Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Mon Nov 19 2007 - 09:34:29 PST


Are you advocating the use of Dynamic Assessment? I read David's post in
much the same way Mike did, that he wasn't reducing it persay but rather is
pointing to shortcomings in zpd theory. Is this correct David?

The problem specifically is that it will try to connect for a great period
of time, perhaps two, three minutes and then nothing. I have attempted
through the link on the listserv as well as the hyperlink under the green
banner. frustrating

                      "Mike Cole"
                      <lchcmike@gmail. To: "David Kellogg" <>
                      com> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
                      Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory
                      11/19/2007 10:31
                      Please respond
                      to mcole; Please
                      respond to
                      "eXtended Mind,

Emily-- I thought the point of David's comment about one on one kinds of
zopeds was that they were insufficient, not that he was advocating such

It is Adrian Cussins who uses the footpath metaphor and I thought it
problematic for some of the same reasons expressed in this thread.

No agency? No Burkian Pentad?
Not even a *secret* agent?
what replaces such exciting stuff?
ps-- no idea about the problem with reaching the streamed discussion, Eric.
Checking on it.

On Nov 18, 2007 8:11 PM, David Kellogg <> wrote:

> You didn't miss much, Mike! Paul attacked the use of the word "agency",
> and nobody was willing to defend it.
> Let's try a new direction instead. On Saturday, as it happens, I went to
> hear Professor Bachman, who signed the rejection letter you got for the
> mini-course. He's an assessment wallah in language teaching, and he gave
> of these airport talks that can be given to anyone and no one on any day
> the week in any city on earth (a pity, because we just had a very high
> stakes college entrance exam here in Korea, always accompanied by at
> one suicide).
> In the discussion, I tried to extend his idea of "generalizeability"
> is, the idea that test results are predictive in some way of behavior
> outside of the test taking) to the FUTURE--dynamic assessment, of course!
> Professor Bachman couldn't see that there was any problem there at all,
> because the ability to learn is, as we all know, a form of aptitude, and
> aptitude is simply another construct which can be sampled and modeled by
> statistical means.
> On the way home it occurred to me that it is in principle impossible for
> test to predict how test-taking behavior can POTENTIALLY (as opposed to
> actually) change, even if we take (as dynamic assessment usually does) a
> severely truncated view of what a ZPD involves (one learner plus one more
> able peer or one learner plus one mediational means). It's in principle
> possible to use the zone of proximal development to predict how the zone
> proximal development itself will develop.
> I think that there are some disadvantages to the way in which Professor
> Engestrom talked about the ZPD (in particular, the only reference to
> internalization seems to be the ability to move around independent of the
> starting point, which is something that is possible without
> e.g. using a map). But I think his "footprints in the forest" image
> catches this limitation extremely well. It is possible to use extant
> footprints to predict future footprints, but it is not possible to use
> footprints to predict future trails.
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<*>
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Nov 19 09:35 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:18:41 PST