Both Piaget and Vygotsky saw learning as an aspect of a broader process called Development. While Piaget situated learning in the broader biological context/process of embryogenesis, which would explain the development of the nervous system and of the mental functions, Vygostky situated learning in the broader context of historical-cultural space of humans, which would explain the development of culturally shaped uniquely human functions.
For Piaget we learn by acting with the object and understanding how our actions transform it. This stands in contrast with the idea of learning via external reinforcement. I agree with this and believe that other scientists and philosophers also support this genetic or innate epistemology. As one example, this idea is complementary to Chomsky’s claim that language learning necessarily presupposed an innate structure that enables it (Chomsky, 2006):
“…on the basis of the limited data available to him, the child is able to construct a grammar…What, in other words, must be the internal structure of a learning model that can duplicate this achievement?...We must attribute to the organism, as an innate property, a structure rich enough to account for the fact that the postulated grammar is acquired on the basis of the given conditions of access to data;” (p.151).
In fact, according to Chomsky, citing Juan Huarte’s ideas, any cognitive system should be conceived as having its own principles and the power for engendering them:
“…normal human intelligence, goes well beyond the empiricist limitation: it is able to ‘engender within itself, by its own power, the principles on which knowledge rests” (p.8)
On the other hand, we have Vygostky who was intrigued about what is really human and what distinguish us from animals. According to Vygostky, the historical period in which human live shapes their cognitive processes of thinking. It is not that strange that our structures or mental processes can change historically, as Luria (1976) claimed for the development of the generalization and abstraction of illiterate people:
“…when the pattern of their(illiterates people) lives changes and the range of their experiences broaden, when they learn to write and read, to become part of a more advanced culture, the greater complexity of their activity stimulates new ideas. These changes…bring about a radical reorganization of their habits of thinking…” (p. 79)
As our material and human environment changes and gets more complex, forces us to carry out more complex activities, which in turn demands new habits of thinking. To me, that knowledge primary origin is in the social and material history of the culture, means that the structures and tools with which our mind make sense of the world are shaped by the belief systems of the social groups. In this sense, I understand Lurias’s claim:
“Social history has established the system of language and logical codes that permit men to make the leap from the sensory to the rational”. (p. 9)
While for Piaget the cognitive development of child intellect involved a constant interplay of assimilation and accommodation of mind’s structures in order to adapt to the environment and acquire new information, for Vygostky in turn, the most significant phase in the intellectual development occurs when speech and practical activity, two independent lines of development, converge, creating the human abstract intelligence (Vygostky, 1978):
“Just as the mold gives shape to a substance, words can shape an activity into a structure” (p.35)
Given that language is a social issue, from this quote we can conclude how the social context embedded in language can affect the development of child intellect. In particular, according to Vygotsky, words help children master their attention processes and in doing so, they can create new “structural centers” in the perceived situation freeing themselves from the given structure of the field.
In this brief summary of some of the ideas of Vygostky, we can see how this scholar was able to explore and shed light into the messy world of consciousness and the relationsship of individual and his context, expanding the meaning of two ideas: the idea that human is a social being and the understanding humans as historical and specie-related individuals, ideas worked from different perspective: the deep psychology of C. jung, the religious studies of Kierkegaard, the history/people relationship in Ortega y Gasset'a work, among the ones I know. I huge enterprise that of Vygostky who, according to me, was able to put in word and metaphor at the scientific level the intuitions and smart speculations of others.
Well, the next post will be about how Vygostky’s notions helped me understand and frame my current work on formative assessment and its importance for meaningful learning in the context of a test-based accountability system.
References:
Chomsky, N. (2006). Language and Mind. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Luria, A. (1976). Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176-186.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of the higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Brief intro about myself
I am a first year Ph.D. student in the Learning Sciences program at Indiana University. Currently, I am working with Dr. Daniel Hickey looking at how innovative assessment practices can foster discourse, understanding, and achievement in technology-supported learning environments. In particular my research interests are:
1) Socioscientific inquiry and mathematics and I currently am refining discursive formative assessment practices in the Quest Atlantis immersive environment and analyzing productive mathematical discourse around mathematical concepts in 4th graders.
2) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and Knowledge Building Pedagogy literature. From both research lines, it is possible to draw some principles to design web 2.0-based learning environments to foster participation and deep understanding around socioscientific issues and mathematical concepts . Some principles of this literature has been used in the current discussions about refinements in Taiga - a particular world in Quest Atlantis, being implemented during March and April 2009.
3) Program evaluation, social science methods and instrument construction. I have a strong interest in multivariate techniques such as hierarchical linear model and its application in value-added studies in the context of a test-based accountability system. Currently, I am in conversations with colleagues in my country about a recent study with 11.000 students from public schools where the value-added model of H. doran it is being used. Another interesting project is about looking at changes in performance over time of grade-12 students in the NAEP mathematics results in Indiana. Initial project work will focus on student performance on clusters of NAEP items that measure the same topic, type of reasoning, or ability, using the Item Response Theory (IRT) to further enhance the statistical analysis of change over time .
4) Educational policy, equity and quality of education. The ways in which education can afford more and better opportunities for people to close the social gap and the inequity of many countries nowadays and also assess to what extent other initiatives and polices outside education are needed if we want to have societies with justice, participation and democracy for the wellbeing of all.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)