order thinking) and student outcomes (i.e.

, affective or behavioral and cognitive

outcomes). The correlations between the combined person-centered teacher
variables, on one hand, and participation, positive motivation, and the composite of
all cognitive student outcomes, on the other, ranged from medium to large. The
influence of teacher behaviors has also been shown in the research area of
instructional communication. Two meta-analyses found substantial associations
between verbal and nonverbal immediacy of teachers’ communication and students’
perceived and affective learning (i.e., engagement; M. Allen, Witt, & Wheeless,
2006; Witt, Wheeless, & Allen, 2004), but smaller associations between teachers’
communication and cognitive learning (Witt et al., 2004).

These meta-analyses provide evidence of the impact of teacher behaviors on student

outcomes. Now, work needs to be done concentrating on specific subsets of person-
centered teacher behaviors. The present review focuses on the affective dimension
of TSRs, inspired by Cornelius-White’s (2007) findings that the affective variables
“empathy” and “warmth” are more strongly associated with student outcomes than

The above issues are not only of theoretical concern. If we are content merely to measure cognitive
change - that is, the product or outcome of cognitive processes - it may be possible to relate only to the
measures yielded by various measuring techniques. But the moment we attempt to produce a cognitive
change, it becomes impossible to ignore the underlying processes that gov- ern cognitive performance.
To the extent that assessment is regarded as an integral part of intervention and not as an end in itself,
the necessity to understand the nature of the processes that produce cognitive change becomes
imperative. A detailed account of all the instruments and assessment procedures used in the LPAD is not
possible in a paper of this nature (see Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). Consequently, this paper is
directed at the model upon which the LPAD is based and a conceptual framework, referred to as the
cognitive map, within which the mental act underlying task performance may be analyzed,
implemented, and understood. In discussing the LPAD and its complementary cognitive map, an attempt
is made to highlight the differences between this and the conventional psychometric approach. The
paper concludes with a few studies that illustrate how the LPAD may be applied in solving practical
problems with important educational and social implications. THE LEARNING POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT
DEVICE (LPAD) The assessment of learning potential differs from that of standardized psychometric
techniques in a number of significant ways. The primary difference lies in the conceptual foundations
upon which the assessment is based. In place of the static goals generated by conventional
psychometric theory and techniques which determine the nature and structure of its measuring
instruments, the LPAD and its theoretical framework, the cognitive map, generate dynamic goals which
reflect the underlying dimensions of the adaptive proc- esses involved in intelligent activities. In terms of
the actual techniques employed, the central purpose is again very different. Tests that yield IQ measures
are constructed to provide a reflection of an individual’s manifest level of performance relative to other
individuals within a representative, normally dis-