Posted Date: July 8, 2013 6:07 PM
Subject: Constructivism
Philip,
It seems to me that reflection is very much part of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework. The abilities to analyze and synthesize, which he says are key to the development of basic concepts, require metacognition and reflection as do the abilities to evaluate or create.
Von Glaserfeld (2008) describes it this way, “The child, to put in another way, must interpret the task and try to construct a solution by using the material she already has. That material cannot be anything but the conceptual building blocks and operations that the particular child has assembled in her own prior experience” (p. 45).
Vygotsky (2004) says, “The brain is not only the organ that stores and retrieves our previous experience, it is also the organ that combines and creatively reworks elements of this past experience and uses them to generate new propositions and new behaviour” (p. 9).
In other words the child builds a response using building block they have created themselves from previous experience. They must decide which ones to use and which ones to discard. This requires reflection.
I think our view of reflection is very narrow and we forget it follows a course of development. Vogotsky (1966) states, “(A young child) plays with out realizing the motives of the play activity…motives, actions, and incentives belong to a more abstract sphere and only become accessible to the consciousness at the transitional age. Only an adolescent can clearly account to himself the reason for which he does this or that” (p. 8). This focus on verbal explanation is a criticism that has been leveled at Piaget’s approach to measuring development in children. Von Glasersfeld (2008) also reminds us to consider the “underlying process of linguistic communication” (p. 35) that permeates education. Just like “saying things is not enough to ‘get them across'”, not begin able to describe something does not mean it has not been reflected upon and learned.
And now my true-life example…
A child runs down a darkened hallway and activates an overhead light through its motion detector. The child then spends an hour adjusting and narrowing the range of run required to trip the switch. By the end, the run had become a minimalist lean. Leaning into the motion detector’s field was all the child needed to do to turn on the light. Clearly the child was in the cycle of reflection: hypothesizing, experimenting, and evaluating. The problem? The child could not explain what and why he was doing…probably because he was only eighteen months old!
References
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49. Retrieved from http://anti-matters.org/articles/73/public/73-66-1-PB.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. (Translator Unknown) Soviet Psychology, 12(6), 62-76. Retrieved from http://www.eslov.se/download/18.1bd776c3136a58d5d74800018340/Vygotsky+Play++Its+Role+in+Mental+Development+of+the+Child.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. (M. E. Sharpe, Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology: 42(1), 7-97. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2008_03.dir/att-0189/Vygotsky__Imag___Creat_in_Childhood.pdf
Subject: A Sneak Peek
Given the discussion focus on physical education, I thought I’d write a bit more about the brain, mind, body connection I mentioned earlier. I think we are more comfortable with the idea of constructing and building in physical tasks. We understand that in physical activities we develop physically. We develop the ability to make sense of the environment and produce an organized response. Through coaching and practice we develop stamina, strength, control, coordination, and technique. We physically build, develop and construct our bodies and accept we are constructing the neuropathways and constructs that make all of this this possible.
However, we seem to forget this when we talk about a “mental” activity like multiplication or writing. These activities require us to make sense of and respond to the environment. They require stamina, strength, control, coordination, and technique all of which build and are reflected in our neurology. Learning to hit a target with a ball is a mental and physical task – so is long division. When we construct knowledge it is more than metaphorical – we are physically building it. I believe this is reflected in the changes we experience as we move through the stages of development.
Don
Posted Date: July 7, 2013 4:20 PM
Subject: Constructivism
My take on the question is knowledge is built by the individual through experience and interaction. As we share many experiences, all of which mediate our development of knowledge, we develop features in common with others; these common features reflect a transfer of knowledge. Individuals can use this knowledge to solve problems and meet needs in typical ways while remaining free to recombine it and demonstrate creativity.
Don
Subject: A Sneak Peek
Without giving away too much of our conference presentation on Vygotsky, here is my response to this week’s reading:
How do Behaviourists see knowledge? How do Constructivists see it?
Classic behaviourists view learning as adaptation and knowledge as given, absolute and objective. And although some may misinterpret constructivism as the process of developing an understanding of this absolute and objective reality, Von Glasersfeld and Vygotsky would argue that constructivism reflects the naturally occurring process through which individuals construct knowledge or build personal representations, meanings, and thoughts about reality. Reality is an individual construct and experience.
Describe how Piagetian and Vygotskian theories are represented in the theory of constructivism.
According to Von Glasersfeld (2008) learning is a constructive activity and there are many parallels between his description of learning and Vygotsky’s (2004) ideas about reality, imagination, and creativity. Mediated through our experience and personal reality, learning is essentially a creative act. This understanding contributes to the paradox that developing knowledge and understanding, lower levels in Bloom’s taxonomy, requires creation which is one of the highest levels in the taxonomy. Vygotsky (2004) argues that analysis and synthesis are critical to all learning; they are essential to concept development and the precursors of creativity.
And so creativity contributes to understanding which contributes to creativity. Vygotsky (2004) would go farther and suggest that creativity contributes to reality which contributes to creativity. Thinking these thoughts becomes a great opportunity for one of those Piagetian-esque discussions which focusses on disequilibrium, encourages assimilation or accommodation, and creates new thinking and understanding. This new thinking may prove useful but its correctness is less important to learning than the process that led to it.
And I just can’t help but give a node to Alfred Binet who was a contemporary of both Piaget and Vygotsky and who, despite the later misuse of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Test, claimed that that the psychological method for measuring intelligence is the most direct method because it measures intelligence as it is in the present moment by assessing an individual’s capacity to judge, comprehend, reason, and invent (Binet 1916).
You have to wonder how behaviourism developed and maintained such a prominent role in educational. How did education get so far off the mark?
Does how we teach sports still differ from other subject matters?
I think we are more comfortable with the brain, mind, body connection in sports. School seems to be more of a mental activity with less focus on real application and performance. I also think the zone of proximal development features in a coaching model which encourages athletes to observe their performance and the performance of others and to adopt a graduated approach to improvement. The comfort of automaticity, allows for reflection and the development of new skills: subtle to the observer but profoundly powerful to the athlete. I think we could do this more in other areas of learning.
Do you think there is an external ‘truth’ according to an information processing or neurological perspective?
No.
References
Binet, A. (1916). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. In E. S. Kite (Trans.), The development of intelligence in children. Vineland, NJ: Publications of the Training School at Vineland. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Binet/binet1.htm
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49. Retrieved from http://anti-matters.org/articles/73/public/73-66-1-PB.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. (M. E. Sharpe, Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology: 42(1), 7-97. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2008_03.dir/att-0189/Vygotsky__Imag___Creat_in_Childhood.pdf
Posted Date: June 30, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Piaget’s Journal
Jen,
Both men were born in 1896. Vygotsky died in 1934 and Piaget in 1980; quite literally a lifetime apart. When we discuss theories and theorists, I worry that we do not account for development and learning. I would hate to have some of my undergraduate papers quoted as samples of my current thinking. Experience and maturity were part of both frameworks, I don’t think we can discuss their role within the frameworks without considering their impact in creating the frameworks themselves. This is what prompted my post.
Don
Posted Date: June 29, 2013 3:10 PM
Subject: Piaget’s Journal
From the Fictional Journal of Jean Piaget
June 11, 1980
It is the forty-sixth anniversary of Lev’s death and I find myself missing the discussions and debates we had when we were both earnest and eager young men. We were young at a time of great social change when the ideas of class and the inherent superiority of some was being challenged; there were so many new ideas about the nature of man, about human intelligence and learning and about how an individual’s make-up or experience influenced development.
So much has been written about what we thought and think, it is easy to confuse and maybe a bit unfair to compare my nearly seventy years of theorizing and observing to Lev’s twenty. Although… I seem to recall he would have described his process as observing and theorizing.
I wonder what Lev would think about Erik Erickson’s work on development in later life. Although I am sympathetic to Erickson’s notion that humans move through developmental stages beyond formal operations, I believe his idea that these stages continue a pattern of psycho-social development would have appealed to Lev. And while I am unwilling to concede that learning and development are driven by external experiences, I now agree that social interaction and the interaction between the individual and the environment are key to this development.
History and experience transform knowledge and thinking. And even though Lev might deny the process, I long for the opportunity to create a sense of disequilibrium in my colleague. Fifty years of accommodation and assimilation can change a man. Lev might argue that his interaction with colleagues created the insight needed to carry on his work; I, for one, do miss the opportunity to interact directly with his inherent creativity and originality.
Perhaps these thoughts naturally reflect the thinking of an older man seeking a sense of meaning and integrity as he looks back on a life of accomplishment and makes plans for future. Or perhaps, as Lev might have suggested the very act of reflecting and considering my experiences creates a new way of thinking… and wouldn’t he have enjoyed the opportunity to teach me ways to stimulate this development!
J (D. Adams, Trans.)
Posted Date: June 29, 2013 11:55 AM
Subject: One Day Two iPhones Were Talking…
Okay…It’s the end of the school year. I am tired and ready for some fun. So I thought I’d try something creative. Please click on the link.
http://goanimate.com/videos/0LT7pAqvt73I?utm_source=linkshare
I hope you enjoy it.
Don
Posted Date: June 24, 2013 6:37 AM
Subject: Piaget and Vygotsky on Webquests
Sophia,
A great post about the medium being the message. There were so very many assumptions made about the students’ abilities, skills, knowledge, and background it is hard to know where to begin when discussing them.
Don
Posted Date: June 23, 2013 7:02 PM
Subject: Non – Heт
Marie-Astrid,
I don’t really use this kind of format much in my teaching. I do, however, develop project pages with my students for our classroom Wiki. They are set up like a journal. We record what we have learned. This includes images, web links, videos, video books, or just about anything we used or developed while learning. I can’t share them now as the site is password protected and I would need the consent of all of my students’ parents. The whole of idea of co-planning and co-construction is appealing and powerful. I find that now more than ever I do less presenting and more responding.
Don
Posted Date: June 23, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Non – Heт
Rachel,
I forget sometimes that text type does not always translate between the computers. The first column is a sad face, the second is a straight face, and the third is a happy face; a simple rating scale.
Don
Posted Date: June 23, 2013 4:14 PM
Subject: Non – Heт
Hi,
Thanks for the kind comments about the chart; Vygotsky was new so it took some time and effort to process the information.
I agree with comments running through all of the threads suggesting WebQuests can play a useful role – but only when the pedagogy is sound! The two we looked at were not the best examples (although they were great preparation for our final assignment). I do get a bit concerned when we use bad examples supported by some “if only statements” to support an argument. Unsupported pedagogy results in poor lesson design and limited learning; this is not improved through the application of technology. Solid pedagogy results in effective lesson design and powerful learning.
As a MET student and a teacher I am sometimes asked to justify the use and cost of technology. I do myself no favours nor do I serve as a good advocate for technology if my examples are poor. The use of technology may suggest “cutting-edge” teaching that does not hold up under close scrutiny. A pig in a kimono is still a pig. When you only want a pig…why spend money and time buying the kimono and dressing the pig?
Don
Posted Date: June 22, 2013 10:05 AM
Subject: Non – Heт
While I agree with the observations made by others that goals and objectives of the WebQuests are developmentally appropriate for their target audiences, I feel fairly confident their approaches to teaching about the elements of art and the artistic merits of graffiti would garner a “Non” from Piaget and a “Heт” from Vygotsky.
I think the confusion about which WebQuest was for which age group underscores this point. If the developmental level of students is a significant factor in learning, I’d expect to see some pretty obvious differences in the design of a WebQuest for a 7 year old and one for a 17 year old. There aren’t. Both use the read information, recite information, and translate text into a project approach. They seem to be no more than an online textbook with a fancy clickable index. And while we can add notes about how to make them more active and interactive, this is not included in information available to the student or the teacher. So again, I believe they merit a “Non” or “Heт”.
Vygotsky’s theories were not part of my undergraduate work. They are new to me. This, coupled with my background as a primary teacher, resulted in some real time thinking about the WebQuest on the elements of art.
First, and thanks to Michelle for mentioning it, the reading level of the WebQuest is higher than most students at this age can handle. Also, students will have difficulty navigating through the links. The pop-up and sidebar ads alone detract from the focus of the lesson. In this WebQuest text is the main semiotic tool; certainly it drives the lesson and the links to other possibilities. This might work for us in Connect but it doesn’t for a 7 year old.
And now my examination:
I really enjoyed this week’s readings. I was never totally satisfied with Piaget’s explanation of learning. I agree his developmental stages help us understand the progression of thinking and understanding that occurs as individuals mature. I also think Erickson added to this work by including adult developmental stages and that Kohlberg added more by suggesting that not all individuals move through all stages of development.
But I have to say that Vygotsky provides the framework closest to my current belief system. In a previous post, I described an approach to the teaching of reading. This is my third year using it and the results have been great. I thought it was just a great collection of ideas. I understand now that Vygotsky would suggest it is a dialectical approach to reading. It is this week’s “Aha!”.