William James

R8

Quote: One of the most eye catching quotes in the Vygotsky article was the following: “We give children a battery of tests or a variety of tasks of varying degrees of difficulty, and we judge the extent of their mental development on the basis of how they solve them and at what level of difficulty. On the other hand, if we offer leading questions or show how the problem is to be solved and the child then solves it, or if the teacher initiates the solution and the child completes it or solves it in collaboration with other children – in short, if the child barely misses an independent solution of the problem –the solution is not regarded as indicative of his mental development…over a decade even the profoundest thinkers never questioned the assumption; they never entertained the notion that what children can do with the assistance of others might be in some sense even more indicative of their mental development then what they can do alone” (Vygotsky, p. 85).

Question: Do IQ tests really tell us much about students other than them being compared to other peers their same age? Vygotsky provided a great example of two students entering in school at the same chronological and mental age, but with guided instruction of knowing how to solve a particular problem, one student’s mental age jumped ahead four grades, while the other student’s jumped ahead one grade. As I reflect on that illustration by Vygotsky, I think about academic interventions that are implemented within the schools. Since research has made it very clear of the biases in standardized tests (particularly with individuals whose culture is not conducive to mainstream society), and educational professionals are aware of such factors, why haven’t the use of IQ tests been ruled out when diagnosing students with a disability, specifically, a learning disability?  

Personal Connection:  After reading the section on the zone of proximal development, I began to reflect on my current experience as a practicum student in the school system and what my future role as a School Psychologist will be. I think about how some teachers and other school personnel attend the Admissions and Release Committee (ARC) meetings and based on the student’s IQ score, they believe that the child should be a recipient of special education services. Instead of sticking a label on the child, what if interventions were made over the course of 6-8 weeks (before a special education referral was ever made) and the student’s progress was monitored to see if he responded to the interventions? On many occasions, the student will make progress. So, then was the child’s mental age (IQ score) an ‘end all’ for his academic progression? No; maybe he just needed differentiated instructions from the teacher to help him understand the material better. As William James stated, teachers should have varied instructions because one student will learn differently than another student. Students’ cognitive development also varies. As Vygotsky puts it, “the zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state” (p. 86). Therefore, all students should be given the chance to learn and not be judged by a test that produces a number and thus creates a form of pseudo-intelligence.

Outside Connection:  

The above video is a cute way of illustrating the zone of proximal development.