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. à 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:18 PST