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

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Mon Nov 19 2007 - 10:42:25 PST

Great work Emily!

Do you have any articles concerning the research? I work with High School
age severely emotionally disturbed students who come with standardized test
scores that rarely provide much information pertaining to their potential
and have often thought that an assessment that provided such information
would be helpful.


                      "Emily Duvall"
                      <emily@uidaho.ed To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
                      u> cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: RE: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory
                      11/19/2007 12:34
                      Please respond
                      to "eXtended
                      Mind, Culture,

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--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: [] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:34 AM
To:; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory


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
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Nov 19 10:47 PST 2007

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