Post 1 - The Constructivist Classroom

Description

This week revolved around constructionist learning theory, particularly the theories of Jean Piaget, Leo Vygotsky, and Urie Bronfenbrenner and their implications for the classroom environment. 

Analysis

Jean Piaget held that each student sits in a desk with a pre-constructed schema based on the mental age, life experiences, and school skills that they “use to find out about and act in the world” (Slavin, 31). As a child ages physically, the brain grows and thinking matures. There is an opportunity for development when the child experiences disequilibrium, or “an imbalance between what is understood and what is encountered” (Slavin, 32). At the point of disequilibrium, the child seeks to find equilibrium, through adaptation. Adaptation can take two forms – assimilation or accommodation. Assimilation is where the child connects the new information within his contemporary schemas, while accommodation describes when the child must transform his previously held schemas in light of new information (Slavin, 31-32). This mental maturation allows for more complex thinking. Piaget, simultaneously, held that humans develop at different “stages,” with each stage introducing new, more advanced cognitive abilities. The four developmental stages, as described by Piaget, are Sensorimotor (0-2 years), Preoperational (2-7), Concrete Operational (7-11), Formal Operational (11+) (Slavin, 32-37).

Many psychologist, however, have theories that challenge Piaget, with Leo Vygotsky as one of the most influential to modern pedagogical practices. Further research shows that students developed abilities at different points and can perform some tasks that would have been identified with a higher stage under Piaget. As Vygotsky stated, culture has been shown to be a large factor in the maturation of students Slavin, 37).

Vygotsky held that the development of students depends greatly on the input from other, more experienced individuals. Every individual has a “Zone of Proximal Development” (ZPD) where they can perform tasks with the help of experienced teachers, the most effective space for learning is in the ZPD (Slavin, 39). For Vygotsky, learning is known as “self-regulation,” or when the child is able to think and solve problems without the help of others. In the ZPD, a student encounters and works through problems with the assistance of others until he is able to perform the task independently. He theorized that “private speech,” internally spoken language, is used by individuals to solve problems (Slavin, 39).

Urie Bronfenbrenner contributed the notion that the cultural influences change throughout a child’s life and have differing influences on his development. These changes impact other cultural influences on the change – the example Slavin (2015) used was that a divorce in the family also impacts the neighborhood influence on the child by moving him away to a new area (42).

Reflection

The theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bronfenbrenner can guide our thinking as teachers to the appropriate lesson plans for the particular abilities of the students in our classes. Depending on the grade level, ages, and cognitive development of the individuals, certain activities will be more successful than others. I tend to favor a more Vygotskian constructivism approach to teaching, whereby, I call students up into more mature cognitive stages by pushing them to develop new skills and thought processes.  His opinion that the modern school used assessments to place and dictate the type of instruction for students, rather than spurring students to unreached levels, caused Vygotsky (1978) to write, “Learning which is oriented toward developmental levels that have already been reached is ineffective from the viewpoint of a child's overall development…’good learning’ is that which is an advance of development” (32).

My classroom pedagogy, unfortunately, has not progressed as quickly as I would have hoped. Putting constructivism to work has proven more difficult than I originally thought. It is a slow process, whereby, I am continually evaluating what I am doing and, often times, seeing opportunities after the activities are already completed. I am excited for next school year, when I will have a class set of Chromebook laptops. I am confident that the technology will allow for new horizons of classroom experiences for my students. I am still in the process of figuring out what it will look like but I know that I want my students to walk away from the semester with vastly improved real-world problem solving skills.

References

Slavin, R.E. (2015). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. (11^th ed.). Boston, MA. Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. In Cole, M. & Gauvain, M. (1997). (2^nd Edition), Readings on the Development of Children (29-36). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. 29-36.