This chapter discussed some of the different theories of cognitive development. Piaget's theory and Vygotsky's theory were both discussed. Piaget's theory was about how all children's thinking is a result of biological maturation, active exploration of the physical environment, social experiences, and equilibrium. These are summed up as nature, nurture, and self-regulation. Within this theory, Piaget talks about his stage model. The four stages are sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational, and formal operational. Vygotsky's theory was similar to Piaget's because of the aspect of heredity and environment. However, he put a higher emphasis on social interactions in terms of problem solving skills, self-regulation, and memory. He also created the Zone of Proximal Development which discusses children's actual development level vs. their level of potential development. Vygotsky puts a great deal of emphasis on social interaction being a key to cognitive development.
One question I had about the chapter was how do we re-create equilibrium with students if we have already created disequilibrium? Wouldn't they continue to think that the wrong way is the correct way?
According to a Piaget, the difference between development and learning is that a child's stage of development is what prepares them for learning. He thinks that the stage in which they are developmentally dictates what they are able to learn. A brain researcher might say that children learn form what they already know.
Piaget would say that critical thinking does not push development because you can't push development. You have to be ready biologically to be able to learn. Piaget says that children's thinking is dependent upon the stage in which they are in, not by critical thinking.
You can get a student out of disequilibrium by helping them create a new schema. Just because they have been in a state of disequilibrium for a period of time does not mean that they will stay in disequilibrium. For example, when a student who has never learned Spanish is presented with the word "rojo," he may pronounce it the way he sees it "ro-joe." However, when he is corrected and learns that it is actually pronounced "ro-ho," he will be in a state of disequilibrium. It is possible to get him to a state of equilibrium by teaching him that there is a difference between the English "j" and the Spanish "j." This way, instead of assimilating the Spanish j into the English j scheme, he can accommodate and create a new schema for the Spanish j. It is important as teachers to understand that all students have different schema, so we must work around that. This situation can occur vice-versa. A student who is new to America may not understand that there is a difference between a Spanish j and an English j. The idea of using accommodation to get a student out of disequilibrium can apply in this scenario also. After accommodating the information, they will not look at the situation in the way they first thought it looked, thus having a sense of equilibrium.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zahra, you can recreate equilibrium by creating a new scheme in the learning process of a child. If a state of disequilibrium occurs it does not ensure that it will be there forever or stay there. Since children are constantly learning and always creating new schemas, it is easy to cancel out disequilibrium with equilibrium by creating new schemas by providing the accurate information. If a child is constantly being told that certain information is the "wrong" way, they will not learn and create new schema unless they are shown the "right" way. Using accommodation can help a student create new scheme or assimilation can help sort information into the correct schema. Either process can help a student create equilibrium when disequilibrium was already present.
ReplyDeleteThe child's learning occurs through the development. In order to learn you have to go through development.
ReplyDeleteI like how Shannon explained how critical thinking would not push development. She did a nice job of giving the evidence of why Piaget says that critical thinking would not increase development. His findings are not supportive of this idea. Development would not happen unless they are in the next stage. Learning has to happen after development. I liked how Shannon explained this.
ReplyDeleteSo, the question about disequilibrium seems to be something Piaget wouldn't consider.... a child who has created a schema that you didn't intend (to you, is wrong) would be in equilibrium because the world fits into HIS schema, and makes sense to him. Piaget would describe this state as equilibrium. When the child goes about in the world, and eventually encounters a situation (a test?) in which his current schema (that you didn't intend him to construct) is not working when solving a problem, he may enter disequilibrium on his own again, and you can help him recategorize.
ReplyDelete