I'm frustrated, among other things
I am really bothered about something that happened in class today. Now, I know it shouldn't matter, but it does. We were taking turns talking about our self-chosen articles and one person talked about an article by Ferrerah (sp?), Brown, and Campione. I really admire these researchers and they are very big in the field, which sets the stage for my subsequent reaction. So this student explained how the authors were studying the size of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (which is the amount one can accomplish beyond one's current capabilities with assistance from a more capable peer). Any time a student needed help, the researchers would prompt with a suggestion that began as very abstract and progressively became more concrete as the student needed more prompting.
For some reason, which does not fully make sense to me, the instructor had a problem with the methodology, preferring that the authors start closer to the child's zone of proximal development. Then all, I mean ALL, of the other grad students chimed in and started denigrating the study. And I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "What the heck is the problem? I don't even UNDERSTAND the problem!" The only way this could possibly make sense is if everyone thought that by starting at a different point, you somehow modulate the size of the ZPD. If you start closer to the ZPD, the ZPD will get bigger???? No, sorry, that doesn't make any sense.
So right after the prof joked about how we were tearing apart their paper without having read it, I stated that I thought the linear, ordered nature of the prompt from abstract to concrete sounds appropriate for establishing the intellectual development of the child. If you start at an abstract level that is higher than all of the children's capabilities, then you can objectively determine the size of the ZPD as you get closer to each child's capability. The capability level should be constant regardless of what difficulty level you initially present to the child (of course, I didn't say it quite so eloquently on the spot).
But, anyways, for some reason this episode really grated on my nerves. I'm not sure if I still just don't understand their perspective, or if I'm annoyed that they slandered researchers I hold in high esteem, or if I'm being intolerant towards what I see as a lack of intelligence on their part (especially in comparison to said researchers who know their stuff). Sigh...I think it's the latter.
Anyways, the other thing that bothered me about today was the fact that the other grad students in my research group failed to show up for a meeting. One of them asked the other if we were meeting and the other thought were weren't. Neither of them thought to ask me. Grrrr!!!! Why didn't they include me? Hello, the appropriate action here is to send an email out to everyone in the group if you have a question about the meeting. Which is exactly what I should have done last night to remind everyone of the meeting. But, I didn't because I'm trying not to be the task master of the group. Though now I realize that every group needs a leader and I better resume acting like one.
Which leads into another reason for my angst...I'm still having trouble getting into the swing of things this semester and its affecting more than just me. The Ed Psych society hasn't gotten off to a good start this semester either and I think it's partly because I've abdicated my role as behind-the-scenes leader (I'm not actually the president). I've been leaving the initiation of things up to other people in the group and last week we had confusion about whether we were meeting, as well. All three of my research groups are suffering in productivity because I'm dropping the ball and they are not picking it up.
Sigh...something's got to change and that something is me.
posted by kiki @ 9:13 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Your reasoning makes a lot of sense, but I can kind of understand where everyone else was coming from on a subjective level.
I mean, if I needed help and people tried to prompt me way above my level, then made it easier for me until I understood what they were talking about, I think I'd be quite frustrated. I'd also probably pretend to understand it before I actually did just because I knew they were "dumbing it down" for me, which would just result in confusion all around.
But at the same time, if they started too low, I'd be secretly offended because they thought I'm some sort of half-wit, and my likely reaction would be to go to another peer (possibly one less capable, since I'm likely to start with the most accomplished one). And I know absolutely nothing beyond what you've just posted about the ZPD, but couldn't that response actually make the ZPD smaller? So then it would make sense to start at a higher level.
And don't worry about the Ed Psych society. They'll pick up the slack eventually. I've been doing the same thing with our Psych Club (not an officer) and our Psi Chi chapter (low-level officer) since August, and they're just now starting to do the work I was doing for them.
Yeah, I think it is just too problematic to try to measure the ZPD. One of the grad students suggested that this measure would not work well for children who do not like asking for help, which makes sense. You have very good points about how you would feel personally. And you are definitely right about how starting too low will cause the ZPD to shrink. If the experimenters start at a point within the child's ability, then the child will benefit from it and they can't use a more difficult prompt because the child already figured it out and wouldn't need another prompt. So this wouldn't actually make the child's ZPD smaller, bit it would empirically underestimate the child's actual ZPD. I think that's why the experimenter started out so high. But, you make a very good point about how that would lead to frustration (which can hinder performance itself). I think that might have been the reasoning of everyone else, but they didn't make their objection very explicit, so I was confused.
Thanks for working through this with me! It always helps to hash these things out with other people.
Thanks for the comment on the Ed Psych Society. Sometimes I feel guilty about it because we had such a fantastic, productive year last year and I'm somehow blaming myself for this year's slow down. But, you are definitely right about the other people picking up the slack, they are better about it than I give them credit, I think. Good luck with your groups, too. It can get tiresome to carry so much responsibiliy after awhile.
Post a Comment
<< Home