This paper updates a review of dynamic assessment in education by the first author, published in this journal in 2003. It notes that the original review failed to examine the important conceptual distinction between dynamic testing (DT) and dynamic assessment (DA). While both approaches seek to link assessment and intervention, the former is of particular interest for academic researchers in psychology, whose focus is upon the study of reasoning and problem-solving. In contrast, those working in the area of dynamic assessment, often having a practitioner orientation, tend to be particularly concerned to explore the ways by which assessment data can inform educational practice. It is argued that while some authors have considered the potential value of DA in assisting classification, or in predicting future performance, the primary contribution of this approach would seem to be in guiding intervention. Underpinning this is the view that DA can shed light on the operation of underlying cognitive processes that are impairing learning. However, recent research has demonstrated that the belief that deficient cognitive/executive functions could be identified and ameliorated, and subsequently result in academic progress, has not been supported. Where gains in such processes/functions have sometimes been found in laboratory training studies, these have tended not to transfer meaningfully to classroom contexts. The review concludes by pointing out that DA continues to be supported primarily on the basis of case studies and notes that the 2003 call for research that systematically examines the relationship between assessment and intervention has yet to be realised.

There appears to be something of an intellectual and philosophical gulf between education researchers who seek insights from statistical analyses of complex data-sets such as those provided by the OECD (PISA), and others who seek to develop rich, contextualised socio-historical understandings that can shed light upon why particular classroom practices operate and are sustained within a given milieu. This paper outlines these different perspectives, with particular reference to non-cognitive factors. Detailed analysis of the roots of high academic achievement, and associated challenges to student wellbeing, in many East Asian countries, is provided. The important influence of broad political and societal factors is highlighted by reference to cross-cultural differences across a large number of countries. The paper concludes by stating that while data from large datasets can assist in gaining greater understanding of cross-cultural differences, to be meaningful, such analyses should be incorporated within complex ecosystemic accounts.