Hi Steven-- Do you think that Feurstein and LSV had the same ideas about
mediation? About zopeds?
I am not at all sure.
mike
On 12/11/06, steven thorne <slt13@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ana, Mike, Sonja, and all -- For ZPD related assessment, you might
> look at dynamic assessment (DA).
>
> Like the ZPD, DA is forward/future looking in its orientation through
> its assertion that mediated performance can be indicative of
> independent functioning in the future. DA methods of assessment
> involve mediating an examinee's performance by providing prompts and
> leading questions during the assessment intervention itself. Its
> primary goal is to fuse assessment procedures with interactive
> opportunities for learning, and in so doing, to produce a more
> nuanced understanding of an examinee's current and future
> developmental potential.
>
> A few references:
>
> Feuerstein (2003) has published extensively on the use of DA in a
> variety of populations. Lantolf and Poehner (2004) provide an in-
> depth description of DA use in education broadly and also suggest
> guidelines for its use in second and foreign language contexts.
> Additionally, they have a companion paper that extends principles of
> DA to formative assessment and foreign language classroom practice
> (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005). See also Kozulin and Garb, who look at EFL
> text comprehension through DA, and Lantolf and Thorne (2006, chapter
> 12) for a review of this research.
>
> Feuerstein, R., et al. (2003). Dynamic assessment of cognitive
> modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
>
> Kozulin, A. & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text
> comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International
> 23: 112-27.
>
> Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the
> genesis of second language development. Oxford. ŕ Chapter 12
> addresses DA.
>
> Lantolf, J. & Poehner, M. (2004). Dynamic assessment and L2
> development: Brining the past into the future. Journal of Applied
> Linguistics 1: 49-74,
>
> Poehner, M. & Lantolf, J. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language
> classroom. Language Teaching Research 9: 1-33.
>
> steve
>
> ______________
> Steven L. Thorne
> Assistant Professor, Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
> Associate Director, Center for Language Acquisition
> Advisor for Mediated Learning, Center for Advanced Language
> Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER)
> The Pennsylvania State University
> Interact > 814.863.7036 | sthorne@psu.edu | http://
> language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/ | IM: avkrook
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> > There is a large literature on zopeds and evaluation. A very
> > complicated
> > topic.
> > Ann Brown worried about this topics starting in early 1980's. The
> > problem,
> > logically speaking, is that zopeds are open systems. Artificially
> > closing
> > them
> > with "levels of help"/"scaffolding" makes a link to standardized
> > evaluation
> > but destroys
> > the essential properties of a zoped.
> > mike
> >
> > On 12/11/06, deborah downing-wilson <ddowningw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> teaching
> >> 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
> >> impatience certainly.
> >>
> >> On 12/11/06, Ana Guenthner <anaguenthner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In response to Shirley and Deb's thoughts, to assume that the more
> >> > dominant
> >> > learner in a group zpd tends to lead to deeper understanding
> >> would be
> >> > overrating the learner. I tend to wonder if deeper
> >> understanding would
> >> be
> >> > in the learners reflections towards compassion and empathy
> >> rather than
> >> > content.
> >> >
> >> > The notion of assuming that the more capable learner performs
> >> "at a
> >> level
> >> > 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
> >> > an
> >> > inferior design of assessments.
> >> >
> >> > The hot topic seems to be in the design of assessments at the
> >> moment.
> >> Any
> >> > views out there on the cultural historical impact on zoped and
> >> > assessments?
> >> > Would appreciate a lead.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > On 12/11/06, Shirley Franklin <s.franklin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> You are so right, Deb.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It is a very positive argument for mixed ability teaching and
> >> > learning.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 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
> >> thinking.
> >> > > >> As a special needs teacher I know how challenging
> >> simplification
> >> is!
> >> > > >> 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 <lchcmike@gmail.com> 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
> >> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Deborah Downing-Wilson
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:18 PST