Weekly Response #8 for EDP 610 (Mar. 29)

R8

Question: Do stereotypes serve as an impediment or an impetus for exploring the reality of the world in which we live?  How should we, as educators, understand the role of stereotypes?

       According to Pinker (2002), naïve realism supposes that “we just see things as they are” (p. 199), which places much credit on people’s perceptual and cognitive ability to explore reality, and indicates that the world we perceive is the real world.  Pinker (2002) uses the visual illustration phenomenon and a gestalt-type experiment as evidence to disprove naïve realism and the disconnection between reality and mind.  This philosophical argument is insightful and illuminating, which reminds me the perspective of philosopher Karl Marx, who wrote that “the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought” (Marx, 1999, p. 14).  I agree that our mind and the material world are closely connected, and the function of our brains is to reflect the material as closely as possible, although sometimes with mistakes.  As Pinker stated “the brain evolved … to keep us in touch with aspects of reality that were relevant to the survival and reproduction of our ancestors” (Pinker, 2002, p. 201).  However, I do not agree with Karl Marx that our thought is purely equal to the reflection of the material world, because he dismissed the influence of “past experiences and education” (James, 1962, p. 7). The existence of stereotypes proves that what we perceive might not reflect reality, and may even mislead our action in the world.

       First impressions are typical examples of stereotype.  When we first meet a person, the information we perceive is limited:  race, gender, age, and appearance.  Our brains attempt to picture a whole image of the person, but without sufficient related information, what do our brains do?  We are inclined to recall our past experiences including impressions of former friends with similar backgrounds, or similar types of people from media, educational, or other sources.  We then complete the new image for this strange person in order to comfort our cognitive dissonance.  A new or strange objective would probably be ignored, especially by adults (James, 1962).  This seemingly complicated procedure of forming first impressions of a stranger happens in a second.  It is not realistic to expect this procedure to be perfect.  The information we recalled from former experiences and knowledge is likely not at all true for this stranger.  My first impression of persons with white hair as elderly or frail might not be accurate for someone in poor health or with dyed hair.  Sometimes, young people rinse their hair to white, and elderly people can be strong.  Therefore, the notion that what we see is how things really are, or that people’s thoughts reflect the reality, is not tenable.

       Pinker pointed out that “the partial accuracy of many stereotypes does not… mean that racism, sexism and ethnic prejudice are acceptable” (p. 205) and “the good news is that when the facts do change, people’s stereotypes can change with them” (p. 206).  For example, girls are traditionally viewed as poorer performers in math and science than boys.  This stereotype will be changed when more women’s achievements in science and math have been recognized.  However, as contemporary educators, we have a responsibility to do more than change perspectives as facts become known.  We need to change perceptions through efforts to overcoming stereotypes through education, by treating students as individuals, and by providing equal opportunities in all settings.

Marx, K. (1999). Capital, A Critique of Political Economy Vol. Volume I: The Process of Production of Capital.   Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

Answers for Module 5

Q1: 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. Make a list of questions you still have and discuss them with your partner. Send me an email if you need more clarification.

Vygotsky and Piaget both as constructivist share basic ideas about learning.  They believe the existence of minds which work between behaviors and environments.  Children construct the meaning of knowledge in their mind base on their developmental levels and interaction with environments.  They both agree that children have their own learning progress based on their cognitive development and children’s learning interests should be respected.  Hence, learners rather than teachers are the center of learning.

However, they have different view about the procedure of meaning construction.  According to Piaget, children construct their meaning in an independent way in which children discover and explore the world in their own pace; whereas, Vygotsky believes that social and cultural interaction between adults and children results in cognitive development.  Vygotsky points out that from current cognitive level to potential cognitive level is the zone of proximal development, in which teachers’ scaffoldings play important roles.  Compare to independent thinking, Vygotsky cherish assisted learning more.

Vygotsky and Piaget also disagree with each other on the relationship between learning and development.  From the viewpoint of Piaget, learning and development are two independent procedures.  Learning builds on development, which is mainly decided by children themselves.  Vygotsky raises different ideas.  He believes that learning is the cause of development.  During learning, children interact not only with the objective world or environment, but also with the adult and peers around them.  It is the learning and facilitation from others help children improve their current cognitive level to potential level. 

Vygotsky also stress the importance of language.  He argues that private speeches develop into cognition.  But Piaget deems that private speech will be replaced by social speech and it is cognition controls language.

Q2: What connections do you see between this article and the chapter you read by Lev Vygotsky?

The first connection I considered is how social and cultural factors influence children’s development levels.  The changes of play in people’s mind from activities to toys in the past decades are due to social and cultural changes.  Because of the well-made advertisement, new types of toys began to be accepted gradually.  Correspondingly, children’s learning development and styles changed.  Although Piaget stresses the interaction between children and environments, children’s independent roles are more important in Piaget’s theory and the four developmental stages are relatively general.  However, the changes of cognitive and emotional development in children shown in this article tell us that children or human’s learning cannot be fully understood without considering the social, cultural and historical factors.

Another connection is the importance of play, or more precisely, activities in which children involved.  Those unstructured or free activities are beneficial for children’s private speeches.  It is believed that private speech would develop into cognition based on Vygotsky.  In this article, the authors mentioned that children losing opportunities to control and regulate their behaviors because when playing highly structured  games they need less private speech than playing unstructured games.

Q3: How are Bruner's ideas (as stated here and in the excerpt you read from Culture in Education) related to those of the other two constructivist theorists we've read (i.e., Piaget and Vygotsky)? 

Bruner believes that we can never know how the world really is (which I suspect) and we construct meaning of the world in our mind, which I believe is the shared fundamental philosophy underlying constructivism.  Bruner’s viewpoints of how children develop conceptual structure in their mind from specific concepts towards abstract are similar to Piagets’ opinion about the process of adaptation.  Bruner states the importance of interests and exploratory learning of children, which takes the same position with other tow constructivist, Piaget and Vygotsky.  Similar to Piaget, Bruner’s theory are influenced by evolution theory deeply.  Further, Bruner stresses the role of culture in education, by which he means a broad definition of culture.  He believes that not only the general culture differences among nations, but also the classroom, family, and community culture would influence children’s cognitive development differently.  This part of idea is similar to Vygotsky’s social-historical cognitive theory.

Weekly Response #8 for EDP 610

R8

Question:  What do we learn from the debate of whether learning in certain disciplines or in certain contexts could be transferred to other disciplines or contexts successfully?  

Vygotsky (1978) introduces two contradictory perspectives on “an old pedagogical problem, that of formal discipline and the problem of transfer” (p. 81).  Transfer is a sign of the development of abilities.  According to Thorndike, “the development of one particular capability seldom means the development of others” (p. 82).  Another perspective is that learning is not constrained to specific skills or habits, but rather is mutually dependent on the general development of ability.  Hence, learning on certain subjects can improve the general ability of children, which makes transfer more possible.

Instead of advocating for one of these two perspectives, I insist that they both have advantages and are not mutually exclusive.  James (1962) holds a similar position as Thorndike’s about the limitation of transfer.  They both argue that learning and development are synonymous.  Consequently, learning specific subjects means development on the same subjects.  James points out that memories, as a part of faculty, of facts that are new but associated with existing ones can be improved by expanding and strengthening the associated knowledge system for the same type of facts.  However, new facts that have little association with the existing system cannot take advantage of expanded memory capabilities.  The exception is “special training affects overall development only when its elements, material, and processes are similar across specific domains” (Vygotsky, p. 83).  A friend of mine in middle school could recite the periodical table of elements perfectly, but had difficulty determining the position of countries on a map because he had little interests in geography.  This example illustrates that the transfer of memory or other abilities does not happen automatically.  In addition to the similarities and associations among different subjects, students’ interests and efforts also influence the results of transfer.

Koffka’s (1978) opinion that the circle of development is larger than and embodies the circle of learning is also appealing to me.  According to Koffka, the child “while learning a particular operation, acquires the ability to create structures of a certain type” (p. 83), which is a more general process than the specific operation.  Math learning would help children to develop logical thinking abilities.  In order to answer a geometric proof question, students need to observe the existing graphs, identify the problems, search the related theorem in their knowledge system, and then deduce the question step by step.  This procedure is a good way for students to practice reasoning and deduction.  Because the use of the thinking abilities from known to unknown concepts is widely practiced, the successful transfer of logical thinking from math problems to physics, chemistry, or other science subjects would be expected.

As we have discussed, the underlying theories of the relationship between learning and development deeply influence educational psychologists’ perspectives about transfer of learning.  Vygotsky provides another theory to clarify this phenomenon.  Vygotsky states that “the developmental processes lags behind the learning process; this sequence then results in zones of proximal development” (p. 90).  Due to controversy in the belief in general abilities, we can hardly reach a consensus about transfer, but it has been shown that transfer could happen at least in related contexts.  Based on Vygotsky’s theory, learning promotes the development of abilities in a complex way.  As facilitators for learning, teachers need to help  students find as much association as possible among different subjects, thereby promoting increased transfer  and benefiting the growth of students’ zone of proximal development.

Answers for Module 4

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.

It is for sure that the core of Piaget’s theory is focusing on genetic epistemology, which is about the basic mechanisms of cognitive development.  However, his theory as a theory of learning is also influential on education.

Firstly, the basic research and experiments on cognitive development in Piaget’s theory provides resources for people to understand the fundamental rules of children’s learning, memory, reasoning, and logic thinking.

Secondly, Piaget view that “intellectual acts” are “acts of organization of and adaption to the environment” (Wadworth, 1996, p. 13), and children are born with no storage of knowledge.  These points indicate that the attainment of knowledge of children is a procedure during which children keep interaction with the environment in that they live.  This does not only explain the differences between children’s intellectual development in some extent, but what is more important is to remind educators that building an active and effective interaction is essential in education.  Besides, children are active learners in constructing knowledge structures; hence, their subjective initiative should be encouraged during the interaction with environments.

Thirdly, children’s learning was constrained by their current level of cognitive development, which means their position in the four sequential stages.   When children are ready for learning some concepts by reaching certain stages, a well-organized and logic instruction manner is essential in teaching new concepts and the process of assimilation and accommodation of children.

At last, children are active learners.  Their curiosity, interests, and maturation are the forces motive them to learn.  The status of disequilibrium in children’s mind, and their will to discover and explore the world are also part of students learning motivation.  By utilizing and channeling students’ motivation, the production of instruction and learning could be enhanced.

Q2: Make a connection between Piaget's stages of development and what James argued the teacher should know about cognitive development.

“Piaget believed that development progresses through a series of stages, each characterized by the development of new abilities or, more precisely, each consisting of a more advanced level of adaptation” (Lefrancois, 2005, p. 243).  James (1962) states similar points with Piaget.  Constructiveness is one part of native reaction according to James.  It is said that from children at eight or nine years old begin to “handle objects, explore things” with hands, “doing and undoing”, which are ways to “construction and destruction” (p. 30).  Although James and Piaget do not share exactly the same definition of construction, they both believe that constructing the knowledge structure or the process of constructiveness is helping children to adapt to the world in which they live.  James also pointed that “objective-training” and construction could bring more “durable and profound” impression (p. 30).  James also foreshadowed that the process of education is “nothing but the process of acquiring ideas or conceptions”.  James suggested that children in different age are ready for different types of conceptions.  Although James did not categorizing specific stages precisely, his basic idea that providing children the proper materials for their ages when they are ready is basically the same with Piaget’s.  And James further wrote that learning from books or verbally is not the only way or best way.  Feeding children through experiences is not wasting time but a way to motive children if using correctly.  James also emphasized that reproduction or recitation of abstract words do not mean successful education, the meaning under that words in children’s mind should be paid more attention.

Q3: What would authors Airasian and Walsh have to say about the learning environment in which Bart was placed?  Is this an example of constructivism? What are your own thoughts about constructivism as a theory of learning so far?

I believe the special school Bart went in that video is a good example of constructivism.  There is no common rule in this classroom except every student learns in his own pace.  No exams, homework or required readings from teachers, literally.  (The exception is animate books are throw into trash can.)  I guess Airasian and Walsh would describe that this special school make constructivism relatively manageable.  The teacher in that classroom does not use “one right answer” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p.448) to require all students and students’ answers are all praised.  Bart’s answer of paradox and his little chemistry experiment are respected even the teacher knows there are problems in his ideas.  Hence, Airasian and Walsh would also argue that the application of constructivism is difficult.  Firstly, Bart is not intellectually ready for the type of learning without tradition teaching from teachers; secondly, Bart has not learned how to perform in a brand new constructivism classroom, in which searching for right answers is not appropriate and thinking in his own way is encouraged.  Airasian and Walsh would suggest that time is needed for both teachers and students when they are requiring transforming from traditional classroom for a regular student. 

 Constructivism is an appealing and encouraging theory in the interpretation of how children learn and how they develop cognitively.  Some general laws are provided by constructivism and teachers’ comprehension of these law would be beneficial for them to understand and sympathy the feeling of children.  However, its application seems still having a long way to go.

Weekly Response #7 for EDP 610

R 7

Question: what are the similarities between the thoughts of Piaget and James? How do we incorporate constructivism into traditional instructional approaches?

            Piaget viewed “intellectual acts as acts of organization of and adaptation to the environment” (Wadsworth, 1996, p. 13).  In his assertion, Piaget incorporated both biological and environmental influences on the development of people’s minds, which is one of the differences between constructivism and behaviorism.  Behaviorists treat persons like machines that respond to the environment.  Differently, Piaget’s viewpoint is similar to James’.  James (1962) stated that “man…is primarily a practical being, whose mind is given him aid in adapting him to this world’s life” (p. 12).   I agree with Piaget and James because people do not only respond to the environment passively, but more importantly, are gradually changing the world in the direction for which they hope.  Hence, the concept “adaption” is more precise in this sense to describe the relation between people and the world in which they live.

            One focus of Piaget’s genetic epistemology is to explore “the science of how knowledge is acquired.”  In chapter one of Wadsworth’s book, the answer for this question is simply presented.  New schemas are built in the process of assimilation and accommodation, which are the two main approaches for the adaption process.  The balance between assimilation and accommodation form a state called equilibrium.  An unbalanced state (disequilibrium) motivates people to learn new knowledge.  When I first learned algebra, I felt uncomfortable solving calculation questions because the letters (i.e. a, b, …, x, y, z) matched neither my previous knowledge structure for calculations nor my knowledge structure for letters that only represent the pronunciation of  Chinese characters.  In this state of disequilibrium, I failed to fit this new information into my existing schema (i.e. assimilation), so I had to modify my old schema (i.e. accommodation) in order to let the new function of letters create a new equilibrium.  In the procedure from unbalanced to balanced state, my knowledge of math was being expanded. 

            Piaget’s idea of schema building has some similarities with James’ thought about the development of acquired reaction.  James (1962) argued that “every acquired reaction is, as a rule, either a complication grafted on a native reaction, or a substitute for a native reaction which the same object originally tended to provoke” (p. 20).  They both agreed that new knowledge is based on prior cognitive structures.  At the same time, James’ association of ideas could also be employed in Piaget’s epistemology.  Constructing a strong and habitual association is building a schema in people’s minds.

             I believe the concepts and tenets of Piaget could explain how children acquire their knowledge in some subjects like math, physics, and chemistry.  One thing we learned from Piaget is that children can learn initiatively as long as they realize their unbalanced situation and can find a way to reach a new balance.  However, as Airasian and Malsh (1997) reminded, the progress for each student could vary significantly.  When teachers try to apply the principles of genetic epistemology into classrooms with twenty or thirty students, their instruction and students’ learning might not be easy to control.   My opinion is that for teaching regular students with limited educational resources, some basic principles are sufficient for teachers.  For example, the understanding that each student constructs knowledge system in their own way would help teachers be more considerable and stop requiring all students to reach the same level of content when subject matter is taught in a traditional manner.  The application of constructivism might be more appropriate for special education because of the smaller class sizes and a more flexible evaluation system.