Re: [xmca] Zopeds and more competent peers

From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane (ana@zmajcenter.org)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2006 - 11:50:04 PST


Mike and all,
that is exactly what I meant. The question for us then is how to
initiate changes in the educational system. (Both "teaching" and
"assessment" components).
I know a little bit about dynamic assessment and need to read more about it.
(Thanks to Steve and some others, there are a lot of references for now).
Ana

Mike Cole wrote:
> Ana-- You are rephrasing in more detail what I meant by referring to
> zopeds
> as
> open systems. The problen with a lot of formal classroom education is
> that
> in fact they do not encourage development in the teacher as well as the
> kids. But really great teachers
> are constantly developing. Vivian Paley comes to mind, or Alexander
> Luria.
> mike
>
> On 12/14/06, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <ana@zmajcenter.org> wrote:
>>
>> Mike and Alexander (Sasha)
>> I think that the concept of the ZPD changes the definitions of learning
>> and development, too! If the ZPD is by nature an interactive and a
>> social system, then there is no reason to look only at some people in
>> the system and not all of them. What that means is that there must be
>> some changes across the whole system -- all the participants included.
>> The problem then with testing as a means of measuring "development" or
>> "learning" is that it not only uses an entirely different theoretical
>> assumptions (than ZPD), but that it actually -- in the line with dynamic
>> and interactional assumptions -- creates a new situation (and with a new
>> combination of participants) in which particular aspects of another
>> situation (ZPD) have to be ripped out of it and recreated for
>> performance in a new context. In other words, testing is not a neutral
>> activity, but a special situation with its members and their
>> relationships which are usually radically different from the situations
>> where ZPD has its maximum effect.
>> So if we look at ZPD as dynamic interpersonal situations in which
>> (multiple) people experience multiple changes including in their
>> knowledge, in their skills and in their relationships, can we still use
>> testing in the classical way, or do we have to switch to more dynamic
>> techniques of assessment ala Feuerstein (and others quoted by Steven
>> Thorne).
>> Ana
>>
>>
>> Mike Cole wrote:
>> > Alexander--
>> >
>> > Very interesting. But wouldn't Chaiklin respond:
>> > 1) You have shown learning, not development for the skills involved?
>> > 2) You have not shown across the board changes?
>> >
>> > (I believe that there are good answers to these questions, but so
>> far in
>> > this
>> > discussion neither of these objections to widely used treatments of
>> the
>> > zoped
>> > idea appear to have been addressed by discussants).
>> >
>> > mike
>> >
>> > On 12/13/06, Aleksandar Baucal <abaucal@f.bg.ac.yu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I've done few researches trying to study how children build new
>> >> competences through interaction with more competent other (adult or
>> >> peer). What I find interesting is that children who participate in
>> joint
>> >> problem solving have higher scores on the post-test compared to those
>> >> from control group (what fits to predictions based on the Vygotskian
>> >> approach), but this improvement is made in most cases because they
>> >> learned to use their already existing competences better, and not
>> mainly
>> >> because they built new competences during social interaction (what
>> would
>> >> not fit to Vygotskian approach). It leads me to include
>> >> performance-competence distinction in my thinking (performance= real
>> >> achievement, and competence= what child is able to achieve). For
>> >> example, children could fail on some items which are under her/his
>> >> ability, i.e. child have necessary competences to solve item, but
>> (s)he
>> >> fails because of some other reason. On the other side, child could
>> fail
>> >> on items which are above his/her ability because of lack of certain
>> >> competence. So, it is not enough just to demonstrate that children
>> can
>> >> do better after social interaction, but to demonstrate that they
>> can do
>> >> better on items above their previous competence (i.e. items which are
>> in
>> >> the ZPD). It seems to me that if social interaction would help
>> children
>> >> just to "fill the performance-competence gap" it would not be
>> enough to
>> >> say that children build new competences through joint activity.
>> >>
>> >> yours
>> >> Sasha Baucal
>> >>
>> >> Mike Cole wrote:
>> >> > Thanks Steve--
>> >> >
>> >> > There are clear affinities, but some differences between the
>> >> > perspectives,
>> >> > as you indicate. Probably Alex
>> >> > Kozulin is the most active in working with both positions. For the
>> >> > present
>> >> > discussion, it seems that what people might want to focus on is
>> their
>> >> > different implications for evaluation in relation to instruction.
>> >> > mike
>> >> >
>> >> > On 12/11/06, steven thorne <slt13@psu.edu> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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://
>> >> >> language.la.psu.edu/~thorne/
>> <http://language.la.psu.edu/%7Ethorne/>
>> >> >> | 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.
>>
>> 151 W. Tulpehocken St.
>>
>> Philadelphia, PA 19144
>>
>> Home office: (215) 843-2909
>>
>> Mobile: (267) 334-2905
>>
>> ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>
>>
>> http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane
>> <http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.

151 W. Tulpehocken St.

Philadelphia, PA 19144

Home office: (215) 843-2909

Mobile: (267) 334-2905

ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>

http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane <http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>

_______________________________________________ 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