I believe it is best described as everyday concepts developing upwards and
scientific concepts spiraling down to the concrete. the more competent
peer has the past experience of already having moved in both directions and
can provide their insight into this dialectic. Being an open-ended system
the more competent peer is still able to expand or continue to develop
their everyday concepts into ever more competent ways of practicing the
I have returned to leontiev and engstrom for guidance in how activity
allows for the zoped to be present. any presently reading either?
downing-wilson" To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
<ddowningw who-is-at gmail cc:
.com> Subject: Re: [xmca] Zopeds and more competent peers
xmca-bounces who-is-at web
hmmm. it seems to me that in teaching or demonstrating a skill we perform
the skill in as close to the ideal form as we are able, and as this
episode is also an incidence of practice we can assume that the teacher's
skill level improves during the interaction. I'm not sure about the deeper
understanding, one can hope for the compassion and empathy, frustration and
On 12/11/06, Ana Guenthner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> In response to Shirley and Deb's thoughts, to assume that the more
> learner in a group zpd tends to lead to deeper understanding would be
> overrating the learner. I tend to wonder if deeper understanding would
> in the learners reflections towards compassion and empathy rather than
> The notion of assuming that the more capable learner performs "at a
> above what they are capable of outside the ZPD " as a general statement
> somehow does not sit well with my thinking. Considering the cultural
> historical aspect of a teacher not knowing the danger of simplifying and
> deciding on the individual/group more capable and least capable based on
> inferior design of assessments.
> The hot topic seems to be in the design of assessments at the moment.
> views out there on the cultural historical impact on zoped and
> Would appreciate a lead.
> > > On 12/11/06, Shirley Franklin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >> You are so right, Deb.
> > >>
> > >> It is a very positive argument for mixed ability teaching and
> > >>
> > >> My kids were taught is mixed ability classrooms (sadly now in the
> > >> decline in the UK) and benefited enormously by helping their weaker
> > >> mates . The act of simplification must involve more complex
> > >> As a special needs teacher I know how challenging simplification
> > >> I have always thought this had led these 'more competent peers' to
> > >> greater , deeper understandings. It is something we frequently
> > >> discuss in my teaching seminars.
> > >>
> > >> Like Deb, I would love some other references to this.
> > >> Shirley
> > >>
> > >> On 10 Dec 2006, at 23:55, deborah downing-wilson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A question that comes to me occasionally - but never when I'm near
> > >>> someone
> > >>> to ask-
> > >>>
> > >>> It seems to me that the "more capable" member of the ZPD, by nature
> > >>> of the
> > >>> interaction also performs at a level above what they are capable of
> > >>> outside
> > >>> the ZPD -
> > >>>
> > >>> deb
> > >>> On 12/10/06, Mike Cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > .
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The difficulty at the cultural-historical level that bothers me is
> > >>>> that it is even more difficult than in the
> > >>>> ontogenetic case to figure out who the more capable person/social
> > >>>> group
> > >>>> might be.
> xmca mailing list
-- Deborah Downing-Wilson _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:18 PST