Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is twofold. On a conceptual level, we argue that the cognitive and emotive exist in dialectic relation to one another and that as such both are ever present in psychological activity, including L2 development. Related to this first point, we seek to orient researchers and practitioners to ways in which interactions with learners may simultaneously attend to both aspects of this cognitive-emotive dialectic to optimally promote learner development. We begin with an example that demonstrates the intertwining of cognition and emotion, thus setting the scene for what follows: a discussion of the concept of perezhivanie as the most explicit and detailed discussion of the cognitive-emotive unity in Vygotsky’s writings. We follow this with an overview of more recent work within SCT that has elaborated upon Vygotsky’s ideas and that further specifies the genesis of the emotive as an inherent component of human psychology and one that is always in relation to the cognitive. With this as background, we turn to the research of Reuven Feuerstein, whose clinical work with learners with special needs aligns closely with SCT principles and includes the emotive as both an element of learner functioning that must be attended to during cognitive intervention as well as a legitimate focus of mediation in its own right. Data from a recent project involving Mediated Development, an interactional framework derived from Vygotsky’s writings and influenced by the work of Feuerstein, are discussed as illustrative of what may be revealed when mediator focus in joint engagement with a learner is on the cognitive-emotive unity. We conclude that the concept of perezhivanie, understood as a cognitive-emotive dialectic, orients us to understanding how each shapes the other, and how either may gain prominence during particular moments in development. Our understanding of perezhivanie suggests that mediation of grammatical errors, lexical choice and pragmatic violations has been one-sided, and should include the mediation of, for example, sharing behavior, frustration and feelings of competence. We end by suggesting several ideas for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".