Reuven Feuerstein was born one of nine children in Botosan, Romania (August 21, 1921). He attended the Teachers College in Bucharest (1940—41) and Onesco College in Bucharest (1942—44). Due to the Nazi invasion, Feuerstein fled to save his life before obtaining his degree in psychology. After settling in Mandate Palestine in 1945, he taught child survivors of the Holocaust until 1948. He saw that these children whose families and cultures had been destroyed in the Holocaust needed attention. Thus, he began a career that attended to the psychological and educational needs of immigrant refugee children.

During this period he served as Director of Psychological Services of Youth Aliyah in Europe (Immigration for young people). This service was responsible for assigning prospective Jewish candidates for emigration from all over the European continent to various educational programs in Israel. In the 1950s he was involved in research on Moroccan, Jewish, and Berber children in collaboration with several members of the “Genevan” school. Upon their arrival, the children were subjected to a series of tests, including IQ tests. Their poor results did not surprise Feuerstein. However, he did question them and noticed that whenever he intervened, the children’s performance improved.

This raised many questions in Feuerstein’s mind. “What if, instead of measuring a child’s acquired knowledge and intellectual skills, the ability to learn was evaluated first? And what if intelligence was not a fixed attributed, measurable once and for all? What if intelligence can be taught and was in fact the ability to learn?” (p. 10) It was at this point that Feuerstein broke away from the conventional thinking of his time. He elaborated new methods of evaluation as well as new teaching tools. Today this is what is known as Dynamic Assessment.

“It was during this period that much of the psychological data was gathered that contributed to my development of concepts of cultural differences and cultural deprivations” The results were astonishing. Some children who were considered un-teachable reached the stage where they were accepted at normal school and studied successfully. This period was also seminal in the development of his working hypothesis concerning low functioning children and their potential for change.

His interest came from observing the difficulties experienced by the new immigrant students coping with unfamiliar learning environment that he saw as culturally "deprived.” He describes culturally “different” children as children who receive an adequate amount and type of Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) in their native culture and who face the challenges of adapting to a new culture. These children are expected to have good learning potential. On the contrary, culturally “deprived” are those children who, for one reason or another, were deprived on MLE in their native culture or children who show a reduction in learning potential.

While attending the University of Geneva, Feuerstein studied under Andre Rey and Jean Piaget. He completed his degrees in both General and Clinical psychology. During this time there were three main schools of thought, “Psychoanalysis, Behaviorism, and Gestalt Psychology.” He attended lectures given by Carl Jaspers, Carl Jung, Barbel Inhelder, Marguerite Loosli Uster and L. Szondy. In 1970, Feuerstein earned his PhD in Developmental Psychology at the University of Sorbonne, in France. His major areas of study were Developmental, Clinical, and Cognitive psychology.

While obtaining his degrees and to this day Feuerstein causes many disagreements with his hypotheses and his theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability. Although encouraged by his successful experience with the children of the Aliyah and steeped in the ideas of Jean Piaget and Andre Rey, Feuerstein developed his own theory(s). For Piaget direct experimentation with the physical and the social world was of primary importance; the role of the mediator is assigned to the mental schemas of the child. Piaget provided a better understanding of the cognitive functions of logical thinking and reasoning of complex situations based on the stage theory of intelligence.

There are also comparisons of Feuerstein’s new theories made to the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky viewed a child’s interaction with the world as mediated by symbolic tools provided by the given culture. Like the social psychologist, Feuerstein gave further insight on cognitive functioning such as logical memory, voluntary attention, categorical perception and self-regulation of behavior.

However when one examines the two theories, it is clear that there is a theoretical gap which can be filled by the help of Feuerstein’s theory of Mediated Learning Experience in which he assigns the major role to a human mediator. According to Feuerstein, all learning interactions can be divided into direct learning and mediated learning. Learning mediated by another human being is indispensable for a child because the mediator helps the child develop prerequisites that then make direct learning effective

Although the Theory of Mediated Learning Experience which Feuerstein developed, the heart of MLE is the theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability which explains the modifiability of deficient cognitive functions. He argued that person’s capability to learn is not solely determined by one’s genetic make-up; but is on the contrary, cognitive enhancement is through mediation. “Cognitive enhancement in SCM refers not merely to the development of specific behavior but also to changes of a “structural nature” (i.e. internal changes in cognition rather than external changes in behavior).

The major difference between Piaget’s theories, Vygotsky’s theories and Feuerstein’s theories is the development of children (normal versus low functioning). According to Piaget (1956), it is through the normal child’s own natural material actions and problem-solving experiences that mind and intelligence eventually evolve toward the development of logic and abstract thinking. Piaget paid little attention to non-normative development.Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes that interpersonal skill exchanges are the precursor of cognitive functions: “The path from object to child and from child to object passes through another person.” Intelligence is conceptualized as the capacity to learn through instruction. But again there is little to be said about low-functioning children. Feuerstein, however, illustrates that the key to meaningful instruction for all children, particularly young and low-functioning children, is the mediated relationship.

Structural Cognitive Modifiability (SCM) as a theory grew out of Feuerstein’s interest to see people whose functioning was low and in certain cases extremely low, in turn became able to modify themselves through cognitive processes, so that they could adapt themselves to the requirements of society. Working with these people has made him aware that modifiability is indeed possible; it was then that he tried to look for the theoretical basis for strong empirical data. The theory of SCM has developed over the years, and has permitted him to create a large variety of cognitive programs which serve as the pillars of the theory

The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability is described as “the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation.” . This capacity for change is related to two types of human-environment interactions that are responsible for the development of differential cognitive functioning and higher mental processes: direct exposure to learning and mediated learning experience.

Over the years Feuerstein found that human development is not just biological, but from his stand point, also socio-cultural. The theory of SCM originated on two concepts — structure and modifiability. Feuerstein considers these two concepts to be the primary reason for behavioral manifestations of the mental and cognitive structures. The basis for the theory of SCM is derived from three different subparts.

1. The Human being is the outcome of a triple ontogeny — biological, social- cultural and the interactions of the mediated learning experience (MLE)

2. Model behavior represents states rather than traits of the organism, and leads to a new and more adaptive definition of intelligence

3. Brain plasticity results in the generation of new structures, created through internal and external behaviors

The theory SCM is based on a concept of human growth, which is characteristic of its evolutionary nature and of the transformation of its cognitive potentialities into the reasoning abilities and continuous search for solutions to the problems of diverse order raised by its surroundings

At the heart of SCM lies the theory of Mediated Learning Experience (MLE), to which Feuerstein attributes human modifiability. It is MLE which is a typical human modality of interaction that is responsible to the unique character of the human being which is structurally modifiable. Feuerstein offers a variety of conceptual tools including the cognitive map, the deficient cognitive functions and the process orientation which marks and shapes the applied aspects of the SCM theory

In the MLE modality, there are two formal models. One is the Behavioral Model of Stimulus-Response (S-R). The other is from the Cognitive Model (Piaget) Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R). “MLE has a universal meaning irrespective of language or content in which the mediation interaction takes place.”

Feuerstein defines Mediated Learning Experience as a quality of human-environment interactions. “It is much more than a simple pedagogical model and entails the shaping of cognitive process as a by product of cultural transmissions” As such it represents to stimuli, is considered as the “most pervasive” way in which the organism-environment interaction affects the organism. MLE, through which the interaction, human-environment, is mediated by a human being, whose intentionality “transforms the three components of 'S-O-R of what Piaget formed, into a meaningful way into a compatible combination. Feuerstein places great emphases on the H is the human, O is Organism, R is Response and S represents the Stimuli. Where H interposes himself between the S and the O as well as between the O and the R, there is mediation.” This is what is known as S-H-O-H-R' theory

Feuerstein notes that MLE represents the unique feature of human interaction and as such it is conceived of as the determinant of the auto plasticity of the human. MLE plays a major role in determining the evolutionary trends and the considerable changes that take place in a humans’ mental (cognitive) functioning.A lack of MLE deprives the organism of its auto plasticity which may result in a lack of or reduced modifiability “(example: in individuals for whom the direct exposure is of an active operational nature).”

The theory of Mediated Learning Experience addresses the question, What are the origins of differential cognitive development? This question involves examining the organism (the learner) and the environment(the context in which the learning experience occurs) and the two factors involved are either organic or environmental. Organic factors consist of heredity, maturation level, and others. Environmental factors are sensory stimulation, socio-economic status, and educational opportunities. This theory suggests that these two types of factors constitute only “distal” determinants of cognitive development (factors which cause the differential responses to the environment), while the Mediated Learning Experience (or lack of) constitutes “proximal” determinants.

For MLE to occur, another human being (caregiver, parent, teacher, peer, etc.) interposes him or herself between the stimuli (or the learner’s response) and the learner with the intention of mediating the stimuli or response to the learner. This intervention is termed mediation. The mediator (for a child, initially the mother or another nurturing parent figure) modifies a set of stimuli by effecting qualities of intensity, context, frequency, and order, and at the same time arouses the child’s vigilance, awareness, and sensitivity. Inadequate MLE leads to cognitive functions that are undeveloped, poorly developed, arrested, impaired, or seldom and inefficiently used.

Clinical experience with the LPAD and FIE has enabled the development of an inventory of deficient cognitive functions, which are categorized across the Input, Elaboration, and Output Phases of the mental act. Deficiencies of the mental act can impair one phase or all phases, but not all of the time.

Another important conceptual tool of the dynamic assessment process is the need to understand the relationship between the characteristics of the task and the performance of the subject. The “cognitive map” describes the mental act in terms of several parameters that permit an analysis and interpretation of a subject’s performance by locating specific problem areas and producing changes in corresponding dimensions. The manipulation of these parameters becomes highly important in the subject-examiner interaction, by helping the examiner to form and validate hypotheses regarding the subject’s performance difficulties. There are seven parameters to the cognitive map:

• Content of the mental act
• Modality or language in which the mental act is expressed
• Cognitive operations required for the mental act
• Level of complexity
• Level of abstraction
• Level of efficiency with which the mental act is performed

The cognitive map is an important element in the process of dynamic assessment and the use of the LPAD. It is reflected in the construction of the LPAD instruments and in the examiner’s choice regarding the order of the instruments to use with the subject, the amount of time and the extent of focus within the instrument, and the nature and type of mediation to offer within the functioning of the instrument.

The Learning Propensity Assessment Device (LPAD) — originally named Learning Potential Assessment Device — is a dynamic approach, based on the theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability, used to assess cognitive functioning. Propensity conveys the uniquely dynamic process of change, which is consonant with Feuerstein’s concept of the nature of intelligence. In his conceptual view and in his methodology of assessment, intelligence is the “propensity of the individual to undergo changes in the direction of higher levels of adaptability.” This name change underscores the significance of Feuerstein’s attempt to do away with any concepts that represent intelligence as related to a reified objective entity, which by its nature much be considered measurable, predictable, and fixed. The LPAD encompasses goals, functions, and methods, which are substantially different from traditional, static, psychometric assessment methods.

Difference between IQ test and Dynamic Assessment

Central to the dynamic evaluation is the acceptance of the modifiability of functioning instead of a belief in (or acceptance of) “fixed and immutable” characteristics of intelligence or cognitive functioning. The LPAD is a systematic attempt to overcome the limitation in standard tests and to provide a basis for making inference, based on prescribed observations of particular tasks, regarding the nature and adequacy of the development of cognitive functions.

Related to these inferences are additional specific appropriate questions:

1. What other obstacles to effective performance are observed?
2. How amenable to change are the observed deficiencies?
3. How much change can be expected?
4. What is the nature of the investment required to produce the desired changes (content areas, modalities of response, phase of the mental act)?
5. How much investment is required to produce the desired change?
6. How much stability can one achieve with the desired change?
7. How much generalization can one achieve following mediation?

Three levels of inference are employed in the LPAD. They are: (1) evaluation of the level of manifest functioning; (2) exploration of conditions under which manifest functioning may be improved; and (3) assessment of modifiability by actually bringing about changes in cognitive structure through meditation of functions and strategies, with subsequent assessment of the effects of this meditation on generalization processes of thought and manifest functioning.

Feuerstein and his colleagues believe that there are times and situations where normative assessment is useful, as for example, when the performance of individual children is compared with the average performance of individuals in normative samples to establish baselines which then can be used to plan remediation strategies aimed at reaching goals established for the normative group. Another potentially useful application of normative comparison is for large program planning, curriculum development, and research on the psychological and educational characteristics of large groups.

The theory of SCM and the understanding of learning propensity require a different approach to assessment. There is abundant evidence that the assumptions associated with normative assessment are untenable and that they contributed to restricting large numbers of children, youth, and adults from receiving the education and therapeutic benefits to which they are entitled and from which they can benefit. In other words, we need methods by which it is possible to ask how individuals can be taught in such a way as to uncover and make accessible their available learning potential, not whether individuals can learn.

The examiner working from the perspective of dynamic assessment is thus able to reframe the critical assessment questions as following:Not:

1. What is the person’s typical performance?
2. How much does this person know?
3. How well is the person likely to learn independently?
4. What areas of content have not been mastered?

But instead:

1. What is the person’s maximal performance?
2. How can the person learn?
3. What teaching is needed to enable the person to learn at an acceptable level?
4. What process deficiencies underlie pervious learning failure and how can these be corrected?

The assessment strategy of the LPAD consists of two distinguishing features: (1) the assessment as a fluid process of the person’s thoughts, perceptions, learning; (2) the carefully structured teaching of cognitive principles and processes followed by an assessment of the way in which this activity modifies the subject in the direction of higher capacity and greater efficiency on similar, although different, problems. The goals of the assessment process are to:

1. Identify well-developed cognitive functions
2. Identify deficient cognitive functions
3. Assess the response to the teaching of cognitive principles and strategies
4. Estimate the kinds and amounts of investment needed to overcome cognitive deficiencies
5. Sensitize both the examiner and subject to the processes involved in confronting and coping with a variety of tasks.

The tools of the LPAD are designed and selected through the general strategy, which requires a theoretical perspective, a methodological orientation, and the use of appropriate tools on the subject because:

1. Each of them requires the use of one (or more) fundamentally important cognitive process
2. Considered as a battery of instruments, they represent a broad range of specific cognitive functions
3. They employ tasks and materials, which have been found to be intrinsically attractive, interesting, and challenging, and which lend themselves to mediational intervention
4. They have been used for dynamic assessment for many years and with a large number of subjects and have thus been field tested and adapted for use in the assessment of learning propensity
5. They represent tasks requiring differing levels of higher mental processes
6. They are controlled for content so that the subject’s functioning is not dependent upon familiarity or prior knowledge
7. They present a range of modalities of required responses

The instruments have been constructed to reflect the purpose and goals of evaluation in the LPAD, as opposed to those of a static and normative assessment. There are four basic changes reflected in the instruments:

1. Structure of the instruments: for each instrument, subjects are offered opportunities to use (and the examiner to observe) cognitive prerequisites and strategies to master the task
2. Subject-examiner interaction: the examiner uses the instruments in an active, interventionist posture, offering mediation, creative and engaging interaction, reinforcement, and feedback
3. Product to process orientation: the LPAD instruments shift the emphasis from product to process — that is, to a search for the reasons for a subject’s success and failure
4. Interpretation of results: global or generalized scores are replaced by an active search for the peak of a subject’s functioning and the creation of a detailed profile of performance that describes the subject’s cognitive functions and deficiencies

Each instrument is constructed according to the same structural principle. A task, problem, or situation is selected whose mastery requires not only specific problem solving behaviors, but also the grasp of a given principle through the application of the relevant cognitive operation. The operation may be categorization, serration, permutation, logical multiplication, analogical or syllogistic reasoning, or any number of others. The appropriate use of an operation depends upon prerequisite cognitive functions as well as upon attitudinal and motivational factors. The language or modality in which the task is presented may be pictorial, numerical, figural, graphic, verbal, or logic-verbal.

The instruments can be grouped according to their primary focus regarding modality or the general mental operations required: Organization of Dots and Complex Figure Drawing focus on visual-motor and perceptional organization; Positional Learning Test, Plateaus, Associated Recall, and 16 Word Memory Test focus on memory, with a learning component; Raven’s Progressive Matrices (colored and standard), Set Variation B-8 to B-12, LPAD Set Variation I and II, Representative Stencil Design, Numerical Progression and the Organizer involve higher cognitive processes and mental operation.

Each instrument presents the subject with the need to respond to an initial task, carrying within it the dimension just described. The initial task is then made progressively more difficult by increasing its novelty and complexity. Subsequent tasks presented to the subject within an instrument are varied by making changes in any one of the dimensions necessary for mastery, by changing the situation or objects or relation among the objects, changing the task’s language of presentation (modality), or changing the cognitive function and operation needed to solve the problem.

The relationship between the theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability and its derived constructs of Mediated Learning Experience, the cognitive functions, and the cognitive map, is interactive and dynamic. SCM represents the super ordinate theoretical structure; the cognitive functions describe the qualities of the subject or learner to be observed; the cognitive map describes the nature of the critically important interaction between the examiner and the subject being assessed. Using the LPAD in a dynamic manner requires a continuous interweaving of these elements, at both the theoretical and application levels.

The Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment Standard program is a cognitive intervention/enrichment that can be used both individually and in a classroom framework. Feuerstein uncovered the needs for specific teaching methods (Mediated Learning Experience) that would ground his work in an educational format. To this end, he developed 14 tools or what are known as "instruments". “Instruments” are series of pencil and paper tasks, which increase in the level of difficulty and are independent of any subject area (content) that identifies, defines and classifies a set of cognitive functions.

Feuerstein organized these tools into "content free" instruments that specifically trained educators ‘mediate’ to students to enrich cognitive functions and build habits for effective and efficient thinking. When a child is weak in use of any functions, for whatever reason, it is necessary that a teacher or other helping professional mediate the development.

The FIE Standard program goals seek to correct deficiencies in fundamental thinking skills, provides students with the concepts, skills, strategies, operations and techniques necessary to function as independent learners, increases their motivation, develops students’ meta-cognition, and in a word helps students learn how to learn. Deliberately free of specific subject matter, the tasks in the instruments are intended to be transferable (bridged) to all educational and everyday life situations.

To date FIE program has been successfully used across the world in the following frameworks:

• Remedial programs for special needs children.
• Cognitive rehabilitation of brain injured individuals and psychiatric patients.
• Learning enhancement programs for immigrant and cultural minority students.
• Enrichment programs for underachieving, regular and gifted children.
• Professional training and retraining programs in the industrial, military, and business sectors.

Scientific—based research studies with various populations including engineers at a Motorola (USA) plant, impoverished students in rural communities (Bahia, Brazil), non-literate immigrants (Ethiopia), Autistic and Down Syndrome children (Jerusalem), low-performing high school math students (Cleveland, Ohio, USA), weak readers in middle grades (Portland, Oregon, USA), and many other groups. FIE was included into the package of educational reform programs recommended by the US Department of Education (see bibliography and related links). FIE —Standard Program is the most researched of the cognitive intervention programs. FIE is considered to be the bases of cognitive intervention for both individuals with disabilities and individuals who are considered “normal” and “gifted”. The program is designed to help people of all ages, not just students.

Feuerstein has added FIE-BASIC in the year 2000 to further expand the application of his theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability to preventing learning problems in young children (Pre-Kindergarten or 3 to 7 years old) and helping those older children with “special needs”. Feuerstein’s claims, that learning problems may be prevented through early, developmentally appropriate, intervention as well as the emerging brain research. In order to achieve these goals an emphasis is placed on a systematic exposure of selected and necessary content areas. Specific skills are mediated and transformed into working concepts that build subsequent learning and development and the process of how to think.

The FIE- BASIC program includes a total of 10 instruments, with addition instrument in perpetration to be included in the program, which are taught over 2—4 years depending on the learner’s needs and/or the development of implementation. Each focuses on specific cognitive functions that are the pre-requisites to successful school learning, especially in literacy and mathematics. It is designed to be used in a classroom group setting, for smaller groups of targeted learners, and as a one-to-one therapeutic intervention.

It is designed to provide an “early intervention” to enable students who are a special risk for their development, or those individuals who have not acquired basic foundational knowledge and skills, to respond to the direct world of stimuli and develop the pre-requisite cognitive functions. The use of the FIE-B can be a preparation for the use of the FIE-Standard (mentioned above), taking students to higher levels of mental processing and cognitive functioning.

Feuerstein developed a BASIC version of Instrumental Enrichment for use with early childhood and severely challenged adolescents. Projects throughout the State of Alaska Head Start Program (USA), Holly, Michigan (USA) and in Israel, Britain, Italy, India and Japan are exploring the applications of the Basic instruments with young children and students with special needs especially as a way to avoid the over-categorization of students as learning disabled.

In 1976, four years before the publication of the first edition of Instrumental Enrichment, the Record, a journal of the NIH-US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, hailed the “exciting, highly imaginative project by Dr. Feuerstein” then being funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for showing that “intervention —even in adolescents — is not too late.”

NICHD Scientists Prediction— “The program (Instrumental Enrichment) holds great promise for improving learning skills of millions of mildly retarded, culturally disadvantaged adolescents in our school systems and for the more precise identification and placement of children based upon what they can learn rather than what have learned.” (From N.I.H. Record, September 21, 1976, Vol. XXVIII, no. 19)

Michael, J. Begab, Head of the Mental Retardation Research Center of The NICHD, (1980) — “Feuerstein has introduced a determinate of cognitive development that is not part of Piagetian theory and more importantly has converted a descriptive system into a instructional and operational one. The author has achieved this very difficult goal through an unusual blend of talents: clinical acumen and insight of the highest order; a wealth of experience with troubled and handicapped children and youth from diverse cultures; a gift for conceptualization and integration of theory; ingenuity; resourcefulness and open mindfulness; and above all, total commitment to the worth and dignity of all human beings and to their capacity for positive change. Feuerstein has spectacurly bridged the gap from research to practice and provided educators with effective tools for improving the performance of children with a range of learning deficits.” (From Instrumental Erichment (1980)Version)

"Reuven Feuerstein is one of a handful of educational thinkers and practitioners who has made a significant, lasting contribution to our understanding of human learning.” ...Howard Gardner, Harvard Graduate School of Education

“A highly innovative and immensely hope-inspiring work. . . ....From the Foreword by John D. Bransford, University of Washington, College of Education

1986, Detroit Public Schools, Special Commendation

1990, Médaille d'Or of Aix-les-Bains, France

1990, Médaille d'Or of Nevers, France

1991, Variety Clubs International Humanitarian Award, Vancouver, Canada

1991, Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Académiques, France

1991, Yakir Yerushalaim (Distinguished Citizen of Jerusalem)

1992, New York Academy of Sciences

1992, Israel Prize, for social sciences.

1997, Honor al estudio y la investigacion en el campo de la formación professional. National Organization for Professional Training. Valencia, Spain.

1997, Special Resolution of Commendation, Assembly, State of California, USA

1998, Miembro de honor; Universidad Diego Portales, Chile

1999, Doctorate Honoris Causa, University of Turin, Italy

2009, Doctorate Honoris Causa, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Books

Richelle, M. and Feuerstein, R. (Under direction of Prof. Andre Rey, and in Jeannet) (1957). Enfants Juifs Nord-Africans. Tel Aviv: Youth Aliyah. collaboration with M.

Feuerstein, R. & Richelle, M. (Under direction of Prof. Andre Rey, and in collaboration with M. Jeannet) (1963). Children of the Mellah: Socio-cultural deprivation and its educational significance. Jerusalem: Szold Foundation (in Hebrew).

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device (LPAD). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. (Chinese translation, 1989)

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Rynders, J. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am: Helping “retarded” people to excel. N.Y.: Plenum Press (Second revised edition published by Skylight in 1997; Dutch translation: Laat me niet zoals ik bem. Rotterdam: Leminscaat, 1993; Italian translation: Non accettarmi como sono. Milan: R.C.S. Libri, 1995; Japanese translation — 2000)

Wexler, M. and Feuerstein, R. (Eds.) (1988). Reconstructive plastic surgery for people with Down Syndrome as an element in shaping modifying environment. Jerusalem: Zak and Co. (in Hebrew).

Feuerstein, R. and Rand Y. (with Engels N. & Feuerstein, Ra S.) (2001). Don't accept me as I am. (New enlarged Hebrew edition). Jerusalem: ICELP Press. (Revised Italian translation: La disabilita non e un limite. Firenze: Libri Liberi, 2005; revised English edition, ICELP Press, 2006).

Feuerstein, R., Klein, P., & Tannenbaum, A. (Eds.)(1991). Mediated learning experience: Theoretical, psychosocial, and learning implications. Tel Aviv and London: Freund.

Feuerstein, R. (1998). The theory of mediated learning experience: About human as a modifiable Being. Jerusalem: Ministry of Defense Publications (in Hebrew).

Kozulin, A., Feuerstein, R., & Feuerstein, Ra. S. (Eds).(2001) Mediated learning experience in teaching and counseling (Proceedings of the international conferences "Models of teacher training" and "Educational advancement for youth at risk"). Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., Rand, Y., & Feuerstein, Ra.S. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R. et al. (2003). Feuerstein’s theory and applied systems: A reader. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R. and Spire, A. (2006). La pédagogie à visage humain. Paris: Le Bord de l’Eau.

Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., Rand, Y., & Feuerstein, Ra.S. (2006). Creating and enhancing cognitive modifiability: The Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment program. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Chapters, articles, and manuals

Feuerstein, R. & Richelle, M. (1958). Perception and drawing of the North African Jewish child. Megamot, 9: 156-162 (in Hebrew).

Feuerstein, R. & Krasilowsky, D. (1967). The treatment group technique. Israeli Annals of Psychiatry and Related Disciplines, 5: 61-90.

Feuerstein, R. and Shalom, H. (1967). Methods of assessing the educational level of socially and culturally disadvantaged children. Megamot, No 2-3: 177-187 (in Hebrew).

Feuerstein, R. (1968). The Learning Potential Assessment Device. In B.W.Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Congress of the International Association for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Reigate, UK: Michael Jackson.

Feuerstein, R. (1970). Les differences de fonctionnement cognitif dans des groupes socio-ethniques differents. Ph.D. thesis. Sorbonne, Paris.

Feuerstein, R. (1970). A dynamic approach to causation, prevention, and alleviation of retarded performance. In C. Haywood (Ed.),Social-Cultural Aspects of Mental Retardation. N.Y.: Appleton, Century, Crofts.

Feuerstein, R., Hanegby, R., & Krasilovsky, D. (1970). The corrective object relations: Theory and treatment group technique. Psychological Processes, 1: 2.

Feuerstein, R. (1971). Low functioning children in residential and day settings for the deprived. In M.Wolins & M.Gottesman (Eds.), Group Care: An Israeli Approach. N.Y.: Gordon and Breach.

Feuerstein, R. (1971). The redevelopment of the socio-culturally disadvantaged adolescent in group care. In M.Wolins & M.Gottesman (Eds.), Group Care: An Israeli Approach. N.Y.: Gordon and Breach.

Feuerstein, R. (1972). Alleviation of retarded performance. In H.P.David (Ed.), Child Mental Health in International Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Feuerstein, R. (1972). Cognitive assessment of the socio-culturally deprived child and adolescent. In L.J. Cronbach and P.Drenth (Eds.), Mental tests and cultural adaptation. The Hague: Mouton.

Feuerstein, R. & Krasilowsky, D. (1972). Intervention strategies for the significant modification of cognitive functioning in the disadvantaged adolescent. The Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 11: 572-582.

Feuerstein, R., Krasilowsky, D., and Rand, Y. (1974). The evolvement of innovative educational strategies for the integration of high risk adolescents in Israel. Phi Delta Kappan, 35: 556-581.

Feuerstein, R. and Rand, Y. (1974). Mediated Learning Experience: An outline of proximal etiology for differential development of cognitive functions. Journal of International Council of Psychology, 9-10: 7-37.

Feuerstein, R. (1976). Dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability in retarded performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device. In B.B.Wolman (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis and Psychology, Section XII. New York.

Feuerstein, R., Hoffman, M., Krasilowsky, D., Rand, Y., & Tannenbaum, A. (1976). The effects of group care on the psychosocial habitation of immigrant adolescents in Israel, with special reference to high-risk children. International Review of Applied Psychology, 25: 189-201.

Feuerstein, R. (1977). Mediated Learning Experience (MLE): A theoretical basis for cognitive modifiability during adolescence. In P.Mittner (Ed.), Research to Practice in Mental Retardation: Education and Training, vol.2. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Rand, Y. Feuerstein, R., Tannenbaum, A., Jensen, M., & Hoffman, M. (1977). An analysis of the effects of Instrumental Enrichment on disadvantaged adolescents. In P.Mittner (Ed.), Research to Practice in Mental Retardation: Education and Training, vol.2. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Krasilowsky, D., & Rand, Y. (1978). Modifiability during adolescence. In J. Anthony (Ed.), Yearbook of the International Association for Chile Psychiatry and Allied Professions. London: Wiley.

Feuerstein, R. (1979). Ontogeny of learning. in M.T.Brazier (Ed.), Brain Mechanisms in Memory and Learning. New York: Raven Press.

Rand, Y., Feuerstein, R., Hoffman, M., & Jensen, M. (1979). Cognitive modifiability in retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83: 539-550.

Rand, Y., Tannenbaum, A. & Feuerstein, R. (1979). Effects of Instrumental Enrichment on the psycho-educational development of low-functioning adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71: 751-763.

Feuerstein, R. & Jensen, M. (1980). Instrumental Enrichment: Theoretical basis, goals, and instruments. The Educational Forum, 44:401-423.

Feuerstein, R. (1981). Mediated learning experience in the acquisition of kinesics. In R. Saint-Claire and B. Hoffer (Eds.), Developmental Kinesics: The Emerging Paradigm. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Miller, R., Rand, Y. & Jensen, M. (1981) Can evolving techniques better measure cognitive change? The Journal of Special Education, 15: 201-219.

Feuerstein, R. & Hoffman, M. (1982). Intergenerational conflict of rights: Cultural imposition and self-realization. Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 58: 44-63.

Feuerstein, R. (1984). On the desirability of preserving family and communal traditions. In The Integration of Immigrant Adolescent: A Selection of Articles of Youth Aliyah. Jerusalem: Jewish Agency.

Feuerstein, R., Jensen, M., Rand, Y., and Hoffman, M. (1984). Instrumental Enrichment: An intervention program for structural cognitive modifiability. In J.Segal, S. Chipman, and R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills, vol. 1. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Feuerstein, R. & Klein, P. (1985). Environmental variables and cognitive development. In S. Harel and N.J. Anastasiow (Eds.), The At-Risk Infant: Psycho-Socio-Medical Aspects. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Feuerstein, R. Rand, Y. Haywood, H.C., Hoffman, M.B., Jensen, M.R., et al. (1985). Learning Potential Assessment Device Manual. Jerusalem: HWCRI.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M., Kaniel, S., Tzuriel, D., Ben Schachar, N., Mintzker, Y. (1985/86). Learning potential assessment. Special Services in the Schools, 2: 85-106.

Feuerstein, R. (1986). The foster home group experiment. In Y.Kashti and M.Arieli (Eds.), Residential Settings and the Community. Tel Aviv: Freund.

Feuerstein, R., Hoffman, M., Rand, Y. Jensen, M., Tzuriel, D., Hoffman, D. (1986). Learning to learn: Mediated learning experience and Instrumental Enrichment. Special Services in the Schools, 3: 49-82.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M., Kaniel, S., & Tzuriel, D. (1987). Prerequisites for assessment of learning potential: The LPADmodel. In C.Lidz (Ed.), The Dynamic Assessment. N.Y.: Guilford Press.

Arieli, M. & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The two-fold care organization: On the combination of group and foster situations. Child and Youth Care Quarterly, 16: 168-184.

Jensen, M. & Feuerstein, R. (1987). The LPAD: from philosophy to practice. In C.Lidz (Ed.), The Dynamic Assessment. N.Y.: Guilford Press.

Feuerstein, R., Jensen, M., Rand, Y., Kaniel, S. & Tzuriel, D. (1988). Cultural difference and cultural deprivation: A theoretical framework for differential intervention. In R.M.Gupta and P.Coxhead (Eds.), Cultural Diversity and Learning Efficiency. London: Macmillan.

Strauss, R., Mintzker, Y., Feuerstein, R., Wexler, M-R., Rand, Y. (1988). Social perception of the effects of Down Syndrome facial surgery: A school-based study of ratings by normal adolescents. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 81: 841-846.

Tzuriel, D. and Samuels, M.& Feuerstein, R. (1988). Non-intellective factors in dynamic assessment. In R.M.Gupta and P.Coxhead (Eds.), Cultural Diversity and Learning Efficiency. London: Macmillan.

Kaniel, S. & Feuerstein, R. (1989). Special needs of children with learning difficulties. Oxford Review of Education, 15: 165-179.

Feuerstein, R. (1990). The cognitive modifiability of persons with Down Syndrome. In E.Chigier (Ed.), Looking Up at Down Syndrome. Tel Aviv & London: Freund.

Feuerstein, R. (1990). Mediating cognitive processes to the retarded performer. In M.Schwebel, C.Maher, and N.Fagley (Eds.), Promoting Cognitive Growth over the Life-span. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Feuerstein, R. (1990). The theory of structural cognitive modifiability. In B.Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and Thinking Styles: Classroom Interaction. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Beker, J. & Feuerstein, R. (1990). Conceptual foundations of the modifying environment in group care and treatment settings for children and youth. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 5: 23-33.

Falik, L. & Feuerstein, R. (1990). Structural cognitive modifiability: A new cognitive perspective for counseling and psychotherapy. International Journal of Cognitive Education and Mediated Learning, 1: 143-150.

Feuerstein, R. (1991). Cultural difference and cultural deprivation. Differential patterns of adaptability. In N.Bleichrodt and P.Drenth (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Feuerstein, R. & Feuerstein, S. (1991). Mediated learning experience: A theoretical review. In R. Feuerstein, P. Klein, & A. Tannenbaum,(Eds.), Mediated learning experience: Theoretical, Psychosocial, and Learning Implications. Tel Aviv and London: Freund.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., Egozi, M., & Ben-Schachar, N. (1991). Intervention programs for retarded performers: Goals, means, and expected outcomes. In L.Idol and B.Jones (Eds.), Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction. Vol.2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. (Reprinted in M.Ben-Hur (Ed.), On Feuerstein’s Instrumental Enrichment. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight, 1994).

Feuerstein, R & Tannenbaum, A. (1991). Mediating the learning experience of gifted underachievers. In B. Wallace and H.Adams (Eds.), Worldwide Perspectives on the Gifted Underachievers. Bicester, UK: AB Academic Publishers.

Beker, J. & Feuerstein, R. (1991). Toward a common denominator in effective group care programming. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 7: 20-34.

Beker, J. & Feuerstein, R. (1991). The modifying environment and other environmental perspectives in group care. Residential Treatment of Children and Youth, 8: 21-37.

Kaniel, S., Tzuriel, D., Feuerstein, R., Ben-Schachar, N., & Eitan, T. (1991). Dynamic assessment: Learning and transfer abilities of Ethiopian immigrants to Israel. In Feuerstein, R., Klein, P., & Tannenbaum, A. (Eds.)(1991). Mediated Learning Experience: Theoretical, Psychosocial, and Learning Implications. Tel Aviv and London: Freund.

Tzuriel, D & Feuerstein, R. (1992). Dynamic assessment for prescriptive teaching. In C.Haywood and D.Tzuriel (Eds.), Interactive Assessment. New York: Springer.

Feuerstein, R. & Kozulin, A. (1995). The Bell Curve: Getting the facts straight. Educational Leadership, 52(7): 71-74.

Durkin, R., Beker, J., & Feuerstein, R. (1995). Can environments modify and enhance the development of personality and behavior? Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 12: 1-14.

Feuerstein, R. and Hoffman, M.B. (1995). Instrumental Enrichment Teacher’s Guides. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight.

Feuerstein, R. et al. (1995). Learning Propensity Assessment Device: Manual. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R. (1996). The mediated learning experience: Langeveld memorial lecture. University of Utrecht.

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, Ra., & Schur, Y. (1997). Process as content in education of exceptional children. In A.Costa & R. Liebman (Eds.), Supporting the Spirit of Learning: When Process is Content. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. (Reprinted in A. Kozulin, Ed., The Ontogeny of Cognitive Modifiability. Jerusalem: ICELP Press, 1997).

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, Ra., & Gross, S. (1997). The learning potential assessment device. In D.Flanagan, J.Genshaft, and P.Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment. New York: Guilford Press.

Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., & Feuerstein, Ra. S. (1998). Feuerstein’s LPAD. In R.Samuda (Ed.), Advances in Cross-Cultural Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feuerstein, R., Jackson, Y., & Lewis, J. (1998). Feuerstein’s IE and structural cognitive modifiability. In R.Samuda (Ed.), Advances in Cross-Cultural Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feuerstein, R., Falik, L., & Feuerstein, Ra. S. (1998). Definition of essential concepts and terms: A working glossary of SCM, MLE, LPAD and IE. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R., Gross, S., Brodsky Cohen, B., Levin, S. Rathner, A., Stevens, T., Brill, T., Falik, L (1998). Early detection: Blessing or curse. In S. Greenspan (Ed.), Approaches to developmental and learning disorders in infants and children (pp. 253—280). Bethesda, MD: ICDL (Revised version appeared in Oon-Seng Tan and A. Seok-Hoon Seng (Eds.), Enhancing cognitive functions. Singapore: McGraw Hill Asia, 2005)

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, Ra. S., and Schur, Y. (1999). Instrumental Enrichment: program development and implementation. In E. Peled, (Ed.), Fifty years of educational system in Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. (in Hebrew).

Feuerstein, R. (2000). MLE, IE and LPAD. In S. Greenspan and S. Wieder, (Eds.), International Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders Clinical Practice Guidelines. Silver Spring, MD: ICDL.

Feuerstein, R. and Feuerstein, Ra S. (2000). MLE and IE as a basis of the education of the blind. Educator, vol.12, pp. 1—19.

Feuerstein, R. and Falik, L. (2000). Cognitive modifiability: A needed perspective on learning in the 21st century. College of Education Review (San Francisco State University), vol.12, pp. 127—143

Feuerstein, R. and Feuerstein, Ra S. (2001) Is dynamic assessment compatible with the psychometric model? In A.Kaufman & N.Kaufman, (Eds.), Specific Learning Disabilities and Difficulties in Children and Adolescents. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Feuerstein, R., Mintzker, Y, Feuerstein, Ra S., Ben Shachar, N., Cohen, M. and Rathner, A. (2001). Mediated Learning Experience: Guidelines for Parents. Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

Feuerstein, R. and Feuerstein, Ra S. (2002). The influence of MLE on the mediator. Talpiot College Yearbook. Tel-Aviv: Talpiot College (in Hebrew) (English translation available upon request at the ICELP)

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, Ra. S., & Feuerstein, A. (2003). Learning potential assessment device — Basic: Manual. Jerusalem: ICELP.

Feuerstein, Ra S., Feuerstein, R., & Falik, L. (2004). User’s Guide to the theory and practice of the Instrumental Enrichment-Basic. Jerusalem: ICELP.

Feuerstein, R., Kozulin, A. and Falik, L. (2005). Cultural difference and cultural deprivation as reflected in the dynamic assessment of Ethiopian immigrant children in Israel. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Dynamic Assessment, 1: 101-121.

Feuerstein, Ra S., Feuerstein, R. (2005). Learning disability or deficient learning? Permanent trait or changing state. In E.Paldi (Ed.), Education and challenge of Time — 2. Jerusalem: Histadrut Hamorim (in Hebrew).

Feuerstein, Ra S., Feuerstein, R., & Falik, L. (2005). The Feuerstein programs for early assessment and intervention: The LPAD-Basic and the IE-Basic. In Oon-Seng Tan and A. Seok-Hoon Seng (Eds.), Enhancing cognitive functions. Singapore: McGraw Hill Asia.Feuerstein, R. (2007). Shaping modifying environments through inclusion. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology: Special Issue No 2: 9-23.