http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/5075

I like the words 'Zone of Proximal Development' but I can image that in practice it could be a disaster for gifted children, with teachers refering to 'charts' of what the levels of learning are. They could use these charts to 'prove' that the child isn't ready for more advanced work, because they haven't mastered skill X or Y. I like the idea that teaching has to start with understanding the learner, and finding out about them, what they know, what they are interested in knowing, basically what they are ready to learn next.

However, what I like even better is the 'gifted is as gifted does' approach, and give the child a chance to function in a more challenging learning environment and see the results. I think that that is more powerful than any assesment that can be done 'to' a child.

I guess I'll keep using the term 'Readiness Level' as a fuzzier term than 'Zone of Proximal Development.'

Smiles,
Grinity

Thanks for posting that article. I liked this quote:

The reason I prefer ZPD to readiness level is because there's an emphasis on "the communication that transpires in a social setting with more knowledgeable or proficient people (parents, teachers, peers, others) assists children in building an understanding of the concept." Readiness level just focuses on the ability level of the student and this can lead to situations where gifted students may just be expected to teach themselves. ZPD includes the relationship with the teacher/mentor/parent/etc.

The ZPD concept helps me make the most of the time I spend afterschooling. DDs can stretch a bit more with proper scaffolding. I also saw it when I helped at school today with a group of children working on a computer program called Study Island. Many of the concepts were beyond their abilities to tackle independently but I was there to provide scaffolding to help bridge the gap between what they could do independently and what they could do with some assistance.

Interesting to see this here. There's a lot out there on Vygotsky and interpretations of his work. Something that has appealed to me about his learning theories is the recognition of a difference between a testable readiness level, and a child's ZPD. Two kids starting at the same place may reach very different levels with coaching/assistance. Sometimes gifted kids need to learn exactly what everyone else in the classroom is learning, but within the social setting provided in that lesson they may advance 3 or 4 levels of achievement instead of just one. One-size-fits-all scaffolding can lead to boredom too quickly for some.

Thanks Inky!
BTW, What does he mean by 'hinges and props?'

Great insight into 'readiness level' - my son is so extraverted in his learning style needs that it wouldn't occur to me, or anyone else, to set him loose on any kind of independent study, so I just 'naturally' assume that folks are as thoughful about other gifties.

But also, I do think 'readiness level' reflects my basic underlying assumptions that 'maybe you don't owe me teaching, but you at least owe me the opportunity to use my time well, so stop the worksheets and endless repetition and let me read in the corner.' After my own childhood it's hard for me to fully imagine every child having the right to an eduation that actually fits them. I think I'd be able to take ZPD more seriously if I believed that the majority school folks REALLY took the perspecitive that helping my kid grow academically is just as important as helping a child who is obviously struggling. Great Catch!

Thanks,
Grinity

When I read it I pictured a trunk with a hinged lid propped open. Just like the child in the quote, I recognize their value but I'm not conscious of their full significance. That goes for props, hinges and ZPD!

I'm not knocking readiness level as a worthwhile goal. I'd much rather have the teacher give DD a book to read independently than sit through a lesson on something she's already mastered. After seeing what benny describes as a student advancing 3 or 4 lessons with scaffolding instead of just one, I'm pretty enthusiastic about ZPD.

To do scaffolding right creates incredible time demands on the teacher but hopefully computers can help alleviate some of that. Some of my enthusiasm is tempered by the thought of children spending so much time on computers.

P.S. Found another interesting tidbit about scaffolding:
from Teaching Strategy: Exploring Scaffolding by Elvani Pennill here
http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/~group4/

This is a great thread!!! Very interesting.

I hope I can say this without offending anyone:
You guys are just soooo nerdy!! Love it

Awwwh, chris1234, you know just what to say to make my day!

Thanks Inky!

I've read that various groups of primates are all pretty good at active learning, but there are real differences in the ability to notice what needs to be taught to an individual learner, and provide it. Something to do with really being able to appreciate the mind of another creature really being different. Apparently that is a much higher level function. I sure found that out looking for a chess tutor for my DS! Also, I notice how I've forgotten what I did or didn't tell DH, and then get irritated that he isn't aware of stuff I'm aware of.

Perhaps the idea is to have 'master teachers' travel around and access the child, and leave it to more regular teacher to do the teaching?

Just a thought...
Grinity

Mine too! It's wonderful to have a place to revel in our nerdiness.


This also ties into the achievement gap, NCLB and getting high quality teachers into underperforming schools. I also thought about the interesting, level-appropriate, and enriching atmosphere in terms of the differences between the aims of NCLB and what's happening in the push for higher scores at some schools.

Tearing myself away to go pack for a weekend trip...

But if we keep using our 'master teachers' in the same old way then how many can we have in any school? These folks are a limited resource.

I was thinking about Bill Clinton and his Mom today. I would guess she and he wanted him to be able to grow up and GET OUT of his ecomomically limited circumstances. I wonder if I can provide that level of 'purpose' in our economically comfortable home, but then I realize that I crave what we have here on a local basis in a way that is quite palpable in our home. I really want my son to be able to live his adult life in close contact with a nice circle of friends who 'get' him. Not all of those people will be identifiable as gifted, or successful economically or artistically, but there should be some who are.

Have a great trip!
Grinity

I've been thinking about this article, especially how it relates to GS10. Accelerated Reading uses the term "Zone of Proximal Development", ZPD for short. The STAR reading assessment gives the upper limit of the ZPD, and the lower limit appears to be either the child's grade level, or lower.

In the 4th grade, GS10 made adequate progress in his ZPD, increasing his reading level by 2 years in the 1 school year. I call it adequate but his teacher probably thought it was very good. He had an insane amount of points for his reading goal, and made the goals each quarter.

By the teacher & the schools measure, GS10 had a successful year; after all, his ZPD increased by 2 grade levels over the period of 1 grade level in time. But I don't think that was an optimum use of that ZPD.

During the school year, GS10 read to score points. Sure, he read because he loves to read. But everything was selected based on 'is it in his ZPD and would he like the book enough to finish it so he could take the AR test'? (btw, how many of us pick books with that in mind? grrr) At the end of the 4th grade GS10 was fortunate to find a new genre, Greek mythology. He found Rick Riordans books in his teacher's classroom collection, I was so happy with his new interest that I contributed the final two books in that series to her collection, so he could finish the series and as a 'thank you' to the teacher.

Now let me tell about his long, lazy summer, and how I think it relates to the articles description of the ZPD, platforms, mentors, and hinges.
With no reading goals to meet, he was free to browse, nibble, taste, or devour any book he wanted. I was(am!) his mentor, building the scaffold(at the time I thought of it as a framework!) for advancing his education. I brought home books by the armload from the library. I expanded his interest in Greek mythology to Roman mythology, and how many of their gods were the same, but with different names. Because we are Christians, I linked that to the Apostle Paul, and his writings to the Athenians about their altar to the unknown God among the altars to the mythological gods. I brought home books on Pythagorus, so he not only knows how to find the hypotenuse of a triangle, he knows about the guy behind the Pythagorean theorem. He read about the Trojan horse, famous battles, the Roman aquaduct, architecture, ethnic foods, art, famous stories behind some common expressions(Nero fiddled while Rome burned, a Trojan horse, etc). He learned Greek & Latin words that form the roots for English words. Some books he devoured, some he browsed, some he nibbled. But all provided toward building a scaffold that will enable him to expand his knowledge further into different areas of interest. He commented several times about how he 'finds something that interests him, then that interest expands into lots of different interests'. Hehe, can you say, 'building a scaffold'?

Our daughter was his mentor for getting his dog ready to show. He won his showmanship class, where knowledge of the dog's physiology, conformation, and care were key to winning. So, that was a scaffold to build for animal husbandry, or even human physiology.
I read more at the linked article, and found a link to a related article about scaffolding. I think we successfully did that this summer. Is there a way to measure our success? We can say we achieved the characteristics of scaffolding in his informal education this summer. Did it translate to a measurable achievement at school? GS10 went from a reading level of 8.9 at the end of May to a 12.8 at the end of August. I give credit to using the technique of scaffolding, acting as his mentor, and letting GS do what he does best, read!

And with that said, I'm going to copy most of it, email his teacher and tell her "no more AR point goals"! Any way, that is how I equate 'scaffolding' & ZPD's with GS10.

Thanks for sharing this story OHG! What a beautiful picture of a lovely summer of learning! When are you opening your farmschool for troubled gifties?

I think that you are doing the real human contact and wisdom that a true ADP program would want, and what irony to have a cookbook SDP program to compare it to!

Anyway, the bottom line is that your GS is learning and loving it! I'm so glad to hear about that!

Smiles and grinding teeth,
Grinity

Yes OHG, what a fabulous summer for you all. My understanding of ZPD would indicate that your relationship with your grandchild gives you the ability to help him find his ZPD and work within that, with your assistance. Even if your assistance is just recognizing the interest and pointing him in the right direction, you have made the learning a social construct (which I think is a good thing). No teacher can do this for 27 students a year, but the mentor/friend/interested person doesn't have to be the classroom teacher. Oh, and you might not end up with something concrete that can be assessed at the end of the month! but we all know when real learning is happening. One thing you wrote about the STAR (is this the same as AR?) is:

"
My kids were involved in this program also, and while it is much better than having everyone read the same book, it is being sold to schools as more than it ever can be. Every child's ZPD is different, so a computer that calculates vocabulary and sentence structure difficultly can't tell you what it will be for your child. With direction, your grandson was probably reading far above what the test said his ZPD would be. Under other circumstances, other topics, other children, the ZPD may be only slightly above the lower limits of the test.

Both my boys have been avid readers and their reactions to AR programs were interesting. Each of them, independently as they are 4 years apart, decided after a few months that they would only read the minimum required for AR and then chose books not on the list to read for fun. They didn't like their fun reading time being turned into an assignment or a competition. Fortunately, they had teachers who were able to recognize that something that's good for some kids doesn't work for all. And they still read and still like to read, and sometimes they read books that are much too "difficult" by the AR standard, and sometimes they went back and read a bunch of easy books on a rainy afternoon just for fun.

It's great that you fell into this great summer by yourselves! What a gift!

There's a restricted supply of "certified" master teachers but there are a number of people who have this ability (like OHG ). I'd like to see rules change so that schools have an easier time getting rid of teachers who can't do this and bring in more folks who can. This would require getting away from the mindset that the traditional certification process is the only way to produce quality teachers. I see this as a big pro for charter schools.

OHG's story highlights this criticism of the AR program:
http://www.frankserafini.com/ShortArticles/ARstatement.htm

Oh my goodness! What a terrific article to express my position!

I have backed the AR program wholeheartedly up until last year. But last year, the use of the point goals started to be a hindrance to GS10's reading. I saw it as GS10 had matured to a more adult approach to reading; he'd sample books, find an author he liked and read everything by that author, he'd pick up anything from picture books, to Poe, to 'age appropriate' books, to adult non-fiction. That kind of reading is not easily tracked by AR, and does not contribute points so they're not as valued. But it was exactly that kind of reading this summer that gave a measurable response on the STAR assessment!

Inky, thanks for that link. I'm going to print it and use it to help make my point that GS10 will no longer have 150 points as a goal in one quarter(as he does this quarter!).

I just got the official OK to rework my son's participation in AR.

His teacher, after looking back at prior year history, decided to start ratcheting up the quarter point goal, bumping it up to "keep it out of reach." [WTH????]

After all this goal line moving, Mr. Teacher had the gall to comment on the fact that DS's AR test scores were dropping below the targeted 85%.

DS has about two weeks left in the quarter, and should finish at 185 points, 1.4million words and >85% correct. This will be more than double the last goal set (when I got the teacher to STOP moving the target). I let DS "run up the score" all on his own just to dispense with all this nonsense about AR once and for all.

Back before this loony AR goal-setting excitement, DS used to average 95% correct and was consistently 2.5-3+ years ahead in grade level. DS read so much more non-AR stuff strictly for pleasure... no strings, tests or grades attached. AND nobody paid any real attention to word count. There were always a couple kids who had higher word counts, and it was nice to have DS not worry about it (like he did this year).

So... as long as the school has been in an accommodating mood, I took the opportunity to remove point and word count goals from the conversation -- and grading -- altogether. Instead, he'll be focusing on NOT burning through books, keeping his accuracy where it was in the past, and advancing his "reading level." This will free him up for all the fun reading he used to do. (And, yes --GROAN-- that includes the occasional Captain Underpants "novel" when he so desires!)

I nosed around our district in preparation and found the top annual score achieved for elementary was >500, and that was a few years ago. (The top end was generally in the 250-300 range.)

After letting DS chase the rabbit over the last few weeks, I emailed the teacher with his projected annual totals and said - essentially -- "This is nuts. Enough is enough!"

I explained that I don't consider this to be a worthwhile goal, and if nothing else, that it is grotesquely counter-productive to our efforts to SLOW HIM DOWN in everything else he does.

Yeah... I wanted to "floor" him. But I think DS proved the point better than I could have.

Things are a bit different this year for setting AR goals. GS10 has a long term sub, I think his regular teacher will be back around the start of the 2nd quarter. A woman he does not know came to their classroom after the STAR tests and set the goals with each kid. That was several weeks after school started. He was ready to take AR tests on the Eragon series, which would give him just over 100 points, so he bragged and got the goal of 150.
What drives me really crazy, he's supposed to log how many pages he reads each day in his AR books. The teacher said the log would be part of their grade. His teacher last year tried the same thing. I wouldn't outright tell him it was OK not to log it, I did try to change the teacher's thinking on that, in the end I told him the teacher said it was part of the grade, if he wanted the grade he had to fill it in. He didn't bother keeping the log, the teacher didn't knock down his grade, and he took more AR tests than anyone in his class.

Yep, I have given GS permission to forge my initials on reading logs and notebooks, as long as there is no note for me to read.

This is just so sad...

From a teacher's blog post about trying reach students in their zone of proximal development. Read the entire post and you'll laugh, you'll cry.

http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-gerbils.html