Dynamic Assessment Basics: A Practical CLD-Friendly Starting Point

When you’re assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) learners, the hardest part is making meaning of what you see in their behaviors and patterns. A student may score low because they have had fewer opportunities to learn in that language, because the task is culturally unfamiliar, because of fatigue or anxiety, or because there’s an underlying language disorder.

Dynamic assessment (DA) is one way to reduce that uncertainty. Instead of relying only on snapshot performance, DA asks a different question:

How does this learner respond when we teach and reduce barriers?

Measuring learning potential and responsiveness to support is why DA is widely discussed as a strong fit for CLD evaluation contexts.  It’s also a strong fit for any learner who is not well represented in normative samples—CLD or not.

What is dynamic assessment?

Dynamic assessment is an assessment approach that intentionally includes a teaching phase, also referred to as the Mediated Learning Experience (MLE), and observations of what changes. It’s often described as a test–teach–retest (or pretest–mediation–posttest) framework.

What you gain by adding that mediation phase:

• A clearer picture of whether performance improves with brief teaching

• Information about modifiability (how easily the learner changes strategies with support)

• Data you can use immediately for next steps (supports, goals, intervention planning)

In multilingual assessment specifically, reviews of the research base support DA as a useful approach for identifying language disorder in multilingual children when used thoughtfully alongside other sources of information.

Why dynamic assessment fits CLD decision-making

Dynamic assessment doesn’t replace everything else you do (case history, language sampling, observations, interpreter collaboration). What it does well is help you answer:

• Is the learner able to shift strategies with support?

• Does brief teaching lead to meaningful change?

• What type and amount of support is needed for success?

• Can the learner transfer the learning to a new example or context?

That last piece matters: DA can help distinguish “I haven’t had the opportunity yet” from “I’m having difficulty learning even with high-quality support.”

Two important components of DA

1. Mediated Learning Experience (MLE)

In MLE, the clinician (or mediator) intentionally shapes the learning interaction—making the goal explicit, building meaning, and supporting generalization. ASHA’s dynamic assessment resources highlight this approach and its clinical application.

In the Case Lab DA Workshop, we use these MLE anchors:

• Intentionality: Explain to the learner the goal.

• Meaning: Why is the goal important?

• Transcendence: Why is the goal important outside the clinical setting?

• Planning: Make a plan for how the learner will apply strategies in other contexts.

• Transfer: Check whether the learner can use the new skill with less help, on a new example, or in a new setting (generalization).

2. Graduated prompting (a cueing hierarchy)

Here, you use a planned least-to-most set of prompts and track how much support the learner needs to succeed. 

A any-task cueing hierarchy (least-to-most)

You can apply this structure to word learning, storytelling, describing pictures, following directions, using a grammar target—anything where you can create a clear learning target and then test transfer.

1 = Minimal (independent attempt)

One clear direction + wait time; no modeling.

2 = Low (repeat exactly)

Repeat the same instruction once (same words, same demand).

3 = Moderate (simplify + add nonverbal/visual support)

Shorten language; add gesture/visual cue; reduce load without giving the answer.

4 = High (model + guided practice)

“Watch me” model → “Now you” imitate → reset and try again.

5 = Maximum (ensure success, then fade fast)

Strong scaffolding (forced-choice, step-by-step prompting, reduced field; hand-under-hand only if appropriate to your protocol), then immediate independent retry.

The point is to learn what kind of help leads to change—and how quickly you can fade it.

What to observe during mediation

In addition to accuracy, track a few high-yield signals:

• Responsiveness: Does the learner use feedback? Do they accept support?

• Strategy shift: Do they change what they do after teaching?

• Efficiency: How quickly do they need less help?

• Transfer: Can they apply the learning to a new example or context?

Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

• Cueing too much, too fast: If you jump to maximum support, you lose information. Start low and move up intentionally.

• Not re-testing transfer: Without a fresh example, it’s hard to tell if learning is sticking or if success was prompt-dependent.

• Over-relying on DA alone: DA is strongest when paired with robust context—language exposure history, family perspective, classroom data, and observations.

Want a guided practice version of this?

If reading about DA helps, but you want to practice applying it, check out our recorded Dynamic Assessment Case Lab.

In the Case Lab, we:

• Walk through MLE elements in real time

• Practice choosing and varying prompts (least-to-most)

• Talk through what “transfer” looks like in school and home contexts

• Leave with language you can use in reports and team conversations

Next steps

• Join the free CLD Open Access community space (updates, free events, discussion).

• Access the Dynamic Assessment Case Lab recording/workshop if you want guided practice.

• If you’re not ready for the workshop, bookmark this post and use it as your starting point.

• Download the one-page Basic Principles of Dynamic Assessment reference sheet for the next time you implement DA in your practice.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Dynamic assessment. https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/dynamic-assessment/

Hunt, E., Nang, C., Meldrum, S., & Armstrong, E. (2022). Can dynamic assessment identify language disorder in multilingual children? Clinical applications from a systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(2), 598–625. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-21-00094

Kapantzoglou, M., Restrepo, M. A., & Thompson, M. S. (2012). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills: Identifying language impairment in bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0095)

Orellana, C. I., Wada, R., & Gillam, R. B. (2019). The use of dynamic assessment for the diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(3), 1298–1317. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-18-0202

Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., & Sabel, T. (2006). Dynamic assessment of school-age children’s narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(5), 1037–1057. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/074)

Peña, E. D., Resendiz, M., & Gillam, R. B. (2007). The role of clinical judgments of modifiability in the diagnosis of language impairment. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040701413738

Petersen, D. B., Chanthongthip, H., Ukrainetz, T. A., Spencer, T. D., & Steeve, R. W. (2017). Dynamic assessment of narratives: Efficient, accurate identification of language impairment in bilingual students. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(4), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0426