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.
No comments:
Post a Comment