Learning is like an inexperienced runner training for a marathon.
At first, you have no idea what you’re doing. You start to run, but you may not have correct form; you tire easily and may even injure yourself. You need lots of encouragement and guidance from your trainer or other advisor. Then, as your endurance and experience builds, you are able to take off on your own, going for longer and longer runs.
This metaphor ties in ideas from William James, Constructivism, and self-regulation. In learning, at first we often need more guidance, we need help obtaining those “acquired reactions” that will serve us best. Our teachers, parents, and other mentors give us verbal and non-verbal feedback as to our progress, and provide the challenges for further growth and development. They reinforce the desired behaviors and outcomes that are espoused by the culture. As we develop, we are more able to draw from our store of experiences and turn to ourselves for a read of our own progress and to evaluate what is working and what is holding us back. We know about our favorable learning conditions, and we can take it upon ourselves to create those conditions. From there, we can take off on our own, pursuing our own learning, challenging ourselves and coming to our own conclusions.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Module 5: Reflection
I thought that Nodding’s (2006) article provided some interesting insights on how learning can be approached from a problem-solving perspective. In his discussion of constructed reviews versus textbook reviews, Nodding combines a constructivist approach to learning with more structured learning objectives. Another connection with constructivism can be found in Noddings’ recommendation for teachers to present their students with problems that may not be able to be answered correctly. This seems to align with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development in its recognition of the need for the student to contend with material that may be just out of their reach. Dan Meyer’s video on math classes also highlighted this point. I was especially intrigued by Meyer’s statement that society is conditioning us to be impatient with irresolution. I agree that, most of the time, individuals are looking for a quick solution to a problem so that they can move on to the next one (or tackle numerous problems at once, in the case of multitasking). But by doing so, are we losing out on fully developing the skill of persistence?
Generally speaking, I have found that I am a much bigger fan of “uni-tasking.” I identified with Bregman’s example of trying to send the same email three times just to get it right. However, I also agree with Silverman that multitasking is simply a fact of life for many people, especially those in higher positions. Rosen’s (2008) article on the myth of multitasking seems to get at the idea that, just because we can multitask does not mean that we should. Rosen brings up James’ point of view on attention and multitasking, which aligns multi-tasking with the native reactions of the child. While I think James would acknowledge that multi-tasking is a natural urge that humans have, I think that he would argue that undivided attention is best for optimal connection and absorption of the materials.
Another important area of problem solving is creativity. As discussed by Pretz, et al (2003), without some creativity, it becomes difficult to see problems and alternative solutions outside of those typically done in similar situations. In our automaticity of thought, it is very easy to fall into a routine of soliciting a given response for previously experienced circumstances. However, the problem solving approach would argue that individuals must be more mindful of situations if they hope to see new solutions.
Metacognition, problem solving, self-regulation and multi-tasking get at the learner’s need to be aware of their own process. Metacognition and problem solving both put the focus on being more mindful of how we process and categorize information. Allowing for perception of material in new ways and allowing oneself to deeply engage in the material are key components of both ideas. Self-regulation and multi-tasking have to do with the ways in which individuals carry out their learning goals. Multi-tasking focuses more in efficiency in processing information or task completion, while self-regulation focuses more on the skills utilized to process information or complete the task.
References:
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College Press.
Noddings, N. (2006). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Generally speaking, I have found that I am a much bigger fan of “uni-tasking.” I identified with Bregman’s example of trying to send the same email three times just to get it right. However, I also agree with Silverman that multitasking is simply a fact of life for many people, especially those in higher positions. Rosen’s (2008) article on the myth of multitasking seems to get at the idea that, just because we can multitask does not mean that we should. Rosen brings up James’ point of view on attention and multitasking, which aligns multi-tasking with the native reactions of the child. While I think James would acknowledge that multi-tasking is a natural urge that humans have, I think that he would argue that undivided attention is best for optimal connection and absorption of the materials.
Another important area of problem solving is creativity. As discussed by Pretz, et al (2003), without some creativity, it becomes difficult to see problems and alternative solutions outside of those typically done in similar situations. In our automaticity of thought, it is very easy to fall into a routine of soliciting a given response for previously experienced circumstances. However, the problem solving approach would argue that individuals must be more mindful of situations if they hope to see new solutions.
Metacognition, problem solving, self-regulation and multi-tasking get at the learner’s need to be aware of their own process. Metacognition and problem solving both put the focus on being more mindful of how we process and categorize information. Allowing for perception of material in new ways and allowing oneself to deeply engage in the material are key components of both ideas. Self-regulation and multi-tasking have to do with the ways in which individuals carry out their learning goals. Multi-tasking focuses more in efficiency in processing information or task completion, while self-regulation focuses more on the skills utilized to process information or complete the task.
References:
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard College Press.
Noddings, N. (2006). Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 1-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis, 64, 105-110.
Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis, 64, 105-110.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Module 4 - Information Processing Part II
“The connecting is the thinking.” This concept from James’ Talks to Teachers is easily related to information processing in terms of how individuals are able to store and retrieve information over the long term. This is accomplished through encoding, mnemonics, and the deep processing of information. This deep processing, or mindfulness, forces the individual to take more time with the information. Information is only as good as the way in which it is encoded. This is a point further emphasized in Marsh and Butler (in press), where they review some of the theories and techniques emphasized in memory. One important concept highlighted in this chapter is that of desirable difficulty; “introducing difficulties during learning will result in superior long-term retention because the greatest gains in storage strength occur when retrieval strength is low” (Marsh & Butler, in press, p. 5). This reminded me of Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, whereby development occurs by having individuals participate in activities that are just beyond that which they can do by themselves. By stretching learning and recall over longer periods of time, connecting it to more and more ideas and experiences, individuals are able to learn information in a deeper way than if they were simply cramming for a test.
Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) note that constructivism should not happen at the expense of content knowledge, and that teacher’s should be wary of introducing minimally guided instruction into their classrooms. “Not only is unguided instruction normally less effective, there is also evidence that it may have negative results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge” (Kirschner, et al., 2006, p. 84). While I can see their point, I think that regular assessment and feedback such as that suggested by Marsh and Butler (in press) can assess when students go off track with their connections and help them to make more meaningful and accurate connections with the information. If you remove too much of the constructivist approach, I think that you lose some of that flexibility needed to help the student connect to the material.
I do not have a very good memory. This week’s readings make me think about the ways in which I process information and how I could process it in a more meaningful way. The one reading that stood out the most for me this week was the New York Times article written by Joshua Foer. Foer (2011) notes the importance of practice and persistence when it comes to developing and maintaining a good memory. Last week’s readings and activities focused a lot upon attention and our abilities to focus on the important things in the task at hand. Foer’s reference to the mental athlete’s “gear” reminded me of a white noise website (www.simplynoise.com) that I use when I find myself getting distracted from whatever it is I am doing by outside noise (hopefully, I will not have to resort to blinders). Foer’s discussion of hitting a plateau in his memory capacity made me think that, like many abilities, when things get difficult it is easier to say “oh well, I suppose this is as good as it gets,” instead of persisting in our efforts to increase our memory. I thought it was interesting that Ericsson had him use a metronome to help him push his processing speed even further. This seems to also tie in Marsh and Butler’s reference to desirable difficulty, and also the often-invoked phrase “use it or lose it.” If we are not constantly using and challenging our memory, it seems quite possible that it will be more difficult to encode information in a meaningful way than if we were engaging our memories more frequently.
References:
Foer, J. (2011, February). Secrets of a mind-gamer: How I trained my brain and became a world-class memory athlete. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html?hp.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
Marsh, E. J., & Butler, A. C. (in press). Memory in educational settings. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) note that constructivism should not happen at the expense of content knowledge, and that teacher’s should be wary of introducing minimally guided instruction into their classrooms. “Not only is unguided instruction normally less effective, there is also evidence that it may have negative results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge” (Kirschner, et al., 2006, p. 84). While I can see their point, I think that regular assessment and feedback such as that suggested by Marsh and Butler (in press) can assess when students go off track with their connections and help them to make more meaningful and accurate connections with the information. If you remove too much of the constructivist approach, I think that you lose some of that flexibility needed to help the student connect to the material.
I do not have a very good memory. This week’s readings make me think about the ways in which I process information and how I could process it in a more meaningful way. The one reading that stood out the most for me this week was the New York Times article written by Joshua Foer. Foer (2011) notes the importance of practice and persistence when it comes to developing and maintaining a good memory. Last week’s readings and activities focused a lot upon attention and our abilities to focus on the important things in the task at hand. Foer’s reference to the mental athlete’s “gear” reminded me of a white noise website (www.simplynoise.com) that I use when I find myself getting distracted from whatever it is I am doing by outside noise (hopefully, I will not have to resort to blinders). Foer’s discussion of hitting a plateau in his memory capacity made me think that, like many abilities, when things get difficult it is easier to say “oh well, I suppose this is as good as it gets,” instead of persisting in our efforts to increase our memory. I thought it was interesting that Ericsson had him use a metronome to help him push his processing speed even further. This seems to also tie in Marsh and Butler’s reference to desirable difficulty, and also the often-invoked phrase “use it or lose it.” If we are not constantly using and challenging our memory, it seems quite possible that it will be more difficult to encode information in a meaningful way than if we were engaging our memories more frequently.
References:
Foer, J. (2011, February). Secrets of a mind-gamer: How I trained my brain and became a world-class memory athlete. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html?hp.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
Marsh, E. J., & Butler, A. C. (in press). Memory in educational settings. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Free Will debate continues...
Just thought I would share this opinion piece that appeared on the New York Times website this week:
Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/
The author, Eddy Nahmiahs, talks about whether or not findings in Neuroscience can prove that free will does not exist, or if they simply explain it in a new way. Enjoy!
Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/is-neuroscience-the-death-of-free-will/
The author, Eddy Nahmiahs, talks about whether or not findings in Neuroscience can prove that free will does not exist, or if they simply explain it in a new way. Enjoy!
Module 3: Activity 1 - Perception Resource
http://www.readingrockets.org/shows/launching/meaning/
PBS Video, “Reading for Meaning”
A portion of the third PowerPoint this week focused on the importance of attention and perception as factors that affect the sensory registers in the information processing theory. I was particularly interested in the brief video that was shown as part of this PowerPoint that featured a student who had trouble with reading comprehension, and decided to track down additional resources on reading comprehension and some of the tools that can be used to improve it. It seems like this is best accomplished through connecting reading experiences to ideas that are tangible and relatable for kids. This video, “Reading for Meaning,” highlights several classroom and community programs that are designed to help students improve their interest in reading as well as their reading comprehension.
For each approach, there is a reference to the way in which it helps students retain reading knowledge. The first program discussed, CORI, focuses on non-fiction reading as a means of getting students to ask their own questions and communicate about their reading with others. At one point, the teacher asked the student to interpret the actions of the town reacting to the tornado sirens. At another point, a student was asked to present the results of her independent reading on a topic related to the weather and answer questions from her fellow students. In addition to emphasizing the way in which information is perceived and internalized, this example also touches on the importance of meaningfulness. By exposing the student to the subject matter in a variety of different ways over a period of time as well as allowing the student to ask and answer their own questions within the subject matter, the student is able to make connections to the material. In the example of Theme Scheme, teachers work with their students to find the meaning of the story and connect it to a student’s real life moral dilemmas. In another example, an author and illustrator work with students to create stories that have personal meaning to them through text and art. Each of these activities helped to reinforce what was read while also helping the student connect the material with something that they could relate to.
These activities align with the constructivist interpretation of information processing theory outlined by Mayer (1996), which calls for “an active search for understanding in which incoming experience is reorganized and integrated with existing knowledge… in this view, processing is not a series of discrete algorithms executed in order, but rather a coordinated collection of processes aimed at making sense out of incoming experiences” (p. 156). Perception in terms of reading comprehension can be understood as helping to connect incoming information to the existing structure. As the student in the PowerPoint video notes, he understands what he is reading but he cannot recall it and synthesize it in any meaningful way. Asking students to actively make connections and latch on to reading selections and subjects that are most meaningful gives them an active area of interest that they can use to strengthen their connecting abilities.
References:
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors. Educational Psychologist, 31, 151-161.
PBS Video, “Reading for Meaning”
A portion of the third PowerPoint this week focused on the importance of attention and perception as factors that affect the sensory registers in the information processing theory. I was particularly interested in the brief video that was shown as part of this PowerPoint that featured a student who had trouble with reading comprehension, and decided to track down additional resources on reading comprehension and some of the tools that can be used to improve it. It seems like this is best accomplished through connecting reading experiences to ideas that are tangible and relatable for kids. This video, “Reading for Meaning,” highlights several classroom and community programs that are designed to help students improve their interest in reading as well as their reading comprehension.
For each approach, there is a reference to the way in which it helps students retain reading knowledge. The first program discussed, CORI, focuses on non-fiction reading as a means of getting students to ask their own questions and communicate about their reading with others. At one point, the teacher asked the student to interpret the actions of the town reacting to the tornado sirens. At another point, a student was asked to present the results of her independent reading on a topic related to the weather and answer questions from her fellow students. In addition to emphasizing the way in which information is perceived and internalized, this example also touches on the importance of meaningfulness. By exposing the student to the subject matter in a variety of different ways over a period of time as well as allowing the student to ask and answer their own questions within the subject matter, the student is able to make connections to the material. In the example of Theme Scheme, teachers work with their students to find the meaning of the story and connect it to a student’s real life moral dilemmas. In another example, an author and illustrator work with students to create stories that have personal meaning to them through text and art. Each of these activities helped to reinforce what was read while also helping the student connect the material with something that they could relate to.
These activities align with the constructivist interpretation of information processing theory outlined by Mayer (1996), which calls for “an active search for understanding in which incoming experience is reorganized and integrated with existing knowledge… in this view, processing is not a series of discrete algorithms executed in order, but rather a coordinated collection of processes aimed at making sense out of incoming experiences” (p. 156). Perception in terms of reading comprehension can be understood as helping to connect incoming information to the existing structure. As the student in the PowerPoint video notes, he understands what he is reading but he cannot recall it and synthesize it in any meaningful way. Asking students to actively make connections and latch on to reading selections and subjects that are most meaningful gives them an active area of interest that they can use to strengthen their connecting abilities.
References:
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learners as information processors. Educational Psychologist, 31, 151-161.
Module 3: Activity 3 - Learning Styles
Before I read this article by Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2009), I probably would have said that I am in favor of individualized instruction according to learning style. It makes sense to me that students should receive information in whatever way it can be processed most efficiently. But given the information presented in this article, it seems like there are still some issues in the research that need to be addressed before we wholeheartedly subscribe to the idea that there is "one best way" for students to receive information.
In their article “Learning styles: Concepts and evidence,” Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork (2009) investigate whether it is useful for schools to identify the learning styles of their students as a means of improving student performance. Pashler, et al (2009) describe the concept of learning styles as falling into two camps; learning styles as study preferences, and what they identify as the learning styles hypothesis. To investigate the importance of findings on learning styles, the authors employ a crossover interaction between learning style and method as their criteria. This type of interaction allows for each group to demonstrate which method is most effective (Pashler et al., 2009).
In reviewing the literature on aptitudes, aptitude by treatment, and personality by treatment for crossover interaction between learning styles, the authors were unable to find any studies that were well-constructed enough (given their criteria) to support the use of learning styles. This was primarily due to a lack of robust research methodology, and the authors encouraged further work involving random assignment and the examination of crossover interactions as a way to further investigate the use of learning styles in the classroom. Given the current research and findings, however, the authors do not see the benefit of the cost and time associated with the identification of student learning styles.
I am more inclined to align myself with the “study preferences” approach to learning styles. I do think that individuals may be more inclined to remember things if they are presented in a way that is their “preferred mode of taking in new information and studying” (Pashler, et al., 2009, p. 108). At the close of their article, Pashler, et al (2009) offer the following statement: “given the capacity of humans to learn, it seems especially important to keep all avenues, options, and aspirations open for our students, our children and ourselves. Toward that end, we think the primary focus should be on identifying and introducing the experiences, activities, and challenges that enhance everybody’s learning” (p. 117). Being exposed to information in a variety of different ways helps to build more connections and make the information stick. As James (1899/1962) notes, “the same thing recurring on different days, in different contexts, read, recited on, referred to again and again, related to other things and reviewed, gets well wrought into mental structures” (p. 64). In terms of information processing, I venture to guess that we all have our own methods that work best for us to “encode information;” however, sometimes receiving information in a novel way helps us to pay closer attention and gain a fresh perspective in a way that we might not have if we always received information in the same way.
References:
James, W. (1899/1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.
In reviewing the literature on aptitudes, aptitude by treatment, and personality by treatment for crossover interaction between learning styles, the authors were unable to find any studies that were well-constructed enough (given their criteria) to support the use of learning styles. This was primarily due to a lack of robust research methodology, and the authors encouraged further work involving random assignment and the examination of crossover interactions as a way to further investigate the use of learning styles in the classroom. Given the current research and findings, however, the authors do not see the benefit of the cost and time associated with the identification of student learning styles.
I am more inclined to align myself with the “study preferences” approach to learning styles. I do think that individuals may be more inclined to remember things if they are presented in a way that is their “preferred mode of taking in new information and studying” (Pashler, et al., 2009, p. 108). At the close of their article, Pashler, et al (2009) offer the following statement: “given the capacity of humans to learn, it seems especially important to keep all avenues, options, and aspirations open for our students, our children and ourselves. Toward that end, we think the primary focus should be on identifying and introducing the experiences, activities, and challenges that enhance everybody’s learning” (p. 117). Being exposed to information in a variety of different ways helps to build more connections and make the information stick. As James (1899/1962) notes, “the same thing recurring on different days, in different contexts, read, recited on, referred to again and again, related to other things and reviewed, gets well wrought into mental structures” (p. 64). In terms of information processing, I venture to guess that we all have our own methods that work best for us to “encode information;” however, sometimes receiving information in a novel way helps us to pay closer attention and gain a fresh perspective in a way that we might not have if we always received information in the same way.
References:
James, W. (1899/1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Module 2 Constructivism: Piaget & Vygotsky
Q1: Explain in your own words the principal contributions of Piaget's cognitive constructivist theory as a theory of learning. Make a list of questions you still have.
Perhaps the most important contribution of Piaget’s theory (as well as others discussed in this week’s readings) is the idea that education should help students to expand their understanding and categorization of the world by helping the student make connections between that which they know and that which they are in the process of learning. There are multiple ways in which individuals can come to an answer, and any one approach may not be the best approach for all students. Having students create their own paths to solution provides more information for the teacher in terms of their thought processes, levels of understanding and comprehension then simply mimicking the solution protocol outlined by the instructor.
Perhaps the most important contribution of Piaget’s theory (as well as others discussed in this week’s readings) is the idea that education should help students to expand their understanding and categorization of the world by helping the student make connections between that which they know and that which they are in the process of learning. There are multiple ways in which individuals can come to an answer, and any one approach may not be the best approach for all students. Having students create their own paths to solution provides more information for the teacher in terms of their thought processes, levels of understanding and comprehension then simply mimicking the solution protocol outlined by the instructor.
Introducing new concepts to the child helps them to think about previously learned concepts in relation to new ideas, and creates disequilibrium and motivation to incorporate this new knowledge. New information causes disequilibrium in the student, who then has the choice of assimilating that new information into an existing construct, or revising their existing construct to accommodate that new information. This concept gets at the nature of humans to seek out resolution to their questions. If a person is in a state of disequilibrium, then they will automatically want to find their balance again. Think about when a new concept really strikes you, and it forever changes how you view a particular idea or issue. This new outlook is a result of how individuals are able to modify our previously held ideas in order to accommodate this new information.
Duckworth (1996) notes that “the right question at the right time can move children to peaks in their thinking that result in significant steps forward and real intellectual excitement…children can raise the right question for themselves if the setting is right” (p. 6). This refers to the role of the teacher in introducing material at the appropriate stage for the student. For Piaget, it did not make sense to introduce concepts from the formal operations stages to students to were in the concrete operations stage, because they would not be able to grasp them.
Piaget’s developmental stages provide a framework through which instructors can get a general idea of a child’s understanding about the world. However, as Duckworth (1996) notes, it is important to note that these are “only norms, not universals” (p.3). Instead, the instructor should strive to understand concepts on the level of the individual child.
The biggest questions that remain for me relating to Piaget’s theory have to do with its practical applications in the classroom. For me, many of the ideas that Piaget has about the ways in which children think and how we can use that to nurture their learning make a lot of sense. However, I still have trouble figuring out how this could work in today’s educational system. How do you encourage children to adopt this questioning mentality in large classrooms that have a lot of variance in terms of individual development? How do we go about creating the right setting?
References:
Duckworth, E. (1996). "The Having of Wonderful Ideas" and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning.
Q4: Explain in your own words the principal contributions of Vygotsky's cognitive constructivist theory as a theory of learning and compare and contrast the work of Piaget and Vygotksy.
In many ways, Vygotsky’s cognitive constructivist theory picks up where Piaget’s left off. Wadsworth (1996) notes that Vygotsky’s work recognizes the social and cultural factors and the role that they play in cognitive development. Both Vygotsky and Piaget recognized the importance of culture in development, but Vygotsky saw this relationship as more interactionist and mutually reinforcing, while Piaget saw the influence of culture as a means of creating the necessary disequilibrium for development.
Both Piaget and Vygotsky agreed that learning was an active process on the part of the child, and that they alone were responsible for the ways in which they constructed their knowledge. One important distinction between these two theorists was the Piaget focused mostly on individual constructions, while Vygotsky focused on constructivism situated within culture (Wadsworth, 1996).
Another important distinction between Piaget and Vygostky was that Piaget believed that development and developmental stages prescribed learning, while Vygotsky believed that learning through interactions with the culture will promote additional learning, even if it is outside of the child’s zone of actual development (Wadsworth, 1996). This concept is evident in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development is the developmental area where the student can perform certain tasks with assistance. For Vygotsky, this type of learning was important in ushering a student from one developmental milestone to the next. Related to this concept is scaffolding, which consists of the process of guiding children through more complex tasks while preparing them to eventually perform these tasks on their own.
The best way for me to relate to Vygotsky’s theory is through the concept of cultural discourse. This can be taken literally (the language spoken and the way in which people communicate) as well as more theoretically in terms of the values and ideas that a culture subscribes to. Vygotsky’s theory fits well within this concept, as his theories on development call for the child to actively engage in the cultural discourse, and the primary role of the instructor is to aid in the transmission of cultural discourse from one generation to the next. “Cultures are very powerful, dynamic, changing things that exert a tremendous influence on each of us” (Coleridge, 2005, p. 261). Recognizing the importance of culture in the transmission of knowledge and information gives the instructor an additional lens through which to view the students thinking and internalization processes.
But how much weight should we give to culture in the educational process? Is it, as Piaget notes, merely providing information for the child to assimilate and accommodate accordingly, or is the relationship much more interactive? Children are being exposed to culture in many different ways than just a generation ago. In fact, there has been a sort of backlash (or at least, a push for more conscious awareness) or our “consumption” of information in our culture. I wonder how Vygotsky would react to these phenomena.
References:
Coleridge, S.T. (2005). Threee cognitive theories: Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky. In Lefrançois, G. R, Ed. Theories of human learning: What the old woman said. (5th ed.). Thomson.
Wadsworth, B.J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. New York: Longman Publishers USA.
Duckworth (1996) notes that “the right question at the right time can move children to peaks in their thinking that result in significant steps forward and real intellectual excitement…children can raise the right question for themselves if the setting is right” (p. 6). This refers to the role of the teacher in introducing material at the appropriate stage for the student. For Piaget, it did not make sense to introduce concepts from the formal operations stages to students to were in the concrete operations stage, because they would not be able to grasp them.
Piaget’s developmental stages provide a framework through which instructors can get a general idea of a child’s understanding about the world. However, as Duckworth (1996) notes, it is important to note that these are “only norms, not universals” (p.3). Instead, the instructor should strive to understand concepts on the level of the individual child.
The biggest questions that remain for me relating to Piaget’s theory have to do with its practical applications in the classroom. For me, many of the ideas that Piaget has about the ways in which children think and how we can use that to nurture their learning make a lot of sense. However, I still have trouble figuring out how this could work in today’s educational system. How do you encourage children to adopt this questioning mentality in large classrooms that have a lot of variance in terms of individual development? How do we go about creating the right setting?
References:
Duckworth, E. (1996). "The Having of Wonderful Ideas" and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning.
Q4: Explain in your own words the principal contributions of Vygotsky's cognitive constructivist theory as a theory of learning and compare and contrast the work of Piaget and Vygotksy.
In many ways, Vygotsky’s cognitive constructivist theory picks up where Piaget’s left off. Wadsworth (1996) notes that Vygotsky’s work recognizes the social and cultural factors and the role that they play in cognitive development. Both Vygotsky and Piaget recognized the importance of culture in development, but Vygotsky saw this relationship as more interactionist and mutually reinforcing, while Piaget saw the influence of culture as a means of creating the necessary disequilibrium for development.
Both Piaget and Vygotsky agreed that learning was an active process on the part of the child, and that they alone were responsible for the ways in which they constructed their knowledge. One important distinction between these two theorists was the Piaget focused mostly on individual constructions, while Vygotsky focused on constructivism situated within culture (Wadsworth, 1996).
Another important distinction between Piaget and Vygostky was that Piaget believed that development and developmental stages prescribed learning, while Vygotsky believed that learning through interactions with the culture will promote additional learning, even if it is outside of the child’s zone of actual development (Wadsworth, 1996). This concept is evident in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development is the developmental area where the student can perform certain tasks with assistance. For Vygotsky, this type of learning was important in ushering a student from one developmental milestone to the next. Related to this concept is scaffolding, which consists of the process of guiding children through more complex tasks while preparing them to eventually perform these tasks on their own.
The best way for me to relate to Vygotsky’s theory is through the concept of cultural discourse. This can be taken literally (the language spoken and the way in which people communicate) as well as more theoretically in terms of the values and ideas that a culture subscribes to. Vygotsky’s theory fits well within this concept, as his theories on development call for the child to actively engage in the cultural discourse, and the primary role of the instructor is to aid in the transmission of cultural discourse from one generation to the next. “Cultures are very powerful, dynamic, changing things that exert a tremendous influence on each of us” (Coleridge, 2005, p. 261). Recognizing the importance of culture in the transmission of knowledge and information gives the instructor an additional lens through which to view the students thinking and internalization processes.
But how much weight should we give to culture in the educational process? Is it, as Piaget notes, merely providing information for the child to assimilate and accommodate accordingly, or is the relationship much more interactive? Children are being exposed to culture in many different ways than just a generation ago. In fact, there has been a sort of backlash (or at least, a push for more conscious awareness) or our “consumption” of information in our culture. I wonder how Vygotsky would react to these phenomena.
References:
Coleridge, S.T. (2005). Threee cognitive theories: Bruner, Piaget, and Vygotsky. In Lefrançois, G. R, Ed. Theories of human learning: What the old woman said. (5th ed.). Thomson.
Wadsworth, B.J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. New York: Longman Publishers USA.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Module 2 - Constructivism: James, Piaget & Cognitive Development
William James (1899/1962) believed that there were opportune times for the acquisition of habit; “in children we observe a ripening of impulses and interests in a certain determinate order. Creeping, walking, climbing imitating vocal sounds, constructing, drawing, calculating, possess the child in succession” (p. 31). These skills roughly correlate to Piaget’s sensorimotor, preoperation, and concrete operations stages of development. Like James, Piaget believed that children progress through certain actions and levels of understanding at specific times in their life. Both James and Piaget also believed that timing was key in how concepts are introduced to the student. James noted the importance of timing in the intervention of teachers upon native reactions, “Many of our impulsive tendencies ripen at a certain period; and, if the appropriate objects be then and there provided, habits of conduct toward them are acquired which last” (James, 1899/1962, p. 31). Similarly Piaget believed that children were capable of certain developmental shifts and conceptual changes at specific times in their development (e.g., conservation tasks).
In his talks, James (1899/1962) also discussed the topic of constructiveness; “the more different kinds of things a child thus gets to know by treating and handling them, the more confident grows his sense of kinship with the world in which he lives” (p. 30). Piaget’s approach also endorses this idea, encouraging individuals to incorporate new ideas and concepts into their existing schema through assimilation and accommodation.
In his chapter on the acquisition of ideas, James (1899/1962) notes how students demonstrate understanding through their explanations of concepts in their own terms. Similarly, the children in this video demonstrate the difference in level of understanding between the preoperational and concrete operational stages through the concept of conservation. Sensitivity to a student’s developmental stage and their way of reasoning with the world will help the teacher to understand their progress and adjust their teaching accordingly; “the teacher’s art consists in bringing about the substitution or complication, and success in the art presupposes a sympathetic acquaintance with the reactive tendencies natively there” (James, 1899/1962, p. 20). Teachers should present information that is appropriate to the student’s developmental level. “Our education means, in short, little more than a mass of possibilities of reaction, acquired at home, at school, or in the training of affairs. The teacher’s task is that of supervising the acquiring process” (James 1899/1962, p. 20). In this sense, both James and Piaget saw the role of a teacher as a guide in the developmental process; however, there are some differences between these two scholars in terms of how guidance should be put into practice. James would likely encourage teachers to provide correction and model acquired reactions for the student, while Piaget would encourage the teacher to try and gain a better understanding of the concept as the child sees it.
References:
James, W. (1899/1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover.
In his talks, James (1899/1962) also discussed the topic of constructiveness; “the more different kinds of things a child thus gets to know by treating and handling them, the more confident grows his sense of kinship with the world in which he lives” (p. 30). Piaget’s approach also endorses this idea, encouraging individuals to incorporate new ideas and concepts into their existing schema through assimilation and accommodation.
In his chapter on the acquisition of ideas, James (1899/1962) notes how students demonstrate understanding through their explanations of concepts in their own terms. Similarly, the children in this video demonstrate the difference in level of understanding between the preoperational and concrete operational stages through the concept of conservation. Sensitivity to a student’s developmental stage and their way of reasoning with the world will help the teacher to understand their progress and adjust their teaching accordingly; “the teacher’s art consists in bringing about the substitution or complication, and success in the art presupposes a sympathetic acquaintance with the reactive tendencies natively there” (James, 1899/1962, p. 20). Teachers should present information that is appropriate to the student’s developmental level. “Our education means, in short, little more than a mass of possibilities of reaction, acquired at home, at school, or in the training of affairs. The teacher’s task is that of supervising the acquiring process” (James 1899/1962, p. 20). In this sense, both James and Piaget saw the role of a teacher as a guide in the developmental process; however, there are some differences between these two scholars in terms of how guidance should be put into practice. James would likely encourage teachers to provide correction and model acquired reactions for the student, while Piaget would encourage the teacher to try and gain a better understanding of the concept as the child sees it.
References:
James, W. (1899/1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover.
Module 2 - Constructivism: Vygotsky & Old-Fashioned Play
Unstructured play is very similar in a lot of ways to the constructivist approach to education. When children are creating tools out of everyday objects and inserting themselves into imaginary circumstances, they are beginning to make sense of the world on their own terms.
Vygotsky (1935/1978) notes “can it be doubted that children learn speech from adults; or that, through asking questions and giving answers, children acquire a variety of information; or that, through imitating adults and through being instructed about how to act, children develop an entire repository of skills?” (p. 84). Imaginative play is a way for these children to engage in the activities that they have observed grown ups participating in, and to test out their observations in a way that they understand.
Imaginative play allows the child to access their zone of proximal development with the help of their peers; “using imitation, children are capable of doing much more in collective activity or under the guidance of adults” (Vygotsky, 1935/1978, p. 88). By playing pretend games, children get the chance to try out things such as money exchange (when children play “store” for example) as well as incorporate understanding of concepts such as sharing, fairness, competition, and argumentation through their interactions with their peers. This creates shared understanding of these concepts. The games that children make up and the rules that accompany them allow children to explore rule making and consequences of their actions in such a way that prepares them to interact with rules and regulations in the real world.
If children are only given toys and resources for specific actions, then the opportunity for problem solving and exploration is lost to a certain extent. In his chapter on memory, James (1899/1962) notes; “paths frequently and recently ploughed are those that lie most open, those which may be expected most easily to lead to results.” If children are given only one way to approach something, whether in play or a complex math problem, you could say that they are forced into a pre-ploughed path or set of actions. If children are left to explore all options on their own, then they can better select the avenues that work best for them and devise alternative routes that they can explore if their first approach does not work. This skill becomes important when they need to tackle problems that are just beyond their level of understanding.
Developmentally, the issue of free and imaginative play could have an impact on the student’s actual developmental level and their zone of proximal development. As noted in the NPR segment, children are using less private speech in their play, a skill that has implications for both self-regulation and problem-solving skills. The implication of these findings is that children will be able to solve fewer and fewer problems and obtain a lesser understanding (as defined by the constructivist theory) than they were able to just a few generations ago. This also has implications for attention and persistence. According to Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, it is clear that the relative space between one’s actual developmental level and the level of problem solving that they can do with help is more narrow than it was when unstructured play was more prevalent in our culture.
References:
Vygotsky (1935/1978) notes “can it be doubted that children learn speech from adults; or that, through asking questions and giving answers, children acquire a variety of information; or that, through imitating adults and through being instructed about how to act, children develop an entire repository of skills?” (p. 84). Imaginative play is a way for these children to engage in the activities that they have observed grown ups participating in, and to test out their observations in a way that they understand.
Imaginative play allows the child to access their zone of proximal development with the help of their peers; “using imitation, children are capable of doing much more in collective activity or under the guidance of adults” (Vygotsky, 1935/1978, p. 88). By playing pretend games, children get the chance to try out things such as money exchange (when children play “store” for example) as well as incorporate understanding of concepts such as sharing, fairness, competition, and argumentation through their interactions with their peers. This creates shared understanding of these concepts. The games that children make up and the rules that accompany them allow children to explore rule making and consequences of their actions in such a way that prepares them to interact with rules and regulations in the real world.
If children are only given toys and resources for specific actions, then the opportunity for problem solving and exploration is lost to a certain extent. In his chapter on memory, James (1899/1962) notes; “paths frequently and recently ploughed are those that lie most open, those which may be expected most easily to lead to results.” If children are given only one way to approach something, whether in play or a complex math problem, you could say that they are forced into a pre-ploughed path or set of actions. If children are left to explore all options on their own, then they can better select the avenues that work best for them and devise alternative routes that they can explore if their first approach does not work. This skill becomes important when they need to tackle problems that are just beyond their level of understanding.
Developmentally, the issue of free and imaginative play could have an impact on the student’s actual developmental level and their zone of proximal development. As noted in the NPR segment, children are using less private speech in their play, a skill that has implications for both self-regulation and problem-solving skills. The implication of these findings is that children will be able to solve fewer and fewer problems and obtain a lesser understanding (as defined by the constructivist theory) than they were able to just a few generations ago. This also has implications for attention and persistence. According to Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, it is clear that the relative space between one’s actual developmental level and the level of problem solving that they can do with help is more narrow than it was when unstructured play was more prevalent in our culture.
References:
James, W. (1899/1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1935/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1935/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Module 2 - Constructivism: Illustrations of Constructivism (group activity #1)
Group post by Carly Germann, Chris Daniel, and Amanda Butz
These videos show two examples of a constructivist-based classroom. In the first video, we see how one might approach teaching elementary school students double column subtraction:
Constructivist Math Instruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Cx5HDOCwqE&feature=youtu.be
It is important to note a few interesting differentiations between the classroom method presented in the above video compared to other instructional methods.
The teacher has encouraged the students to immediately indicate their answer if called on and also if they agree with the answer provided by the one student who the teacher selected to provide the answer.
Students are encouraged, even expected to discuss and/or defend this answer in an open forum format.
At no time does the teacher provide the correct answer, and remains an open conduit for any student to explain his or her explanation as to how her or she arrived at an answer.
In the second video (divided into three sections), the teacher purposefully refrains from describing to her students the instructional goal of sorting objects (by size, color and shape) so that they may construct their own meaning with regard to these concepts. Please note the following practices the teacher presented in this video:
Constructivist lessons on colors, sizes and shapes:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR9LqmT0k-U
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxKtqDLNG6Y&feature=related
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDCOsDiemQM&feature=related
The teacher did not name the manipulables in these exercises. Rather, she merely called them objects.
The teacher created a yes/no chart by which she would list student suggestions as to the agreed upon activities with regard to the lesson.
As the students were in the process of sorting items into trays of "big" and "small" items, the teacher elicited the responses of students as to their thinking process as they categorized the objects.
Both of these videos exemplify some key constructivist concepts. Firstly, it is the teachers job to create experiences in which children should think for and spontaneously question and then correct themselves if it is necessary to do so. The process of arriving at an answer, comparing that to the answers of their peers and then re-evaluating the original answer according to constructivist views is tantamount to learning and possibly intellectual development.
Based on our discussion of constructivism and the videos we watched, we pose the following questions to the class:
With regard to the first mathematics video, the intractive process and "rules of order" for this class appeared to run seamlessly. However, we understand that they were practicing this method 6 months prior to taping. How might this really work in the classroom?
Relative to our nation's political landscape and the expectations of the citizenry with regard to learning, can constructivist methods harmonize with those based upon the practices of direct instruction and the standardized testing of which we all have become very accustomed?
With regard to the second video which depicted the students' construction of concepts related to colors, shapes and sizes, do you think actual learning is transpiring here? How might a teacher make this assessment? What if in the face of this more open model a student or group of students arrives at a construct which lies in disagreement of the intended learning outcome?
Module 2 - Constructivism: Theory to Practice (group activity #2)
Group blog post from Carly Germann, Chris Daniel, and Amanda Butz:
The instructional video that we reviewed can be found at the following link: http://timssvideo.com/45. It depicts a class of 8th graders who were learning about polygons. The instructor went over what polygons are, discussed the concepts of equilateral polygons and equiangular polygons, and showed how to find the sum of the interior angle of certain polygons.
In this video, there were several concepts that stem from the theory of behaviorism. The instructor had a deck of cards with each students' assigned number. He randomly pulled a number for each question that he asked, and that student had to come to the board and answer. This acted as a motivator or reinforcement to keep the students alert and ready to answer any question.
Another Skinnerian aspect of this instructional video was the method of asking questions, which acted as stimulus and response. The teacher posed a question (the stimulus) and the students provided an answer (the response). The teacher then gave immediate reinforcement by saying whether or not the answer was correct, and provided praise such as "Very good." This reinforced the students that they were succeeding, or provided the necessary feedback for how to achieve the correct answer.
The teacher used several Piagetian concepts in this video. First, he started off the lesson by allowing the students to draw any shape that they wanted to show their understanding of a polygon. He also asked them several times throughout the video to explain how they arrived at their answer. This ability for the students to explain how they constructed meaning is crucial for Piaget.
Another method that he used was to make the students discover their answers themselves rather than just providing the answer for them. For example, he did not just tell them that the sum of the interior angles of a four-sided figure was 360 degrees, instead he showed them how to break the figure down into shapes they knew how to manage. This allowed them to construct their own meaning about the problem.
Vygotskian concepts were also present in this video. He made sure to address the social nature of learning by asking the students to turn to their neighbor and discuss the problem at hand. Since culture is such an important factor for learning according to Vygotsky, addressing this in the classroom would further enhance development; the interaction between mentor and mentee allows for learning at a pace greater than what the mentee could accomplish alone.
Scaffolding as a Vygotskian concept underscores the frequent need for more involvement on the part of the mentor as new concepts are introduced. As learners become more familiar with new material, less involvement is necessary, thus the pedagogical scaffold is slowly removed. This allows learners to take ownership of the process of assimilating concepts in a more independent manner. An example of scaffolding in the video was when the teacher showed how to solve a problem with a four-sided figure. He then asked the students to solve the same problem with a five-sided figure. They probably would not have been able to solve the second problem on their own, but the example he provided allowed them to make the connection independently.
The instructional video that we reviewed can be found at the following link: http://timssvideo.com/45. It depicts a class of 8th graders who were learning about polygons. The instructor went over what polygons are, discussed the concepts of equilateral polygons and equiangular polygons, and showed how to find the sum of the interior angle of certain polygons.
In this video, there were several concepts that stem from the theory of behaviorism. The instructor had a deck of cards with each students' assigned number. He randomly pulled a number for each question that he asked, and that student had to come to the board and answer. This acted as a motivator or reinforcement to keep the students alert and ready to answer any question.
Another Skinnerian aspect of this instructional video was the method of asking questions, which acted as stimulus and response. The teacher posed a question (the stimulus) and the students provided an answer (the response). The teacher then gave immediate reinforcement by saying whether or not the answer was correct, and provided praise such as "Very good." This reinforced the students that they were succeeding, or provided the necessary feedback for how to achieve the correct answer.
The teacher used several Piagetian concepts in this video. First, he started off the lesson by allowing the students to draw any shape that they wanted to show their understanding of a polygon. He also asked them several times throughout the video to explain how they arrived at their answer. This ability for the students to explain how they constructed meaning is crucial for Piaget.
Another method that he used was to make the students discover their answers themselves rather than just providing the answer for them. For example, he did not just tell them that the sum of the interior angles of a four-sided figure was 360 degrees, instead he showed them how to break the figure down into shapes they knew how to manage. This allowed them to construct their own meaning about the problem.
Vygotskian concepts were also present in this video. He made sure to address the social nature of learning by asking the students to turn to their neighbor and discuss the problem at hand. Since culture is such an important factor for learning according to Vygotsky, addressing this in the classroom would further enhance development; the interaction between mentor and mentee allows for learning at a pace greater than what the mentee could accomplish alone.
Scaffolding as a Vygotskian concept underscores the frequent need for more involvement on the part of the mentor as new concepts are introduced. As learners become more familiar with new material, less involvement is necessary, thus the pedagogical scaffold is slowly removed. This allows learners to take ownership of the process of assimilating concepts in a more independent manner. An example of scaffolding in the video was when the teacher showed how to solve a problem with a four-sided figure. He then asked the students to solve the same problem with a five-sided figure. They probably would not have been able to solve the second problem on their own, but the example he provided allowed them to make the connection independently.
Personal Reflections
Overall, it was relatively easy to pick out theory within the context of the classroom situations. In our group discussion, it seemed like it was a lot easier to pinpoint instances of the behaviorist approach than it was to identify explicitly constructivist practices. Airasian and Walsh (1997) make the point that, “although instructional approaches are typically derived from such epistemologies, they are distinct from them” (p. 445). In other words, theory informs practice, but may not necessarily prescribe it. I wonder if our experience with this exercise is indicative of this difficulty in translating constructivist theories into practice? This exercise also made me consider the role of theory in teaching practice. Are these teachers consciously applying these theories in their classrooms? Does it matter if they know? Most teacher education programs would argue that it does. Theory serves as broader construct construct through which thoughts, behaviors, and actions can be interpreted. If we were to approach this teacher with our theoretical analysis of the approaches used in this lesson, would that somehow supplement or inform his teaching strategies in the future? References:
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E., (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Module 2 - Constructivism: Bart the Genius
Many aspects of the school depicted in the Simpson’s episode “Bart the Genius” exemplify the extreme oversimplification of constructivism that Airasian and Walsh discuss in their article. These oversimplifications can include no prescribed curriculum, unstructured learning, and students doing and learning what they want when they want. The guidance counselor refers to Bart’s new school as “a school without walls or rules.” Airasian and Walsh (1997) would be critical of this depiction of constructivism. They caution teachers; “do not believe that the opposite of ‘one right answer’ reductionism is ‘anything goes’ constructivism” (p. 488). While this dichotomous depiction of traditional versus constructivist education helps to draw a distinction between the two school environments in this episode, the true relationship between constructivism and education is much more complicated. Allowing a student to make up his or her own meaning does not necessarily mean that all learning is unstructured.
While the overall depiction is oversimplified, there are some examples of constructivism’s more practical applications in this episode as well. The instructor-led discussion of free will shows the constructivist approach of each student demonstrating their own understanding of free will and the concept of paradox. The teacher identifying herself as a “learning coordinator” also defines the constructivist role of the teacher as “to guide, not tell” (Arasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 448). Throughout the episode, the teacher is not providing the immediate reinforcement that we found in Skinner’s behaviorist approach; instead, she is merely providing a venue for the students to construct their own understanding. This is illustrated in the discussion mentioned above as well as the chemistry lesson where Bart is left to create his own solutions. He quickly learns (and will probably not soon forget) what happens when you mix an acid and a base.
Earlier in the episode, Bart is asked to visualize a math problem on his aptitude test. We see a very lively illustration of this math problem in Bart’s head, which demonstrates how Bart is thinking about the problem. This provides a good example for teachers of how some students may process their math problems. It is pretty obvious within a short period of time that Bart is not making sense of all the numbers in the problem, indicating that this type of problem is clearly outside of his actual development level. This information would be helpful to the instructor in trying to gauge whether or not this type of problem is within Bart’s zone of proximal development. This also illustrates the ability to “tell when children were seeing things differently” (Duckworth, 1996, p. 4). If this example had come up in the context of a class instead of a test, Bart’s teacher may have been able to better ascertain his level of understanding through his descriptions or depictions of the math problem.
For me, this is an area where a constructivist approach is especially helpful in the classroom. Having students explain a concept in their own words not only provides a means for assessing their level of understanding, but I think that it also promotes a deeper understanding of the material itself. Understanding a reading passage is one thing; being able to explain it in a way that those who have not read the passage are able to understand and connect to it is another, and requires a different level of understanding for the student.
References:
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E., (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.
Duckworth, E. (1996). "The Having of Wonderful Ideas" and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning.
While the overall depiction is oversimplified, there are some examples of constructivism’s more practical applications in this episode as well. The instructor-led discussion of free will shows the constructivist approach of each student demonstrating their own understanding of free will and the concept of paradox. The teacher identifying herself as a “learning coordinator” also defines the constructivist role of the teacher as “to guide, not tell” (Arasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 448). Throughout the episode, the teacher is not providing the immediate reinforcement that we found in Skinner’s behaviorist approach; instead, she is merely providing a venue for the students to construct their own understanding. This is illustrated in the discussion mentioned above as well as the chemistry lesson where Bart is left to create his own solutions. He quickly learns (and will probably not soon forget) what happens when you mix an acid and a base.
Earlier in the episode, Bart is asked to visualize a math problem on his aptitude test. We see a very lively illustration of this math problem in Bart’s head, which demonstrates how Bart is thinking about the problem. This provides a good example for teachers of how some students may process their math problems. It is pretty obvious within a short period of time that Bart is not making sense of all the numbers in the problem, indicating that this type of problem is clearly outside of his actual development level. This information would be helpful to the instructor in trying to gauge whether or not this type of problem is within Bart’s zone of proximal development. This also illustrates the ability to “tell when children were seeing things differently” (Duckworth, 1996, p. 4). If this example had come up in the context of a class instead of a test, Bart’s teacher may have been able to better ascertain his level of understanding through his descriptions or depictions of the math problem.
For me, this is an area where a constructivist approach is especially helpful in the classroom. Having students explain a concept in their own words not only provides a means for assessing their level of understanding, but I think that it also promotes a deeper understanding of the material itself. Understanding a reading passage is one thing; being able to explain it in a way that those who have not read the passage are able to understand and connect to it is another, and requires a different level of understanding for the student.
References:
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E., (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444-449.
Duckworth, E. (1996). "The Having of Wonderful Ideas" and Other Essays on Teaching and Learning.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Module 1: Behaviorism
As James (1962) notes in his chapter on native reactions and acquired reactions, “you may take a child to the schoolroom, but you cannot make him learn the new things you wish to impart, except by soliciting him in the first instance by something which natively makes him react” (p. 20). This idea is connected to behaviorism in terms of how the teacher analyzes the child’s native behavior as a means of determining how it must be modified to elicit the desired response in the form of habits and acquired reactions.
Perhaps one of the more important goals of behaviorism is the automation of many of our behaviors through the formation of habits and further refining of our unconscious reactions. Bargh and Chartrand (1999) note that this automation is necessary in order to free up our minds for other tasks that require conscious thought and decision. As we continue to learn, further automation makes processes that once required much thought and energy more effortless, which then allows us to dedicate that energy to higher level functioning. This concept of automation can be difficult to accept, especially when you consider it in terms of measures like the Implicit Associations Test, which can demonstrate the unconscious biases we have developed as a result of these automations over time. No one wants to admit they are biased, but at the same time, we cannot deny that automation is a necessary fact of life. Without it, many of the everyday tasks that we take for granted would leave us mentally exhausted.
Skinner’s work on behaviorism has continued to influence the field of education and our conceptions of learning, through his development of “teaching machines.” Skinner saw teaching machines as a way in which teachers could put more focus on their student’s learning at the individual level. As Skinner (1984) notes, “no teacher can teach a class of 30 or 40 students and allow each to progress at an optimal speed” (p. 951). Yet this is exactly the situation that most teachers find themselves in. Having just spent the past few weeks administering surveys in elementary and middle school classes, I observed firsthand that students within the same grade level and even within the same class could have drastically different levels of understanding of reading and math concepts, as well as different levels of reading comprehension. When reading the survey aloud, it was challenging at times to find a pace that was fast enough for the majority of the class, but also did not leave several students frantically scrambling to catch up. I can only imagine that this situation is even more difficult when trying to teach concepts to those same students.
Watching the video about School of One provided a current and interesting example of how Skinner’s concept of individually paced instruction and assessment could work in a public school setting. However, how easy would it be to secure the funding and resources necessary to revamp all schools to work in this way? While some school districts might be eager to latch on to this idea, generally speaking, the slow speed at which education catches up to innovation that Skinner mentions in his article is still prevalent today, and such implementations may be impractical on a large scale.
Skinner (1984) also makes the point that the efficiency of teaching machines will allow for students to learn more in less time and perhaps even reach high school and college at earlier ages. While this is entirely possible, is it in the best interest of the student? This reminded me of an article by Pinker (2002) which discussed the role of parenting in development. In his article, Pinker (2002) notes that deprivation of stimuli is harmful, but that does not necessarily mean that extra stimulation is even better in terms of furthering childhood development (p. 387). Similarly, slowing the advancement of students for the sake of other students may not be good for their development, but advancing for the sake of advancing will not necessarily provide any extra benefits, either. Children are being encouraged (and perhaps even pressured) by society to learn things at an increasingly early age, and the onslaught of educational toys and video games being advertised to children and parents make it seem like if we do not increase the amount of learning, particularly in early childhood, that these children will be behind the curve. I do think that it is important for parents to model a balance for their kids. Just because we can fit more information into the school day does not mean that we should. While I like the idea of more efficient learning, I do not think that this should lead to earlier introduction to adulthood for children, simply because they have completed their education earlier than the previous generation. Perhaps the extra time could be used to reintroduce physical education and the arts back into school curriculum.
Another area of education where behaviorism’s influence can be seen is in the area of punishments and rewards. You can see the various ways in which behavior is reinforced and punished as a means of maintaining control and student interest when you visit different teacher’s classrooms. Each teacher uses these tools of reinforcement and punishment (both positive and negative) in different ways. The articles written by Chance (1992, 1993) and Kohn (1993) provide an interesting look at the pros and cons of the use of rewards in learning. I am inclined to agree with Chance that some sort of reinforcement is necessary in order to maintain student motivation and interest. Chance sees the use of rewards and reinforcement as a way of providing continuous feedback to the student, not necessarily in the form of grades, but certainly as a means of measuring progress towards mastery. However, all rewards are not created equal. The most effective rewards are success contingent, meaning that they reflect “success or progress toward a goal” (Chance, 1993, p. 119). Conversely, Kohn (1993) argues that rewards “can never buy us anything more than short-term compliance” (p. 122). It is difficult for me to take a definitive side on this issue. While I agree with Chance that success contingent rewards are probably the more effective type of rewards in that they reward effort and progress, I could think of examples of other types of rewards being used in the classroom as well, and can understand Kohn’s wariness of relying upon rewards too much as a means of reinforcing behaviors.
Overall, the concepts of behaviorism and habit, outlined by our activities this week and in James’ Talks to Teachers provide a glimpse of just how important education is in maintaining and changing our culture. If we subscribe to the behavioral approach to education, then we are accepting the fact that the reinforcements provided by teachers during the educational process set the stage for the types of behaviors and reactions that students will have in the future. If a student continually has negative experiences with math through their interactions with the material and the subsequent instructor reactions, then this will likely shape how they approach math for the rest of their life. Similarly, the social behaviors taught and reinforced in school will also carry that student through the transition to adult life. The role of the parent or teacher in this approach to is to be the transmitter of ideas and culture, reinforcing the “correct” response through rewards and opportunities to acquire and exercise the correct reaction.
References:
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 4, 462-479.
Chance, P. (1992). The rewards of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 200-207.
Chance, P. (1993). Sticking up for rewards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 787-790.
James, W. (1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1899)
Kohn, A. (1993). Rewards versus learning: A response to Paul Chance. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 783-787.
Pinker, S. (2002). Children. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 42, 947-954.
Perhaps one of the more important goals of behaviorism is the automation of many of our behaviors through the formation of habits and further refining of our unconscious reactions. Bargh and Chartrand (1999) note that this automation is necessary in order to free up our minds for other tasks that require conscious thought and decision. As we continue to learn, further automation makes processes that once required much thought and energy more effortless, which then allows us to dedicate that energy to higher level functioning. This concept of automation can be difficult to accept, especially when you consider it in terms of measures like the Implicit Associations Test, which can demonstrate the unconscious biases we have developed as a result of these automations over time. No one wants to admit they are biased, but at the same time, we cannot deny that automation is a necessary fact of life. Without it, many of the everyday tasks that we take for granted would leave us mentally exhausted.
Skinner’s work on behaviorism has continued to influence the field of education and our conceptions of learning, through his development of “teaching machines.” Skinner saw teaching machines as a way in which teachers could put more focus on their student’s learning at the individual level. As Skinner (1984) notes, “no teacher can teach a class of 30 or 40 students and allow each to progress at an optimal speed” (p. 951). Yet this is exactly the situation that most teachers find themselves in. Having just spent the past few weeks administering surveys in elementary and middle school classes, I observed firsthand that students within the same grade level and even within the same class could have drastically different levels of understanding of reading and math concepts, as well as different levels of reading comprehension. When reading the survey aloud, it was challenging at times to find a pace that was fast enough for the majority of the class, but also did not leave several students frantically scrambling to catch up. I can only imagine that this situation is even more difficult when trying to teach concepts to those same students.
Watching the video about School of One provided a current and interesting example of how Skinner’s concept of individually paced instruction and assessment could work in a public school setting. However, how easy would it be to secure the funding and resources necessary to revamp all schools to work in this way? While some school districts might be eager to latch on to this idea, generally speaking, the slow speed at which education catches up to innovation that Skinner mentions in his article is still prevalent today, and such implementations may be impractical on a large scale.
Skinner (1984) also makes the point that the efficiency of teaching machines will allow for students to learn more in less time and perhaps even reach high school and college at earlier ages. While this is entirely possible, is it in the best interest of the student? This reminded me of an article by Pinker (2002) which discussed the role of parenting in development. In his article, Pinker (2002) notes that deprivation of stimuli is harmful, but that does not necessarily mean that extra stimulation is even better in terms of furthering childhood development (p. 387). Similarly, slowing the advancement of students for the sake of other students may not be good for their development, but advancing for the sake of advancing will not necessarily provide any extra benefits, either. Children are being encouraged (and perhaps even pressured) by society to learn things at an increasingly early age, and the onslaught of educational toys and video games being advertised to children and parents make it seem like if we do not increase the amount of learning, particularly in early childhood, that these children will be behind the curve. I do think that it is important for parents to model a balance for their kids. Just because we can fit more information into the school day does not mean that we should. While I like the idea of more efficient learning, I do not think that this should lead to earlier introduction to adulthood for children, simply because they have completed their education earlier than the previous generation. Perhaps the extra time could be used to reintroduce physical education and the arts back into school curriculum.
Another area of education where behaviorism’s influence can be seen is in the area of punishments and rewards. You can see the various ways in which behavior is reinforced and punished as a means of maintaining control and student interest when you visit different teacher’s classrooms. Each teacher uses these tools of reinforcement and punishment (both positive and negative) in different ways. The articles written by Chance (1992, 1993) and Kohn (1993) provide an interesting look at the pros and cons of the use of rewards in learning. I am inclined to agree with Chance that some sort of reinforcement is necessary in order to maintain student motivation and interest. Chance sees the use of rewards and reinforcement as a way of providing continuous feedback to the student, not necessarily in the form of grades, but certainly as a means of measuring progress towards mastery. However, all rewards are not created equal. The most effective rewards are success contingent, meaning that they reflect “success or progress toward a goal” (Chance, 1993, p. 119). Conversely, Kohn (1993) argues that rewards “can never buy us anything more than short-term compliance” (p. 122). It is difficult for me to take a definitive side on this issue. While I agree with Chance that success contingent rewards are probably the more effective type of rewards in that they reward effort and progress, I could think of examples of other types of rewards being used in the classroom as well, and can understand Kohn’s wariness of relying upon rewards too much as a means of reinforcing behaviors.
Overall, the concepts of behaviorism and habit, outlined by our activities this week and in James’ Talks to Teachers provide a glimpse of just how important education is in maintaining and changing our culture. If we subscribe to the behavioral approach to education, then we are accepting the fact that the reinforcements provided by teachers during the educational process set the stage for the types of behaviors and reactions that students will have in the future. If a student continually has negative experiences with math through their interactions with the material and the subsequent instructor reactions, then this will likely shape how they approach math for the rest of their life. Similarly, the social behaviors taught and reinforced in school will also carry that student through the transition to adult life. The role of the parent or teacher in this approach to is to be the transmitter of ideas and culture, reinforcing the “correct” response through rewards and opportunities to acquire and exercise the correct reaction.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 4, 462-479.
Chance, P. (1992). The rewards of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 200-207.
Chance, P. (1993). Sticking up for rewards. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 787-790.
James, W. (1962). Talks to teachers on psychology and to students on some of life's ideals. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1899)
Kohn, A. (1993). Rewards versus learning: A response to Paul Chance. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 783-787.
Pinker, S. (2002). Children. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 42, 947-954.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)