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.
No comments:
Post a Comment