Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Module 7 Post 2
The first child appears to be in the concrete operational phase. He knows the glass will break if he hits it with a hammer, and he knows it will break if Don hits it with a hammer too. He is able to understand things from another's perspective. Another way this is proven is when he is told a feather will break glass, he says no for both when he would do it and when Don would do it. He also sorted the objects into their appropriate characteristics- ability to break glass. He knew the hammer would be able to break the glass and was also able to deduce that a feather would not break glass. The second child is in formal operations. She is able to think abstractly. If she is told that a feather will break glass, then the glass will break when the feather hits it because this is the condition of the feather. Techniques to teach these children must be different because they think differently. The young child is not as far along in his development and teachers must understand that they do not always understand abstract concepts. In formal operations, teachers are able to teach their students using abstract examples and can understand other people's perspectives. They're at different places in their development and this must be acknowledged in teaching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is good! Usually people jump to saying that the boy is in preoperations and the girl is concrete operations, but I think there's definitely an argument to be made for them each being one stage up--as you describe here quite nicely. The boy is thinking in very concrete terms--about the properties of a feather/hammer, and he is able to represent them without them being present. The girl is thinking hypothetically, as you describe.
ReplyDelete