Module 6

Link: http://www.autismtoday.com/articles/different_sensory_experiences.htm

My research interest (as I've mentioned before in class) pertains to services for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). One such service frequently provided is Occupational Therapy (OT) services, often for the OT diagnosis of Sensory Processing Disorder (this diagnosis does not exist in the DSM-IV-TR, that is why I refer to it as an OT diagnosis). The idea behind the diagnosis is that some children perceive various environmental stimuli differently than others. For autism, that perception is often considered to be a hypersensitivity to various things, including sounds, touch, textures, lights, etc. To address this hypersensitivity, OT provides therapy that includes things like "brushing" a child's skin with a special brush that is thought to develop nerves across the entirety of the students body with the idea that by developing other nerves across the body, the "hypersensitive" nerves will adjust and no longer be too-sensitive. Unfortunately, this is a relatively common service provided with little empirical support. One thing, however, that I am grateful for this diagnosis does is that it helps to make us aware that students with ASD perceive things differently than we do. I found the previous link very helpful in describing exactly what the differences might be, and to outline how we may address these needs for students with ASD so that they are able to adapt and function within the classroom. Additionally, I think the link provides another example of how sensory limitations and duration and intensity of our sensory register can influence how we perceive the world around us, and therefore impact how we process new information.

Example of Social Learning

I know this is a little late since we've finished up our readings on Vygotsky, but I thought this was too cute not to share - my 20 month old nephew highlighting/studying like his Aunt Sissa:

Oh what we can learn simply from those around us... hopefully he will adopt my studying habits! :-)

R#8.2 :-)

Question: What efforts can educators make to foster student collaboration and teamwork that encourages students of different groups to work together and promotes positive relationships?

Quotation: “By implicitly pitting one group against another, such policies may cause each group to brew stereotypes about the other that are more pejorative than the ones they would develop in personal encounters” (Pinker, 2002, p. 206).

Connection: The previous quotation motivated me to reflect on the current practices at universities and schools that we encourage students to engage in with the hope that it will foster positive relationships for our students.  This statement presents the idea that we may in fact hinder positive relationships for students of differing groups (with the best intentions of course).  It therefore presented the question of how do we, as potential future educators, promote positive relationships for students of different ethnic, economic, religious, ability, etc. backgrounds.  By highlighting differences between groups, do we create prejudices or divides between students that may not have existed in the first place?  Instead, should we concentrate our efforts on demonstrating similarities between different groups, while acknowledging the different values, abilities, lifestyles, etc.?  These are important questions that I have experienced firsthand in working with the schools, especially in the area of promoting relationships between students with and without disabilities.  In various social skills groups that I lead in the schools, we incorporate typical peers within the group so as to provide a model of appropriate behaviors, as well as to establish positive relationships between those students.  This method not only provides students with disabilities a constructive peer relationship, but also allows typical peers the opportunity to find similarities between themselves and students with disabilities.  Through these groups we discuss various important social skills and values, while allowing students to share their ideas and work in a collaborative environment with someone who is different from them.  In my opinion, the opportunity to work and have open dialogue with someone who is different from you is one of the most valuable things we can do to help promote positive relationships and open mindedness of our students.

Outside Connection: A second connection I made from the reading this week directly related to the question posed above.  Trepagnier’s (2006) Silent Racism discusses the idea of passive racism that exists in us without our knowledge.  Trepagnier examines the idea of the detriment of suppressing any and all racist thoughts, as it does us more harm than good as cultural beings.  Instead, Trepagnier argues that continued exploration of any unspoken or unconscious prejudices is necessary to better understand ourselves and provide insight into how we may work to ameliorate any incorrect thoughts.  This idea has significant implications for the work that we may do as educators to promote positive relationships between students of different groups.  As opposed to telling students that it is important to not be racist, we should instead encourage students to discuss and value their own cultures, be aware of other cultures, values, and abilities, to acknowledge any hidden prejudices they may harbor, and then work to eliminate those thoughts or ideas.  Open dialogue that occurs in a safe, encouraging environment in preferably small groups is necessary to allow students the freedom to discuss their opinions.  By allowing students these opportunities, we can hope to create a safe learning climate that incorporates ideas of social justice, therefore fostering an environment that values and respects students of all ethnic groups, cultures, sexual identity, religion, disabilities, economic standing, etc. 

References

Trepagnier, B. (2006). Silent Racism: How Well-Meaning White People Perpetuate the Racial Divide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Module 5

Q1:

            After viewing this week’s powerpoint, it is evident that there are both similarities and differences in Vygotsky and Piaget’s views on constructivism.  Where Piaget stressed the individual learning process in which children construct their own knowledge, Vygotsky highlighted the influence of society and culture on learning.  Additionally, Piaget created different stages of development that he believed all children progress through, whereas Vygotsky discussed the differences between children and their abilities and how individual differences in ability need to be taken into account during instruction.  While there are differences between the two theorists, there are similarities in how they describe the process of learning.  Both significantly differ from behaviorist theories in that they describe learning as an internal process that is the responsibility of the learner, versus the teacher.  Additionally, both described learning in terms of student’s constructing their own knowledge.

            One question my partner and I had after discussing the readings for this week was concerning how Vygotsky and Piaget would view Free Will and if they would have similar thoughts?

Q2:

            There were several connections that could be made between the NPR recording and our reading by Vygotsky this week.  One connection was the differing opinions presented in the two readings concerning play in young children.  The NPR recording suggested that providing too much assistance to children during imaginative play can potentially hinder their imagination and creativity.  This connection potentially points to a flaw of Vygotsky’s ideas pertaining to assisting students to promote development of new abilities; however, I think that Vygotsky mainly related this idea to children’s development in learning of difficult constructs.  Further, Vygotsky encouraged student exploration and intended teachers to assist students only when needed to determine what they can do independently.

            Another connection from these two opinions concerned the internalization of language and how the attainment of this skill can help children to self-regulate their thoughts and mental processes.  Both authors discussed the importance of this for a child’s development and described how important internal language is for their ability to think through problems and make decisions.

Q3:

            There were many similarities between the readings on Bruner’s theories of category formation and Piaget’s theories concerning schema development.  Bruner’s categories are very similar to Piaget’s ideas concerning schemas via a coding system and description of establishing the parameters of a certain schema based on your previous experiences.  Additionally, Bruner’s idea of concept attainment appeared similar to Piaget’s ideas of assimilation and accommodation.  Through these processes, individuals acquire new knowledge or information.  This acquirement process necessitates that the individual connect it to or make adjustments to their existing information.  Finally, another connection I made between Bruner’s theories and that of Piaget’s was the idea of student’s discovery process of learning.  The description of this process sounded very similar to the idea of Piaget’s active construction of their knowledge.

            Another connection I made with the reading on Bruner’s theories was that of the representation of language.  This concept sounded familiar to Vygotsky’s ideas concerning the internalization of language and structure of language.  Both theorists discussed the importance of internalizing language so that you are capable of thinking to yourself before saying or doing something, highlighting the importance of planning and other skills related to executive functioning. 

R8

Question: What does Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development tell us about educational goals of students and what implications does that have related to the individualization of students’ education?

Quote: “The zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Connection: Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development is a concept that resonated with me on several levels of my professional experiences.  Specifically, his theory relates to my understanding of the development of students with disabilities’ annual individualized education plan (IEP) goals.  There are several rules that guide the development of IEP goals.  One such rule is that they are based on data concerning the student’s current ability (i.e., mental processes they have already mastered, or as Vygotsky would call it, the student’s “actual developmental level”).  Additionally, the goals should be within a zone of proximal development, or the level at which they can complete a task with assistance.  It is beneficial to the individual responsible for creating the goals to have an understanding of a student’s zone of proximal development as it both allows students to be challenged as well as allows us to have high expectations of the student.  Another example of allowing students with disabilities to work within their zone of proximal development is when they have a one-on-one aid in the classroom because they can help the student complete tasks that they cannot yet do independently.

Outside Connection: Vygotsky’s description of a student’s zone of proximal development and the implications this may have on the learning process related to a statement made by Skinner in one of our readings on behaviorism.  Skinner states, “When student’s move through well-constructed programs at their own pace, the so-called problem of motivation is automatically solved” (1984, p. 951).  The idea of “their own pace” recognizes that students develop and progress through curricular content at different rates, based on their ability level.  When I read this statement initially, it sounded as though Skinner was promoting the individualization of education for students that allow them to progress at their own rate of curiosity and ability.  Similarly, Vygotsky’s idea concerning a zone of proximal development has implications for the importance of individualizing a student’s process of learning.  Working within students’ differing ability levels requires an educator to know each student’s zone of proximal development and to then adjust instruction so that it will benefit every student (versus working from a standardized curriculum that expects each student to be able to complete a certain set of skills).  This approach would be much more time consuming for teachers, however, it could significantly benefit the student as they would be able to work within their own ability level at all times, thereby giving them the opportunity to spend more time on areas they need more time with, or conversely, move on to more advanced topics, based on their own level of development.

Construstivism, Piaget's Stages, and Bart Simpson?

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 constructivist theory offered a different perspective on the process of learning at a time period when psychology was heavily dominated by behaviorism theories.  His theory posited that students are “active learners that construct their own knowledge”.  This approach highlighted the process that occurs between the stimulus and response typically seen in behaviorist principles.  Further, it considered the contribution of the stimulus itself on the interpretation of new information.  Piaget’s theory posited that we construct our own meaning of new information, or that we interpret things in individual ways.  Additionally, Piaget’s theory purports that we constantly seek cognitive equilibrium when we learn new information through the processes of assimilation and accommodation.  Piaget also identified distinct stages of cognitive development that describe the types of mental processes individuals are capable of at certain points in their development.  His theory was appreciated by many educators as it highlighted the idea of developmentally appropriate curriculum, the importance of allowing students the opportunity to actively engage in their own learning and to construct their own meaning from the material, as well as stressed the importance of student interest.

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

            Piaget’s stages of cognitive development stresses the importance of understanding that students’ progress through certain stages before they are capable of completing different tasks.  For example, it is important to make curricular content developmentally appropriate as they may have not reached a point in their cognitive development that allows for the completion of more complex tasks (e.g., hypothetical thinking, abstract concepts, etc.).  Piaget’s stages of cognitive development are especially relevant in the realm of early education and policy makers in Kentucky (as well as other states) stress the importance of developmentally appropriate activities in preschool.  I completed a practicum at an early childhood center, and found the type of content provided to students to be very minimal, at least not in the typical format we are used to.  The students were not to complete anything that might resemble worksheets, and activities that did require writing were an option and not a requirement.  The types of ‘paper-work’ that was provided allowed the student the opportunity to practice their name and then move on to coloring (a preferred activity).  Further, embedded within the preschool classroom were many educational decorations and helpful clues: every item was labeled, there was a calendar with the day of the week highlighted, the weather for the day, and the month, etc.  Every class began with a song about the days of the week, the weather, the months in the year as well as time to count how many students were there that day.  These activities allowed the students to engage in developmentally appropriate activities for their current progress in their cognitive development.

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?

            Authors Airasian and Walsh would have agreed with the learning environment that Bart was placed in, as the teacher allowed the students opportunities to pursue their own interests, guided their students through the learning process, allowed students to think for themselves instead of simply providing the correct answers, and was involved in the students learning process by providing feedback and guidance.  These were many of the components of the constructivist theory of learning that the authors highlighted.  The new school Bart was placed in appeared to apply some constructivist principles, including those that I highlighted previously.

            I have really enjoyed learning about the constructivist theory, as I believe it is important to understand that learning is influenced by the learner and how they interpret information and content.  I particularly liked the ideas of the social-constructivist theory of learning because it illustrates the influence of our culture, society, and values on how we develop an understanding of new information. Plus, watching the Simpsons for class is always enjoyable :)

R7

Question: What role does culture have on the learning process and how do we avoid looking at the world in an egocentric manner in which we do not value or understand other’s cultures or beliefs?

Quotation: “The point, however, is that social constructivists believe that knowledge has a social component and cannot be considered to be generated by an individual acting independently of his or her social context” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 445).

Connection: The description of the social constructivist theory provided by Airasian and Walsh (1997) greatly resonated with my current understanding of factors that influence our acquisition of new information.  This particular passage reminded me that learning does not occur in isolation, thereby highlighting the importance of our society, group, and/or culture on our retention and understanding of new knowledge.  All of these components influence the interpretation of new knowledge, as well as how we relate this new knowledge to previous information we may have on a subject.  For example, a book may be interpreted in a multitude of ways depending on your previous experiences with the topic and the way your culture or society views that topic.  I personally make connections with the material learned in this course in a manner that is consistent with both my future employment and my own culture.

Outside Connection: Educators as well as other individuals involved in supporting student’s learning can benefit from an understanding of the social constructivist theory of learning.  This information allows for a better understanding and recognition of the differences among students and the influence that culture may have on the process of learning.  For example, research has demonstrated that students in Appalachia have been found to have lower scores on a standardized literacy assessment when compared to national norms (Fish & Pinkerman, 2003).  Further research into this topic reveals that as a culture, the parents in this area are often unaware of the positive impact of shared-reading practices on children’s literacy development (Burchinal, Vernon-Feagans, & Cox, 2008), and that print serves limited functions within the home environment (Green, 1997).  Without an understanding of the Appalachian culture, the immediate response is to assume that individuals in this culture are uneducated.  However, the social constructivist theory of learning informs us about the potential differences in cultures or values of students.  This awareness may allow us to understand that the Appalachian culture influences educational values as many individuals in this area often survive in an agriculturally based economy.  These findings highlight the importance of the education system remaining aware of the culture surrounding a student’s education and valuing the home environment of students.  Schools should encourage family and community involvement, as well as provide culturally relevant material to promote positive student gains.  

References

Burchinal, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Cox, M. (2008). Cumulative social risk, parenting, and infant development in rural low-income communities. Parenting: Science & Practice, 8, 41-69.

Fish, M., & Pinkerman, B. (2003). Language skills in low SES rural Appalachian children: Normative development and individual differences, infancy to preschool. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 539–565. 

Green, C. R. (1997). Literacy development in an Appalachian Kindergarten. Reading Horizons, 37(3), 215-232.