hi Ed -- try the portland OR based book seller, powells
(www.powells.com) -- they list one copy available at $28 --
steve
On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:12 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
> Personally I am very intrigued by the Kozulin et al. edited
> compilation.
> The only website I found offering for sale was cambridge publishing
> and
> they charge in pounds. Steve do you have any suggestions for
> finding it
> on a site that accepts american dollars? I believe that dynamic
> assessment
> is exactly what special education needs to assist in the over
> identification of african-americans as being E/BD. However, i need
> to read
> more.
>
> eric
>
>
>
> Ana
> Marjanovic-Shane To:
> mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <ana who-is-at zmajcenter. <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> org> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca]
> Zopeds and more competent peers
> xmca-bounces who-is-at web
> er.ucsd.edu
>
>
> 12/14/2006 01:50
> PM
> Please respond
> to "eXtended
> Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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. 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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