Cognitive Plasticity

Introduction

Cognitive functions are typically assessed with psychometric tests in a single test session. Usually this type of assessment does not provide direct information about an individual's learning potential given suitable instructional and social settings; it may provide this information only indirectly via predictive correlations with external criteria. Such predictability, however, is difficult to obtain because static measurements are influenced by numerous other factors such as specific school education, experience with test taking, or disruptive and supportive conditions in the individual's social setting. ‘Cognitive plasticity assessment’ represents alternative concepts to such state-oriented measurement. They directly assess the change in performance in response to educational practices or theory-guided cognitive interventions. We describe three approaches to cognitive plasticity assessment (Learning Potential Assessment, Learning Tests, and Cognitive Engineering) to exemplify the broad range of perspectives on this topic. Our conceptualization of ‘cognitive plasticity assessment’ corresponds roughly to ‘dynamic assessment’ in the sense of Grigorenko and Sternberg (1998); Lidz and Elliot (2000) summarize learning potential assessment and learning tests under ‘dynamic assessment’. Table 1 highlights differences between the approaches in disciplinary origin as well as their primary thematic, theoretical and methodological orientations. In general, however, the commonalities between them probably outweigh their differences.

Learning Potential Assessment

Probably the best known assessment of cognitive plasticity derives from Vygotsky's (1962) determination of the zone of proximal development. According to Vygotsky, learning is to be structured so that a higher state of intellectual [Page 235]potential is reached, a further development of the child is initiated from the point of current ability (i.e. zone of actual development) to a state that encompasses skills not in the current cognitive repertoire but within reach, given an appropriate instructional and social setting (i.e. zone of proximal development). Such a change in cognitive structures causes not only a performance increase at the time when the programme is administered but facilitates also future cognitive development. In the end, children and adolescents should be enabled to initiate and control their own learning activities; they should learn to learn. This thought set up a line of research exemplified by Feuerstein's (1979) learning potential assessment device (LPAD) and, in a methodologically refined way, Fernández-Ballesteros and Calero's (2000) ‘Evaluación del Potencial de Aprendizaje’ (EPA). Development and modification of cognitive structures are determined by two types of learning (aside from physiological preconditions): direct and mediated learning experience (MLE). MLE is critical for the modification of cognitive structures. Mediators (e.g. parents and/or especially teachers) orient and organize the child's phenomenological world by selecting, structuring and focusing learning experiences and by providing feedback.

The LPAD was applied primarily to identify and overcome specific learning disabilities in children and adolescents; the EPA has been applied to persons ranging in age from 12 to 90 years and varying widely in psychometric intelligence. Starting point of an intervention is the determination of the objective state and of the causes of learning deficits with the help of psychometric tests such as WISC-R or Raven. Subsequently, a set of tasks is assembled in a standardized training programme that is adjusted to the individual child's strengths and weaknesses. The intervention starts with simple tasks derived from psychometric tests and in the course of practice tasks of increasing complexity and novelty are introduced. Feuerstein assumed that practice with verbal, numerical, figural, and spatial tasks leads to an improvement in basic cognitive processes (e.g. analogical reasoning, categorization, deductive thinking). The effectiveness of LPAD has been claimed repeatedly for children with learning disabilities and deaf children but various authors have criticized the eclectic, non-theoretic construction of tasks. EPA training significantly improves Raven scores and appears to be stable over time.

...