Abstract
Since their introduction in America, the theory and techniques of Feuerstein's Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) and the related Instrumental Enrichment (IE) program have enjoyed substantial popularity among some educators. In our view, the reasons for this popularity are based more on philosophical considerations than on technical adequacy. In arguing this position, we critique Feuerstein's theory on semantic, logical, and empirical grounds. It is concluded that evidence casting Feuerstein's approach to dynamic assessment as a serious competitor to “traditional” assessment is not compelling.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
