FEUERSTEIN'S MEDIATED LEARNING EXPERIENCE AS A VEHICLE FOR ENHANCING COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING OF REMEDIAL SCHOOL LEARNERS

Abstract

The study investigated the effects of mediated learning experience (MLE) intervention on Remedial school learners' cognitive functioning as measured by the Ravens Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM). The sample comprised 67 participants (males = 35; females =32; mean age =11.8) from Grade 4 through to Grade 7. Participants were given the RCPM on two occasions, and in-between, a non-randomly constituted experimental group was exposed to MLE intervention. Pre-post test results revealed significant improvement within the experimental group on the RCPM, while non-significant pre-post test results were found within the control group. These findings provide support for further development and application of dynamic assessment and its MLE construct. 

Keywords

• dynamic assessment
• mediated learning experience
• cognitive functioning
• traditional measures
• remedial school learners

ÇÖZÜM SUNAN ÖĞRENENLERİN BİLİŞSEL İŞLEVLERİNİ GELİŞTİRMEDE FEUERSTEİN'IN ARACILI ÖĞRENME DENEYİMİ TEORİSİNİ KULLANMA

Abstract

Genişletilmiş Özet Problem Durumu: Bilişsel yeteneği ölçmede kullanılan geleneksel yöntemler önyargıyla ve adaletsiz bir şekilde Batılı ülkelerdeki kültürel ve sosyo-ekonomik azınlıklara ve Afrika ülkelerinde dezavantajlı konumda bulunanlarca eleştirilmektedir. Bu toplulukların bilişsel işlevlerini artırma ve geliştirme konusunda iyileştirici ya da çözüm sunan stratejiler üretme yeteneğinden yoksun oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Güney Afrikalıların çoğunun ırk ayrımı sırasında maruz kaldıkları sosyo-ekonomik ve eğitimsel dezavantajlar ve mevcut rejimde de devam eden aynı dezavantajlı dönem göz önüne alındığında mevcut yeteneklerden ziyade gelecekteki potansiyele odaklanan değerlendirme yaklaşımlarına ihtiyaç olduğu aşikardır. Yöntem: Bu çalışmada Aracılı Öğrenme Deneyiminin (AÖD) öğrenenlerin bilişsel işlevleri üzerindeki etkisi Ravens Standart Progresif Matrisler Testi (RCPM) ile ölçülmektedir. Araştırmanın örneklemini deney grubunda yer alan 4. ve 5. ile kontrol grubunda yer alan 6. ve 7. sınıftan toplam 67 öğrenci (35 erkek, 32 bayan, ortalama yaş: 11.8) oluşturmaktadır. Katılımcılara 2 ayrı zamanda Ravens Standart Progresif Matrisler Testi (RCPM) uygulanmış ve 2 uygulama arasında da deney grubuna aracılı öğrenme deneyimi müdahalesi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: RCPM'nin ön test puanları arasında kontrol grubu lehine yaş değişkeni dikkate alınarak anlamlı farklılıklar bulunmuştur (t [1, 66] = -5.48, p<.01). Ancak, RCPM'nin son test puanlarında deney grubu ve kontrol grubu arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (F [1, 66] = 0.39, p >.05). Ön test ve son test sonuçları RCPM ile deney grubunun anlamlı bir gelişme gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılırken ön test ve son test sonuçları arasında kontrol grubunda anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmadığı ortaya konmuştur. Tartışma: RCPM'nin son test ortalamalarında deney grubu ve kontrol grubu arasındaki fark aracılık etkisi ile deney grubu lehine daralmıştır. Bu bulgu, öğrenenlerin bir aracı ile etkileşime girerek yarar sağlayabileceklerini ve böylelikle bir aracı yardımı olmaksızın ulaşabilmeleri mümkün olmayan bir bilişsel aşamaya ulaşmalarında öneri sunması bakımından oldukça önemlidir. Bu bulgular, dinamik bir değerlendirme uygulamasını ve aracılı öğrenme deneyimi (AÖD) yapısını desteklemektedir. Öneriler: Araştırma bulgularına göre iyileştirici öğrenenlerin bilişsel görevlerindeki performansı engelleyen eksiklikler aracılık için uygundur. Bu yolla bilişsel potansiyeli değerlendirmek için, çok kısa bir süre zarfında eğer değişkenlik gözlemlenebilirse, bilişsel bir değişimin uzun dönem çalışmalarla mümkün olabileceği şeklindedir. 

Keywords

• Dinamik değerlendirme
• Aracılı öğrenme Deneyimi
• Bilişsel işlev
• Geleneksel ölçümler

References

1. Campione, J.C. & Brown, A.L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C.S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An integrated approach to evaluating learning potential (82-115). New York: Guilford.
2. Elliott, J. (2003). Dynamic Assessment in Educational Settings: realizing potential. Educational Review, 55 (1), 15-32.
3. Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press.
4. Feuerstein, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Programme for Cognitive Modifiability. Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press.
5. Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R., Falik, L. H. & Rand, Y. (2002). Assessing the Cognitive Modifiability of Children and Youth with Down Syndrome. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
6. Feuerstein, R., Haywood, H. C., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M. B., & Jensen, M. (1986). Examiner manuals for the Learning Potential Assessment Device. Jerusalem: Hadassah-WIZO-Canada Research Institute. (Revised 1983, 1984, 1986).
7. Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. (1979). The Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. New revised edition: Feuerstein, R. (2003). The Dynamic Assessment of Cognitive Modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.
8. Foxcroft, C., & Roodt, G. (2005). An introduction to psychological assessment in the South African context (2nd ed.). Cape Town: Oxford Press.

9. Grieve, K.W. & Viljoen, S. (2000). An exploratory study of the use of the Austin maze in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 30 (3), 14-18.
10. Hammill, D. D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 74-84.
11. Haywood, H.C. & Lidz, C.S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Haywood, H. C. & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Applications and challenges in dynamic assessment. Peabody, Journal of Education, 77 (2), 40-63.
13. Jensen, M.R. & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The Learning Potential Assessment Device: From Philosophy to Practice. In Lidz, C.R. (Ed). Dynamic Assessment, an interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 379-401). New York: The Guilford Press.
14. Karpov, Y.V. & Tzurıel, D. (2009). Dynamic Assessment: Progress, Problems and Prospects. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 8(3),228-237.
15. Kazem, A.M, Alzubiadi, A.S, Yousif, Y.H, Aljamali, F., Al-Mashdany, S., et al., (2007). Psychometric properties of Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices for Omani Children aged 5 through 11 years. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35 (10), 1385-1398.
16. Kleinert, H.L., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J.F. (1999). The impact of alternative assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33, 93–102.
17. Lidz, C. S. (2002). Mediated Learning Experience as a Basis for an Alternative Approach to Assessment. School Psychology International, 23 (1), 68-84.
18. Murphy, R. & Maree, D. J.F. (2006). Meta-analysis of dynamic assessment research in South Africa. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 6(1), 32-60.
19. Pikulski, J. (1994). Preventing reading failure: a review of five effective programs. The Reading Teacher, 48, 1, 30–39.
20. Pinnell, G.S. (1997). Reading Recovery: A summary of research. In J.Flood, S.B.Heath, & D.Lapp (Eds) Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp.638–654). New York: Macmillan.
21. Rand, Y. & Kaniel, S. (1987). Group administration of the LPAD. In C. Lidz (Ed.) Dynamic assessment: An Interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford.
22. Raven, J. C. (1956). Guide to Using the Coloured Progressive Matrices, Revised edition. London: H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd.
23. Resing, W. (1997). Learning potential assessment: The alternative for measuring intelligence? Educational Psychology and Child Psychology, 14, 68-82.
24. Schur, Y., Skuy, M., Zietsman, A., & Fridjhon, P. (2002). A thinking journey based on constructivism and mediated learning experience as a vehicle for teaching science to low functioning students and enhancing their cognitive skills. School Psychology International, 23, 36–67.
25. Seabi, J. & Amod, Z. (2009). Effects of Mediated Intervention on Cognitive Functions: A Pilot Study with Grade Five Learners at a Remedial School. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 14(2), 185-198.
26. Skuy, M., Gewer, A., Osrin, Y., Khunou, D., Fridjhon, P. & Rushton, P. (2002). Effects of mediated learning experience on Raven’s matrices scores of African and non-African university students in South Africa. Intelligence. 30, 221-232.
27. Skuy, M., Mentis, M. & Mentis, M. (1996). Mediated learning in and out of the classroom. Arlington Heights, II: Skylight.
28. Skuy, M., Seabi, J., Skuy, M., & Fridjhon, P. (2003). Relationship of intellectual functioning and personality/attitudinal variables to university grades of first year Africa and non-African students in South Africa, Conference of International Society for Intelligence Research, Long Beach, California, USA, December.
29. Skuy, M. & Skuy, M. (2005). Contribution of intelligence and cognitive-affective variables to university grades among African, Indian, and White Engineering students in South Africa. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 5(1), 25-46.
30. Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). All testing is dynamic testing, Issues in Education, 7, 137-170.
31. Tzuriel, D. (2000a). Dynamic Assessment of young children: educational and intervention perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 385-435.
32. Tzuriel, D. (2000b) The Cognitive Modifiability Battery (C.M.B)- Assessment and intervention: Development of a dynamic assessment instrument. In Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing models and applications (C.S. Lidz & J. Elliott) pp. 375–406. JAI Press, New York.
33. Tzuriel, D. & Haywood, H.C. (1992). The development of interactive-dynamic approaches for assessment of learning potential. In H.C. Haywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.) Interactive Assessment (pp.3-37). New York: Springer-Verlag.
34. Tzuriel, D., & Kaufman, R. (1999). Mediated learning and cognitive modifiability: Dynamic assessment of young Ethiopian immigrants in Israel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 359–380.
35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Boston: Harvard Press.
36. Yuen, M.T., Westwood, P. S. & Wong, G. (2004). Meeting the needs of students with specific learning difficulties in the mainstream education system: data from primary school teachers in Hong Kong, The International Journal of Special Education, 20, (1). 67-76.
37. Zaaiman, H., van der Flier, H. & Thijs, G. D. (2001). Dynamic Testing in Selection for an Educational Programme: Assessing South African Performance on the Raven Progressive Matrices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9 (3), 258-269.