R8: Pinker & The Blank Slate

Quotes:

“Language surely does affect our thoughts, rather than just labeling them for the sake of labeling them.  Most obviously, language is the conduit through which people share their thoughts and intentions and thereby acquire the knowledge, customs, and values of those around them” (p. 209).

“I have not hidden my view that this entire line of thinking is a conceptual mess.  If we want to understand how politicians or advertisers manipulate us, the last thing we should do is blur distinctions among things in the world, our perception of those things when they are in front of our eyes, the mental images of those things that we construct from memory, and physical images such as photographs and drawings” (p. 214).

“But we can best protect ourselves against such manipulation by pinpointing the vulnerabilities of our faculties of categorization, language and imagery, not by denying their complexity” (p. 217).

Question:  “Postmodernists and other relativists attack truth and objectivity not so much because they are interested in philosophical problems of ontology and epistemology but because they feel it is the best way to pull the rug from under racists, sexists and homophobes” (p. 202).  I found this assertion pretty broad in spectrum and almost like formalism.  Does it strike you in the same way? 

Direct Connection: I am not very familiar with Pinker’s work but took away several points he was trying to emphasize in this chapter.  The topics of cognition, perception, categorization, language and imagery all play a prominent role in the chapter, as well as the notion of vague boundaries versus concrete boundaries.  As an English language instructor, my favorite part of the chapter is when Pinker wrote about language and its influence our on perception of the world.  I agree with the assertions that language can affect thoughts and it also helps humans transmit their thoughts to others.  Anyone that has learned a second (or third) language can probably relate to the frustration of wanting to express thoughts, ideas, etc. in the new language but being unable to due to the lack of vocabulary and mastery of the new language.  I also agree with the assertion that language is “not the same thing” as thought. (p. 209).  I see this as correlating Vygotsky’s emphasis on the importance of language acquisition as well as with Bruner’s emphasis on the importance of narrative.  Language is a tool we use to construct our realities, it does shape our thoughts but it is not thought in itself.  The emphasis on language is also a tie-in to the importance of making connections within society as referenced by the first quote above.

Indirect Connection: Reading Pinker’s thoughts on relativism made me think back to an Interdisciplinary Studies course I took at Appalachian State University titled “Science and Culture” in which we examined how the culture (and knowledge of the time) directly controls the scientific knowledge of the time.  An example which I distinctly remember is the cholera outbreak in England during the mid 19^th century and the belief that it was transmitted through the air.  A local man (John Snow) investigated the locations of the cholera deaths and determined that a local water pump was the likely cause of the outbreak in this particular neighborhood.  Snow’s use of interviews, maps and deduction literally changed the scientific thinking of the day by demonstrating that there was something more concrete than “bad air” which was causing the cholera outbreak.  This to me is a prime example of the usefulness of relativism in that it demonstrates how knowledge can only go as far as what is out there, what is known at the time.  In this light, couldn't all knowledge be relative, at least to a degree? It seems that what we know (or think we know) at the present moment could be completely changed by the “discovery” of new knowledge.

References:

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1935/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Article in NY Times

I recommend checking out this article:

U.S. Is Urged to Raise Teachers’ Status
By Sam Dillon
Published March 16, 2011

Let's hope American 'leaders' will respond to this study and the suggestions.

Module 5: Social Constructivism

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. 

                Principle contributions of Vygotsky’s cognitive constructivist theory include the importance of collaboration, language and the zone of proximal development.  Vygotsky believed that learning led to development versus the accepted belief of development leading to learning.  The approach of learning leading to development influences both the type of instruction needed to promote learning as well as the level of learning ability available at a given time.  Vygotsky understood that children could do more with collaboration (either from peers or teachers).  Collaboration or working together, on an unfamiliar item meant that the zone of proximal development was shifting.  The zone of proximal development deals with actual development level (as could be proven there on the spot, independently) and the level of potential development (when working in collaboration with others). 

                In addition, Vygotsky promoted the importance of language with regard to learning.  Language is a critical component as it leads to self-regulation.  This is accomplished early in life through play, which Vygotsky also considered to be a very important aspect of learning.  Vygotsky also understood the influence of culture with regard to learning and believed that learning started on the first day of life, not the first day of school.  

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

                There were several connections between this NPR segment and the chapter we read by Vygotsky.  The first connection was the importance of play; and not directed/guided play, but creative/imaginative play.  Vygotsky championed play as important because it can lead to inner-speech.  The NPR segment referred to this as “self-regulation” and explained how developing self-regulation through play helps children learn restraint and self-control.  In the same manner, Vygotsky believed that play and inner-speech helps develop self-instruction.  Along with play, both the NPR segment and Vygotsky supported the importance of imagination and exploration as components to learning.  The NPR segment related to these two components in explaining how guided-play (using specific toys) limits children’s use imagination and exploration.  When a toy is introduced with a specific purpose (i.e. – a light saber) then the child is less likely to use imagination to create a play item or a purpose for the toy, rather the child will use the toy for the purpose in which it is intended.  In addition, both Vygotsky and the NPR segment connected with the importance of interacting with others and collaboration among peers.

                There were other considerations which I thought of after listening to the NPR segment and while thinking about the authors we have read this semester.  One consideration which came to my mind was the disconnect between the desire to learn something, wanting to learn versus feeling like learning was a chore, something that has to be done.  I wonder if the absence of free/creative/imaginative play has influenced how children view learning over the decades.  By this I mean, if children begin to see play as a chore, as something they have no control over, nor do they have any time for imagination and exploration, much less self-regulation and reflection, could this be influencing how they feel about learning?  If children are not given opportunities to explore on their own and reflect upon these explorations, then can they develop a love of learning?  Or will school seem like another chore, another thing that is guided and already established?  Also, could the high prevalence of attention disorders (as well as behavioral problems) be at all influenced by the lack of self-regulation that is exacerbated by guided-play?

Q3: How are Bruner's ideas to those of the other two constructivist theorists we've read (i.e., Piaget and Vygotsky)? 

There are several connections between Bruner’s ideas and those of Piaget and Vygotsky.  The first connection is that of constructivism; all three believed that knowledge was constructed by individuals internally.  They did not believe that knowledge was an external entity that was simply transmitted to the learner, but rather knowledge was influenced and shaped by the learner’s experiences and prior knowledge.  Nor did they believe learning was a passive activity only consisting of a response/reaction to a stimulus, but rather that learning was an active (cognitive) process.  In addition, Bruner, Vygotsky and Piaget believed that children are knowledgeable in their own right, in other words, children contain knowledge based on their experiences.  In fact Vygotsky believed that a child’s learning began on the day of birth.

                There are even more similarities between Bruner and Vygotsky.  Both espoused the importance of discovery learning.  Vygotsky believed this was first done by play.  Both Bruner and Vygotsky believed that culture plays a significant role in learning.  Culture influences learner’s before formal schooling even begins and shapes the learner in many ways.  In addition, language was another important factor in the constructivist approaches taken by Bruner and Vygotsky.  For Bruner, language was the medium for narrative, which he believed was essential for learning.  Exchange and collaboration also are important considerations for both Bruner and Vygotsky.  I also see similarities between Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and the spiral curriculum that is focused in Bruner’s work.  Both these concepts build upon prior knowledge and help the learner reach a new level of (actual) development.

Module 4: Piaget

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.

Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory is a theory of learning which places emphasis on the cognitive developmental stages that all humans go through.  Each developmental stage is marked by specific characteristics and cognitive abilities.  During these stages, humans begin to change and mature, which allows them to learn more.  Piaget did not feel as though a child could bypass any stage and that the stages could not be rushed either.  By fully going through each stage, the learner begins to decipher information in new ways and see the world different accordingly.  These changes are both neurological (biological), as well as social, in that the learner interacts with their environment differently depending on the cognitive stage.  When a learner encounters something unfamiliar, the processes of assimilation and accommodation are used for the learner to be able to make sense of the unfamiliar environment.  Assimilation is when the unfamiliar item is fit into the existing knowledge (world view) and accommodation is when the unfamiliar item changes the learner’s existing world view (knowledge).  Through these two processes, the learner regains equilibrium and can continue learning/moving through the stages.  Equilibrium allows the learner to continue constructing a reality while adding new information.  Also, Piaget believed that learning was an active process.  It was one that was done with deliberateness and curiosity.  He believed that learners were in charge of their own learning; this allows them to construct meaning based on their experiences and environment.

Questions:
I wonder if Piaget would have changed the rigidity of the stages if he was aware of the fast-changing technologies that are so prevalent in today’s world.  By this I mean, children are watching videos and interacting with technologies at a much younger age (i.e. – Baby Einstein).  Does this change their cognitive development?  Would it have an impact on the developmental stages of Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory? Along the same lines, what happens when a child takes longer to learn something?  Is there flexibility in the stages to allow for this scenario?

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

I believe James and Piaget would have agreed on several aspects of learning, namely they both believed that learning was an active process.  To both James and Piaget, the learner plays an active role in learning; the process is not passive for the learner (as in Behaviorism); but rather knowledge is constructed by each learner based on experience, environment, connections and associations.  Connections and associations are another area in which I believe James and Piaget would be in agreement.  Both espoused the importance of making connections with new/unfamiliar information as an important part of the learning process.  In addition, both James and Piaget encouraged a native interest in the topic as an important part of learning.  Native interest leads to motivation and focus which are invaluable tools for learning.

                However with regard to cognitive development and what teachers should know about psychology, I believe James and Piaget would have very different opinions.  James believed that teachers did not necessarily need to know a great deal about psychology in order to be effective teachers.  Instead he argued that teaching was an art (whereas psychology was a science) and therefore teachers must use tact to know their students and to engage with them.  This distinction can be summed up with this quote from William James, ““The best teacher may be the poorest contributor of child-study material, and the best contributor may be the poorest teacher” (p. 6).

                In addition, I believe James and Piaget would have differed in their opinion as to the role of the teacher in the classroom.  Piaget’s theory of learning emphasizes the need for teachers to lead students through the cognitive developmental stages.  He believed that students are active and motivated learners who will essentially “take over” from there and work their way through the stages without much guidance from a teacher.  Whereas James believed the teacher should take a more direct approach and lead the student through the process of learning.  He placed a great emphasis on the teacher maintaining the focus of the student.  This focus influences the student’s stream of consciousness and motivation to learn.  James felt as though teachers are active participants in the learning process of the student.

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?

                My first reaction to this example of constructivism in the classroom started even before Bart was placed in the special school.  I found it very interesting how the entire scenario was set-up in the first place: Bart (the “typical” student – unmotivated, disruptive in the classroom, etc.) cheated from the test of another student (who was portrayed as very motivated, an active learner but an “outcast” in the social-scene at school).  While watching the episode I was thinking about the message this in itself had; could constructivism really work in schools if most students are like Bart versus the other kid?  In addition, what kind of message is this sending to the students watching The Simpsons and wanting to “be like” Bart?  Anyway, I found the set-up to be very educational in itself.

                  The day began with the “Learning Coordinator” (not teacher) leading a class discussion on free will (I found this humorous based on our class work this semester).  The students were able to “find” their work stations (not desks) on their own.  The desks were round with computers on them and not arranged in any particular order (which was in stark contrast to Bart’s previous school where the viewer saw a classroom of square desks lined in rows, all facing the front of the room).  The students were allowed to work on anything they wanted, without input or guidance from the Learning Coordinator.  Then as the students move to the chemistry lab we see Bart almost blow up the school because he did not understand the reactions (because he did not know what he was doing).  His Learning Coordinator did not intervene and allowed this accident to occur.  In the end, Bart does not feel good about himself in the special school and confesses to cheating on the intelligence test.  The viewer never learns if the motivated student whom Bart cheated off of was ever sent to the special school or not.

                I do not think the authors Airasian and Walsh would think this is a great example of constructivist learning in the classroom.  I do not think the authors would have agreed with the Learning Coordinator not stopping the chemistry experiment accident.  In their article, they very explicitly state that constructivism is not about “anything goes” in the classroom.  Rather they argue that the implementation of a constructivist approach to learning takes more time and consideration than many other approaches to learning. 

                I think a constructivist approach to learning is a valuable addition to the theories of learning.  Without a doubt I think that learning is an active process which is influenced by the learner’s interests and experiences.   I do not believe that there is a good understanding of constructivist learning that can be easily implemented in today’s classrooms.  Instead I think that constructivism currently as a place in today’s classrooms via specific exercises, lessons and sections, versus an all-out constructivist approach.  I also think teachers are important and are needed to do much more than simply guide students in the direction of learning.

Jon Stewart ... a must watch!

A clip from the 3/3/11 episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street

When will America's teachers follow the lead of Wall Street and start making some sacrifices for the children?