HI,
There seems to be a relevant paper by B. Schwartz and his colleagues,
featuring an experimental study, in which they compare dyads of
students solving mathematical problems. The findings show the
contrast between the pairs of students with equal level of expertise
(in previous testing both students failed to a similar solve problem)
and the pairs of students where one member was "a more capable peer"
(see the abstract:
http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2)
They found that the the pairs of students with equal (i.e., low)
level of expertise were more successful in arguing and solving
mathematic problems than students working in dyads with a more
competent peer.
Their findings are consistent with Y. Engestrom's (2000) idea of
"expansive learning" which "involves horizontal widening of
collective expertise by means of debating, negotiating and hybridizing
different perspectives and conceptualizations".
I agree with Mike that ZOPEDs are open systems in which knowledge is
constructed collaboratively, " where culture and cognition meet to
construct each other" (Cole, 1996). Indeed people often learn from
those who know better, younger sibling from the older, apprentice from
master, student from teacher. However, insistence on the difference
in the level of expertise as "sine qua non" of ZOPED may imply
unidirectionality, i.e., that only the less capable learns, and
thus is compatible with the "transmission of knowledge" approach to
learning and development .
Sonja Baumer
On 12/11/06, Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:18 PST