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

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Mon Nov 19 2007 - 11:59:36 PST


Such a great project and so timely. Is the assessment similar to a
Woodcock-Johnson or is it more along the lines of an informal reading
inventory? It is not critical that I see the assessment but I am curious
about the follow up questions that help the assessor delve into
metacognition. Is it a likert scale or observational summaries? Can't
wait to read the finished paper.


                      "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 01:38
                      Please respond
                      to "eXtended
                      Mind, Culture,

HI Eric,
A little bit will be coming out by Christmas in

Duvall, E. (2007). What a difference an ideology makes: An alternative
pedagogical orientation to neoliberal values in education. In R. Alanen &
S. Poyhonen (eds.), Language in action: Vygotsky and Leontievian legacy
today. Newacastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pp. 124-159.

However, the full deal is my dissertation - I just defended on the 6th
actually - so it's not out there yet! I'm revising a bit and then looking
for a publisher.
Mike did post my chapter 2, though ... :-)
Overall he results were pretty interesting in terms of the data that is
relevant for children, parents, teachers and administrators - the
assessment tool is very interventionist in orientation to allow for
'scores'... but with room for interactionist style mediations to allow for
learning-that-leads-development. The rest of the assessment is
interactionist. Doing a form of deep DA, I would say, changes a person. I
would argue that there is work done my ZPD vis--vis learning the child and
having them mediate my understanding of who they are, how they think, and
what they need in terms of learning-that-leads-development. To that end, I
am less about the product as a static piece of information.
It actually ends up being a very political piece - a critique of high
stakes testing given issues of social justice and consequential validity...
and looks at the kind of readers we are producing... children who can read
reading-tests for example. The latter is pretty interesting given recent
announcements in the US about literacy and how few people read books or
texts in general, but how children's reading comprehension has gone up. It
really speaks to the genre of reading-test reading.
At any rate, the DA itself was exceptionally good for teaching not only
reading strategies, but also metacognition. One child really picked up on
this; within several months he was no longer reading below grade level and
the next year was receiving reading instruction in general education. He
really needed that window into his thinking. Another child (who is the
subject of the chapter above) learns that he can think and begins to gain
control over his mind.
One of the interesting side-research forays I did as a
dissertation-diversion project was to work with a spec ed teacher and have
her review the data results to see if it could be relevant to for her. Even
though I'm a spec ed teacher by trade I really wanted some corroboration of
my thinking. The process really changed her approach to teaching in
general... she saw the value in teaching using metacognition as much as
possible. She, in turn, began to require her aides, etc to use the type of
questioning that helps children think about their thinking and give us
windows into their learning and development.

I can send you a copy of the assessment - a transformed state-mandated,
standardized test of 3rd grade reading from Virginia, but it is really the
narration of the cases that gives the deep understanding of what can be
discovered in DA and these come with video excerpts of my work with the
kids who agreed to participate. I'm a little hesitant to put it all out
there until I have finished making it reasonably beautiful... :-)
Chapter 2, though, lays out the creation process connected to Vygotsky's
cultural and historical method.. it needs some tweaking but it's out there.

~ Em

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:42 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory

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
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Nov 19 12:01 PST 2007

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