RE: [xmca] Zopeds and more competent peers

From: Michael Glassman (MGlassman@ehe.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 12 2006 - 05:27:28 PST


Steve,
 
Why is mediated learning experience not closer to direct instruction than to Vygotsky's ideas of mediation? (Although I would also ask if mediated learning experience has some kinship with Vygotsky's ideas on how scientific concepts are taught in the classroom). Don't many people who promote the idea of direct instruction see that teacher as a mediating force - really the only mediating force in the learning equation - at least covertly? MLE seems qualitatively different from the way people have been describing their ideas on zopeds the last few days (which seems closer to a more democratic vision of education).
 
Michael

________________________________

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of steven thorne
Sent: Tue 12/12/2006 12:00 AM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Zopeds and more competent peers

hi Mike -- this is a good question. Feuerstein's 'mediated learning
experience' (MLE) model is more restrictive in scope than is
mediation from the cultural-historical perspective.

the MLE model presumes human beings to be open systems and
understands development as driven by the presence (and inhibited or
differentiated by the absence) of forms of interaction and
instruction -- elements that are broadly commensurable with LSV's
thinking.

coming directly to your question -- Feuerstein describes mediation as
"the psychological component of cultural transmission" (Feuerstein et
al., 1981:271). HOWEVER, and this is significant -- Feuerstein also
describes some activity as "direct" or non-mediated, such as a child
watching TV alone. this is telling and it suggests that by mediation,
Feuerstein narrowly means co-present human interaction. this is
obviously heterodoxical to the theorizations of mediation by LSV.

for those interested, a few more LSV inspired/oriented DA resources
include:

Lidz, C.S. (1991). A practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New
York: Guildford.

Lidz, C.S, & Gindis, B. (2003). Dynamic assessment of the evolving
cognitive functions in children. In Kozulin et al., Vygotsky's
educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: CUP.

steve

On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

> 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. 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:// <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
>
>

_______________________________________________
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