Hi,
This is a very interesting information! A similar picture seems to be
coming out from studying the use of drama workshops in education.
Namely, although the difference in the subject-matter competence might
exist and usually does exist between the participants, there should be
no felt difference or great asymmetry in the interpersonal
relationships. When the relationships are more democratic or more equal,
then the benefits seem to be the greatest for all including those less
skilled or less knowledgeable. However, learning occurs in the group in
general and for all the participants, not only for those who might be
less competent participant(s) in some skills/knowledge. It is also
noticed in the so called "more skilled" partner (weather an adult or
peer). It seems that the process is bi-directional -- but it is more
than one type of skill/knowledge that is exchanged in the process.
Ana
Sonja Baumer wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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