Hi Eric
Yes, I am advocating the use of DA - it is in fact my area of research... :-)
I have used it to transform a state mandated, high stakes reading test for 3rd grade specifically for children with learning disabilities. The DA I piloted takes about 20 minutes and provides quite a bit of diagnostic information from the initial process, but DA is not simply a test. As a result, while the information provides more sensitive 'scores' that reveal children with learning disabilities are in the process of learning what it is that state mandated tests suggest all children should be learning, the DA process works towards learning-that-leads development vis-à-vis reading strategies. The assessment is not simply taking a 'test', but also the reflective and relflexive work in partnership with the child as the directionality of development is through contintued process-activity with a variety of texts (i.e. including other tests, trade books, poetry, etc). The engagement is recursive and ongoing.
~ Em
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:34 AM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory
Emily:
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" <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
com> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory
xmca-bounces@web
er.ucsd.edu
11/19/2007 10:31
AM
Please respond
to mcole; Please
respond to
"eXtended Mind,
Culture,
Activity"
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
reduction.
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?
darn.
what replaces such exciting stuff?
mike
ps-- no idea about the problem with reaching the streamed discussion, Eric.
Checking on it.
On Nov 18, 2007 8:11 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> 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
AERA
> mini-course. He's an assessment wallah in language teaching, and he gave
one
> of these airport talks that can be given to anyone and no one on any day
of
> 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
least
> one suicide).
>
> In the discussion, I tried to extend his idea of "generalizeability"
(that
> 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
a
> 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
not
> possible to use the zone of proximal development to predict how the zone
of
> 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
internalization,
> 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.<
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
_______________________________________________
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
Received on Mon Nov 19 10:37 PST 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:18:41 PST