L.S. Vygotsky:
- Beginning on Page 80 of the reading, three theoretical positions, regarding the relationship between learning and development, are posited, which of the the theoretical postulations seems most plausible? And contiguously, which of the three positions (re-conceptualizations) would be most efficacious with regard to pedagogy?
- How does the Zone of Proximal Development represent a paradigmatic shift in the way in which the relationship between learning and development is conceptualized?
- Vygotsky argues that “writing must be relevant to life (pp. 118 of reading)”, what does he mean by this? Is this argument consistent with conceptualizations of culturally relevant pedagogy?
- According to Vygotsky what is the difference between (merely) teaching written letters and actually teaching written language? Wink & Putney:
- Wink and Putney argue that Vygotsky’s theorization of learning as social and cultural represents a paradigmatic shift in the way that the relationship between learning and development is conceived of (pp. 85 of the reading). What types of theoretical problem or dissonance does Vygotsky’s theory foment for proponents of and arguments for standardized testing?
- Create your own metaphor of ZPD; then, please explain it’s constituent parts, (in much the same way that Wink and Putney did in their text).
- What would the Vygotskyian concept of reciprocity look like in a classroom based tutoring environment?
There is great ambiguity regarding the relationship between development and learning; however, three major theories attempt to explain the connection between development and learning. The first theoretical postulation is that child development is independent of learning, in which a child’s capacity to learn relies on his development. Consequently, development occurs as one ages, and learning does not affect the process. Conversely, neuroplasticity, the maturation of the brain because of one’s environment, illustrates that learning does affect development and renders the first postulate to be implausible. The second position posits that learning is development that entails that “development is conceived of as the elaboration and substitution of innate responses.” When stating that development is that of which is learned replaces “innate responses,” insists that there is always an intrinsic reaction for every action. But there exist situations in which an appropriate response must be inculcated in the child initially before development can occur, in which case makes the second claim less credible. However, by combining the two extremes, the third postulate is yielded that I believe is the most plausible and pedagogically effective. Developmental theorist, Koffka argues that the learning process allows one to “transfer general principles discovered in solving one task to a variety of other tasks;” therefore, Koffka suggests that learning allows one’s mind to develop, which allows one to learn more. It is the most effective postulate because it allows for a student to develop enough to learn more faculties that will enhance one to develop further. An example of this would be learning analytical skills through science initially, but practice of this skill would be through reading which will further develop ones mind. Therefore, the third postulate seems to be the most viable to pedagogy because learning and developing is a feedback loop. -Andre Adao
ReplyDeleteLearning and developing as a "feedback loop"- brilliant! Thanks, Andre - more feedback to come.
ReplyDeleteAndre, what you're invoking, toward the end of you response, is a pseudo-science called faculty psychology. It was all the rage, educationally, around the late 1800's up until 1910 or so. It held that the mind, in differentiation from the material brain, was analogous to a muscle. And as such, the mind would benefit from mechanized repetition, i.e., regimented practice in, say, Latin, would strengthen the mind so that it could tackle algebra much easier than it could sans mechanized, repetitive drilling of info. This theory eventually lost currency as the primary tent of the argument never seemed to hold; that is, it could never be proven that repetitive drills in Latin made the acquisition of any other, non-related subject easier. So, then, with this in mind, do you still feel that the third postulation is in fact the most plausible of the three?
ReplyDelete