TDC 3 - Psychology - Cognitivism according to Piaget and Vygostky

TDC 3 – Principles of Language and Learning

Teacher: Lueli Ceruti

Psychology – Cognitivism according to Piaget and Vygotsky

http://www.intropsych.com/ch10_development/10piaget.jpg

http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/GalleryJPGs/Vygotsky.jpg

Piaget believed that children's cognitive development was influenced by four factors: biological maturation, activity, social experiences, and equilibration. This way, learning took place through interaction with the world. He believed that education meant helping children learn on their own. Ultimately, individuals construct their own understanding. On the other hand, Vygotsky believed that cognitive development happens through the child's interactions with more capable members of his culture - adults or more able peers. The child is not alone in the world. These more knowledgeable others serve as guides and teachers, providing the information and support necessary for the child to grow intellectually.

 While Piaget believed that learning comes from within, following the four stages of development – the sensorimotor stage (age 0-2), the preoperational stage (age 2-7), the concrete operational stage (age 7-11), and the formal operational stage (age 11-adult), Vygotsky believed that first there is interaction with a more knowledgeable other, and then the child internalizes the new schemes. Moreover, Vygotsky believed that all higher-order mental processes, such as reasoning and problem solving, are helped by cultural tools (material tools and psychological tools), such as language, signs, and symbols. Adults teach these tools to children through day-to-day activities and children internalize them. Then, the psychological tools can help students advance their own development. In the past, cultural tools included printing presses, pencils, rulers, etc. Nowadays, we have computers, iPads, and the Internet. The more tools there are available, the more the child is able to develop cognitively.

http://diyahlaily.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/stage-of-cognitive-development.gif

It’s also important to remember that Vygotsky placed more emphasis than Piaget on the role of learning and language in cognitive development. He believed that language in the form of private speech guides cognitive development. We all know that children talk to themselves when they are playing. While Piaget called this egocentrism (the child has difficulties accepting other people’s points of views and believes the world sees things the same way as he does), Vygotsky suggested that when that happens, children are moving towards self-regulation: the ability to plan, monitor, and guide one's own thinking and problem solving. It's a way to internalize new schemes.

An important concept for Vygotsky is the Zone of Proximal Development, which is what the learner could understand with scaffolding from the teacher or a peer (more knowledgeable other). This is the area between the boring and the impossible, not too easy but not impossibly difficult. With a little support from the more knowledgeable other, instruction can succeed and real learning is possible.

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/zone-proximal-development.png

To make a long story short, whether you prefer Piaget’s views or you agree with Vygotsky, when it comes to the classroom, teachers have to identify students' prior knowledge first. This includes the cultural aspect. Based on that, they can create scaffolding activities towards a goal. Both Piaget and Vygotsky would agree that this can be done with models, prompts, and coaching. Also, teachers should provide students with tools that support thinking, such as dictionaries, computer searches, and word processors. But more importantly, teachers should emphasize dialog and group learning, since peer interaction is one of the most efficient ways to stimulate cognitive development. In the end, learning is all that matters, and your students’ needs should guide your activities in the classroom.

TDC 3 - Neuroscience - What Makes a Brain-friendly Activity

TDC 3 – Principles of Language and Learning

Teacher: Lueli Ceruti

Neuroscience – What Makes a Brain-friendly Activity

http://jeffhurtblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Brain.jpg

There are a million activities a teacher can do in class to facilitate learning. But are they all brain-friendly? Do the students use all the parts of their brains? Is the teacher allowing them to use their sensory cortex, back integrative cortex, frontal integrative cortex, and motor cortex? Ideally, that’s what should happen. In this post, I’ll be analyzing two videos presented to us in the first part of the course. The first one is “the meteor activity” and the second one is “the buzzer activity”. The idea here is not to criticize the activities, but to analyze them from a brain perspective.

The Meteor Activity

 

The meteor activity was excellent because it involved whole-brain learning. The teacher used their prior knowledge and neuronal networks by showing them a disaster film about a meteor that was going to crash into earth. I'm guessing all the students had probably watched the movie or some other kind of similar film. The back cortex comes into play as they use their extrinsic memory (semantic and episodic) to remember that event. After that, the teacher gave each student a piece of paper with an action verb. They went outside and the students had to act out their "action". While they were doing their own action, they had to pay attention to what the others were doing when the meteor hit.  Again, they had to use their memory. First, they used their extrinsic memory, and then their intrinsic memory, in order to act out their roles. They also had to use their frontal cortex and working memory to remember what their classmates were doing, because they had to retell what their classmates had been doing once they got back to class.

When they were back in the classroom, the teacher used their prior knowledge of grammar to ask simple past questions. What did they do? Who mimed better? etc. After that, the teacher asked some questions such as "what was he doing when the meteor crashed"? The students had to hypothesize to produce the answer, but they had verb to be in the present and past, and the present continuous (verb to be + ing), in their neuronal networks. So, they heard the question and, with a little guidance from the teacher, they were able to join their prior knowledge, semantic and episodic memory, and the emotion of doing the actions to hypothesize and come up with the right structure to answer the questions (sensory input, reflection, hypothesis, and active testing).

What can I transfer to my classroom? Well, the activity was very fun for the students. They went outside and had fun acting out their roles. This created a nice episodic memory for them, which made it easier to remember things back in the class. Stories make a difference and help students remember what they are supposed to. Also, the teacher totally connected with the students and respected their prior knowledge. She started from the information that they already had. They were having fun together. Consequently, there was no risk and the amygdala was left alone. The students were able to fulfill the learning cycle of their brains. Coming up with an activity like this definitely helps students use their whole brain.

The Buzzer Activity

The students were divided into 2 groups and they used the buzzer in pairs to answer the questions. The first activity was very simple and they had to answer yes or no (or true or false). The teacher established prior knowledge. After that, there was another activity, where they had to answer in short answers and correct the information if it were wrong. Reflection and hypotheses came into play. Like in the meteor activity, the students had to use their whole brains to participate. There was an activity for memory and back cortex, an activity for reflection (integrative cortex), the opportunity to hypothesize the correct answer (front cortex), and the final movement of their hands to press the buzzer (motor cortex).

There were also emotions involved. The students were quite excited because it was a competition. They were also having fun and paying attention to the others. The students could evaluate how they were doing in comparison to their classmates through this competitive activity. After all, peers tend to have similar neuronal networks. Although some might only look at the extrinsic motivation of the game and hitting the buzzer, if they had success, it created some intrinsic motivation. Thus, happiness and long-term memory might have been achieved.

The activity was really nice because it was very linear. Teachers have to respect the students' neuronal networks, start from there, and then move forward in order to create a reasonable challenge. If the challenge is too great, the students might get frustrated.

Some viewers may argue that the students might have had only extrinsic motivation. They might have been only interested in the game, and not so much in what they were learning. That would explain why some of them lost interest after a while. However, a little competition can be good in class, right? Emotion motivates students. And it also helps them remember things. They might remember the event and what they did (episodic memory), which in turn might help them remember the concepts that were being taught (semantic memory). Learning is the goal. And different students will learn different things at different paces. If some students only improved their translating abilities, for example, so be it. We must not expect that all students will perform at the same level. I'm sure some of them thought about their answers (when they had to correct the wrong sentences). The point is, after all, whether they used their whole brains or not. In my humble opinion, they definitely did!

http://sharpbrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/a7021_2730.jpg