology, 11(3), 177-192. doi:10.1080/0270271900110302
Chieh-Fang, L. (2019). Dynamic assessment of phonological awareness in young foreign language learners: Predictability and modifiability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(4), 891-908.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, J. M. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, England: Sage.
Daniels, H. (Ed.). (2005). An Introduction to Vygotsky (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 17(3) 303-322.
Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher‐directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 5-22.
De Gagne, J. C., & Walters, K. (2009). Online teaching experience: A qualitative metasynthesis (QMS). MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 577-589.
Dinsmore, T. H. (2006). Principles, parameters, and SLA: A retrospective meta-analytic investigation into adult L2 learners' access to universal grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 53-90). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Dorfler, T., Golke, S., & Artelt, C. (2009). Dynamic assessment and its potential for the assessment of reading competence. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35, 77-82.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. England: Oxford University Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. (1979). Dynamic assessment of retarded performer. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. E. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am: Helping “retarded” performers excel. New York, NY: Plenum.
Fisher, R. (2012). Teaching writing: A situated dynamic. British Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 299-317.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, D., & Caffrey, E. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: Implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 339-347.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced resource book. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gagné, N., & Parks, S. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 188-209.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners: A multi-vocal research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 66, 454-470.
Gillam, R. B., Pena, E. D., & Miller, L. (1999). Dynamic assessment of narrative and expository discourse. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(1), 33-47.
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the "natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition" in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1-50.
Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 281-299.
Hasson, N., & Dodd, B. (2014). Planning intervention using dynamic assessments: A case study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(3), 353-366.
Hedges, L. V. (1992). Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17(4), 279-296.
Hessels, M. G. P. (2000). The learning potential test for ethnic minorities (LEM): A tool for standardized assessment of children in kindergarten and the first years of primary school. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp. 109-131). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Hill, K., & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 537-545.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Isaacs, T., & Trofimovich, P. (Eds.) (2017). Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Kaniel, S. (2010). Domain specific vs domain general: Implications for dynamic assessment. Gifted Education International, 26, 95-109.
Karami, A., Howlett, K., & Bowles, F. A. (2019). Implementing dynamic assessment in assessing vocabulary development: What the literature says. Journal on English Language Teaching, 9(2), 52-59.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Kent, J. (2000). Social perspectives on pregnancy and childbirth for midwives, nurses and the caring professions. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23, 112-127.
Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245-257.
Lagace, J., & Lefebvre, P. (2017). Accessibility and active offer. Canada: University of Ottawa Press.
Laing, S. P., & Kamhi, A. (2003). Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 44-55.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics - A sociocultural perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 717-728.
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368. doi:10.1017/S0261444808005569
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49-72.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2013). The unfairness of equal treatment: Objectivity in L2 testing and dynamic assessment. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2-3), 141-157. doi:10.1080/13803611.2013.767616
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. England: Oxford University Press.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Lee, S., & Huang, H. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 307-331.
Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257-278. doi:10.1080/15434300701481127
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lin, T., Hsu, Y., Lin, S., Changlai, M., Yang, K., & Lai, T. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 437-455.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Masgoret, A., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163.
Moss, P. A. (2003). Reconceptualizing validity for classroom assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 13-25.
Myburgh, C., & Poggenpoel, M. (2009). Meta-synthesis on learners’ experience of aggression in secondary schools in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 29, 445-460.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 805-815.
Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. New York, NY: Routledge.
McCormick, J., Rodney, P., & Varcoe, C. (2003). Reinterpretations across Studies: An approach to meta-Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(7), 933-944.
Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Michalowski, R. J. (1997). Ethnography and anxiety: Field work and reflexivity in the vortex of U.S.-Cuban relations. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murphy, R., & Maree, D. J. F. (2006). Meta-analysis of dynamic assessment research in South Africa. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 6(1), 32-60.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518.
Poehner, M. E. (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the transcendence of mediated learning. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323-340.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York, NY: Springer.
Poehner, M. E. (2009a). Dynamic assessment as a dialectical framework for classroom activity: Evidence from second language (L2) learners. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 8(3), 252-268.
Poehner, M. E. (2009b). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-791.
Poehner, M. E. (2011a). Dynamic Assessment: Fairness through the prism of mediation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 99-112.
Poehner, M. E. (2011b). Validity and interaction in the ZPD: Interpreting learner development through L2 Dynamic Assessment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 244-263.
Poehner, M. E. (2012). The zone of proximal development and the genesis of self‐assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 610-622. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01393.x
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 233-265.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Vygotsky’s teaching-assessment dialectic and L2 education: The case for dynamic assessment. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 312-330.
Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323-342.
Poehner, M. E., & van Compernolle, R., A. (2011). Frames of interaction in dynamic assessment: Developmental diagnoses of second language learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(2), 183-198.
Popham, J. W. (2011). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 190-208.
Rashidi, N., & Bahadori Nejad, Z. (2018). An investigation into the effect of dynamic assessment on the EFL learners’ process writing development. Sage Open, 8(2), 1-14. doi: 10.1177/2158244018784643
Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18, 429-62.
Rea-Dickins, P. (2004). Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing, 21, 249-258.
Rea-Dickins, P., & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: Disentangling the construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17, 215-43.
Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15, 1-20.
Sandelowski, M. (2006). “Meta-Jeopardy”: The crisis of representation in qualitative metasynthesis. Nursing Outlook, 54(1), 10-16.
Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70.
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247-284.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72-110.
Statham, A. (1988). Women’s approach to work: The creation of knowledge. In A. Statham (Ed.), The worth of women’s work: A qualitative synthesis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. England: Cambridge University Press.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44-58.
Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395-430.
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.
Tang. X. (2009, February). Qualitative meta-synthesis techniques for analysis of public opinions for in-depth study. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Complex Sciences, Shanghai, China. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02469-6_111
Thorne, S. E., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G. W., & Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1342-1365.
Tierney, R. D. (2006). Changing practices: Influences on classroom assessment. Assessment in Education, 13(3), 239-264.
Tuquero, J. M. (2011). A meta-ethnographic synthesis of support services in distance learning programs. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 157-179.
Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (1993). The encoding of distance: The concept of the zone of proximal development and its interpretations. In R. R. Cocking & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 35-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Compernolle, R. A., & Kinginger, C. (2013). Promoting metapragmatic development through assessment in the zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 282-302.
Van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2012). Promoting sociolinguistic competence in the classroom zone of proximal development. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 39-60.
Van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). Sociocultural theory and second language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 277-281.
Van Compernolle, R. A., & Zhang, H. S. (2014). Dynamic assessment of elicited imitation: A case analysis of an advanced L2 English speaker. Language Testing, 31(4), 395-412.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1955/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1955).
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
Yeomans, J. (2008). Dynamic assessment practice: Some suggestions for ensuring follow up. Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(2), 105-114. doi:10.1080/02667360802076107