Family Name:



|Family Name: |Parsons |Unit Code: |EDUC105 |

|Given Names: |Matthew Thomas |Convenor: |Leahy |

|Student ID: |41917952 |Due Date: |Thursday 8/10/09 |

|Title: | |

[pic]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Assignments to be lodged in the Assignment Box, C3A 8th Floor lift lobby

I certify that:

▪ This assignment is my own work, based on my personal study and/or research

▪ I have acknowledged all material and sources used in the preparation of this assignment, including any material generated in the course of my employment

▪ If this assignment was based on collaborative preparatory work, as approved by the teachers of the unit, I have not submitted substantially the same final version of any material as another student

▪ Neither the assignment, nor substantial parts of it, have been previously submitted for assessment in this or any other institution

▪ I have not copied in part, or in whole, or otherwise plagiarised the work of other students

▪ I have read and I understand the criteria used for assessment

▪ The assignment is within the word and page limits specified in the unit outline

▪ The use of any material in this assignment does not infringe the intellectual property / copyright of a third party

▪ I understand that this assignment may undergo electronic detection for plagiarism, and a copy of the assignment may e retained on the database and used to make comparisons with other assignments in future.

Student Signature: _____________________________Date:____________________

This declaration is a summary of the University policy on plagiarism. For the policy in full, please refer to Student Information in the Handbook of Undergraduate Studies or student.mq.edu.au/plagiarism/.

Note: Assignments will not be accepted for marking unless the certification is signed and dated. If you do not understand the implications of the certification, or the criteria used for assessment, ask the Unit Convenor before starting the assignment.

Scaffolds, the garden of Eden, and beyond.

Matthew Parsons

Macquarie University

Scaffolds, the garden of Eden, and beyond.

The constructivist cognitive development theories of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky offer understandings of students’ cognitive abilities and potentials, with implications for teachers and teaching strategies in the secondary classroom (Tharp and Gallimore, 1991). This essay argues that whilst similar in many respects, and suggesting several shared teaching strategies, the biological versus psychological origins evident in their theories underpin significant differences. Specifically, they differ as to the roles of adults and peers in children’s learning, the importance of self exploration versus knowledge co-creation and assisted learning, the assessment of children’s capacities, and the significance of self talk and internalized language (Woolfolk and Margetts, 2007). There is, however, evidence of difficulties with elements of these theories in education contexts, and it is argued that such theories developed in sociology and psychology may not “be unproblematically transplanted into the field of education” (Davis & Sumara, 2002, p. 417; Gordon, 2009).

Whilst Piaget and Vygotsky both view knowledge as constructed by the learner by a process of internalized re-representation and sense making (Richardson, 1997; Flavell, 1996), the manner in which this is thought to occur differs reflecting their intellectual origins (Butterworth & Harris, 1994). For biologist Piaget, learning is driven by evolutionary instincts of curiosity and equilibriation (Blake & Pope, 2008; Inhelder & Piaget, 1964) that together with sensory processing allows the developing, maturing organism to continually adapt to its environment (Piaget, 1970; McDevitt & Ormrod, 2009). This evolutionary driven, biologically constrained process results in experience acquisition and processing: which causes schema creation in the brain through assimilation (extending schemes) or accommodation (creating new schemes) (Piaget, 1970). The cognitive conflict essential to Piagetian development is triggered internally by a continuously operating validation routine processing self explorations (often repeated) and externally through interactions and co-exploration with peers (Tudge, 1990; Gruber, Piaget & Voneche, 1995). Piaget did note, with a lesser significance, interactions with adults when commenting on a Vygotsky manuscript (Piaget, 1962).

For Vygotsky, unlike Piaget, evolutionary biologicial instincts are significant in early life (natural learning) but not as important as the subsequent socio-cultural learning (Van Geert, 1999). Vygotsky saw cognitive development as an internalizing of social interactions or mediations (Moll, 1999) where peers or adults share with and guide the learner through the culture’s knowledge, belief, symbols and tools, usually facilitated with the tool of language (Chaiklin, 2003). Whilst cognitive construction occurs within the individual, Vygotsky saw knowledge as mainly co-constructed socially rather than constructed through solo Piagetian explorations: knowledgeble peers and adults are key social contributors to knowledge formation (John-Steiner & Mahn, 2000). He challenged the Piagetian notion of unaided IQ testing of children, preferring expert aided achievement assessment (Gindis, 1995). Vygottsky argues that learning occurs within the learner’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) delimited on the lower boundary at the independent achievement level and at the upper boundary by aided (or scaffolded) achievement (Measures, Quell, & Wells, 1997; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

This foundational difference underpins why the biologically influenced Piaget saw cognitive development in a sequential stage model anchored to chronological ages. The development and maturation of the evolving organism provides the emerging cognitive engine with which the individual constructs through self discovery, play and peer exploration its understanding of physical scientific relationships and logic (Inhelder & Piaget, 1964). However, Vygotsky’s socio-cultural approach suggests that learners’ cognitive development proceeds not in such distinct evolutionary stages, but in a gradual, threaded understanding (Tryphon & Voneche, 1996), significantly accelerated by the acquisition and internalization of language (Daniels, Cole & Wertsch, 2007). Where Piaget sees children’s external self talk as egocentric evidencing an inability to see others’ perspectives before a Copernicun transformation (McDevitt, 2009; Sigel, Brodzinsky & Golinkoff, 1981), Vygotsky sees it as a vital precursor to internal self talk and ultimately meta cognitive development (Alanen, 2003).

In the secondary classroom

Piagetian theory would classify students in a secondary class at concrete operational and formal operational stages depending upon age (and cultural and educational conditions) with broad scientific skill competencies (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; McDevitt, 2009). It would suggest teaching strategies of direct experiential solo and peer learning opportunities, manipulation of concrete objects and concrete metaphor, with the teacher anchoring new knowledge to existing knowledge and language (after first identifying that prior knowledge). These strategies reflect a view of the learner as the same curious organism from the sensorimotor stage, building schemes. The students’ Piagetian stage diversity, and prior scheme diversity, suggests goals, learning materials, vocabulary, and approaches should be differentiated to ensure learning is accessible and existent for students in differing stages. Opportunities for self exploration would be manifest - including physical, technological, multimedia, creativity, role play, simulation, experiments, game play and discovery based excursion activities capable of selection (Blake & Pope, 2008). The teacher would provide an array of possible experiences rather than direct instruction, with students selecting and controlling learning activities, with solo task assessments and the teacher actively leveraging students’ idealism. (source)

Vygotskan eyes, conversely, would see students with a range of cognitive capacities resulting from their diverse social and cultural experiences, each capable of a level of unaided and expert aided task achievement (a series of individual ZPDs). As cognitive development only occurs within the ZPD, each student’s ZPD would be understood and suitable challenging learning activities provided. Whereas Piaget would advocate non mediated solo and peer self exploration, a Vygotskian teacher would provide differentiated, selected learning experiences within students’ ZPDs, with peer-peer, didactic teacher, teacher as mentor and teacher as participant activities. The teacher, and the experts in the expert/non expert pairs, would be seen questioning, probing, restating, reflecting, revoicing and expertly scaffolding the activities to aid learning and understanding (Tabak & Baumgartner, 2004). Students from different years may be combined reflecting competence, older children teaching younger, and virtual mentors, coaches and peers may provide technologically mediated learning (Kim & Baylor, 2006). Assessment would be portfolio in nature, including co-produced task outcomes.

Whilst several strategies are common, including peer work, the significant teaching strategy differences between Piagetian and Vygotskan approaches are the role of the teacher, the extent of solo exploration, the nature of the peer relationships, and the assessment and understanding of the cognitive capacities of the students and the resultant goals, materials and approach (Tzuo, 2007). Gordon (2009) argues that these constructivist theories aid classroom strategy design, but should not be confused with prescriptive education theories. Research suggests such co-operative learning can benefit students (Vermette, Harper & DiMillo, 2004; Wood & Wood, 1996), including secondary school students (Soyibo & Evans, 2002). However Tzuriel & Shamir found negligible impact for equal peers (2007) and there is evidence of negative impact from continuous scaffolding (Biemiller & Meichenbaum, 1998). Further, McDevitt & Ormrod (2009) note that whilst research has supported Piaget’s sequence, many abilities appear before or after Piaget postulated and are impacted by socio-cultural influences.

Piaget and Vygotsky’s intellectual origins underpin their theories, which share a constructivist core but differ in key respects. The theories are useful in understanding important factors at work in the classroom, however it would be inappropriate to fashion classroom strategies purely by reference to constructivist theories of cognitive development: classroom strategies require a theory of education. Secondary student learning is assured neither by highly individualized, expertly scaffolded Vygotskan learning activities nor by veritable Piagetian gardens of Eden for solo exploration.

References

Alanen, R. (2003). A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about language learning. In P. Kalaja and A. Barcelos, Beliefs about SLA: new research approaches, (pp 55-86). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1998). The consequences of negative scaffolding for students who learn slowly--A commentary on C. Addison Stone's "The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities". Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 365-69.

Blake, B., & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59-67.

Butterworth, G., & Harris, M. (1994). Principles of developmental psychology, Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin (Ed.) Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39-65). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist Discourses and the Field of Education: Problems and Possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409-28.

Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, 7(4), 200-203.

Gindis, B. (1995). The social/cultural implication of disability: Vygotsky's paradigm for special education. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 77-81.

Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice. Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 45(1), pp. 39-58.

Gruber, H. E., Piaget, J., & Voneche, J. J. (1995). The essential Piaget: An interpretive reference and guide. Northvale NJ: Jason Aronson Press.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from thought to adolescence. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. London: Routledge.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (2000). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. In K. Smith and A. Pellegrini (Eds.), Psychology of education: major themes 2000 (pp. 89-123). London: Routledge.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.

McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2009). Child development and education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Measures, E., Quell, C., & Wells, G. (1997). A sociocultural perspective on classroom discourse. In B. Davies and D. Corson, Oral discourse and education (pp 21-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moll, I. (1999). Reclaiming the natural line in Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development. In P. Lloyd and C. Fernyhough, Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments, Volume 4 (pp. 38-50). London: Routledge, London.

Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky's critical remarks concerning The language and thought of the child, and Judgment and reasoning in the child, by Jean Piaget. In L. Vygotsky, Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Piaget, J. (1970). Psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge.

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building a world of new understandings (pp. 3-14). London: Farmer Press.

Sigel, I., Brodzinsky, D., & Golinkoff, R. (1981). New directions in Piagetian theory and practice. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Soyibo, K., & Evans, H. E. (2002). Effects of a co-operative learning strategy on ninth-graders' understanding of human nutrition. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 48(2), 32-35.

Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition & Instruction, 22(4), 393.

Tharp, R., and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tryphon, A., & Voneche, J. (1996). Piaget-Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought. Hove: Psychology Press.

Tzuo, P. W. (2007). The tension between teacher control and children’s freedom in a child-centered classroom: Resolving the practical dilemma through a closer look at the related theories. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 33-39.

Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2007). The effects of peer mediation with young children (PMYC) on children’s cognitive modifiability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 143–165.

Van Geert, P. (1999). Vygotsky’s dynamic systems. In P. Lloyd and C. Fernyhough, Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments, Volume 4 (pp. 3-21). London: Routledge.

Vermette, P., Harper, L., & DiMillo, S. (2004). Cooperative & collaborative learning...with 4-8 year olds: How does research support teachers' practice? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 130-134.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 5.

Woolfolk, A., and Margetts, K. (2007). Educational Psychology. Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Education.

Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational Psychology windows into classrooms. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Krause, K. L., Bochner, S. & Duchesne, S. (2006). Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. South Melbourne: Thomson.

Labinowisc, E., (1980). The Piaget primer. Thinking, learning, teaching. (pp.19-21, 73, 83, 93). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Lourenco, O., and Machado, A. (1996). In defence of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, Vol. 103, issue 1, pp. 143-164.

McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Piaget, J., (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In Inhelder, B., & Chipman, H.H. (Eds). Piaget and his School: a reader in developmental psychology. (pp. 11-23). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Santrock, J. W. (2004). Child Development. Bosn: Mc Graw Hill.

Slavin, R. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. Foundations of Constructivism. (5th ed). (Pp. 111-117.) New York: Longman. (on E-Reserve).

1000 words

Essay Topic

Successful completion of this assignment will allow you to demonstrate:

• The ability to explore educational ideas and issues through research and critical analysis

• Literacy skills in implementing a sustained and written argument within a specific word limit

Readings for Major essay

The following references have been placed on Reserve and E-reserve in the Library. However, there are plenty of other sources on this topic and these are simply suggestions to help you to start on your reading. You are NOT expected to consult all these references.

You are expected to refer to a minimum of FOUR references one of which must Woolfolk and Margetts (2007). There is no upper limit to the number of references. However, the more references used well will likely increase your standard of essay and thus grade. Journal articles should be included.

You could select from the following list or browse along the library shelves among similar call numbers. Most of the following are general texts; others provide more specialised information. These books below also have multiple copies.

Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational Psychology windows into classrooms. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Krause, K. L., Bochner, S. & Duchesne, S. (2006). Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. South Melbourne: Thomson.

McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Santrock, J. W. (2004). Child Development. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.

Slavin, R. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Journal articles

These articles can be found on E-reserve.

• Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, vol. 7, issue 4. p 200-203.

• Lourenco, O., and Machado, A. (1996). In defence of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, Vol. 103, issue 1, pp. 143-164.

• Labinowisc, E., (1980). The Piaget primer. Thinking, learning, teaching. (pp.19-21, 73, 83, 93). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

• Piaget, J., (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In Inhelder, B., & Chipman, H.H. (Eds). Piaget and his School: a reader in developmental psychology. (pp. 11-23). New York: Springer-Verlag.

• Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. Foundations of Constructivism. (5th ed). (Pp. 111-117.) New York: Longman. (on E-Reserve).

• Tabak, I.; Baumgartner, E. (2004). The Teacher as Partner: Exploring Participant Structures, Symmetry,and Identity Work in Scaffolding. By: Cognition & Instruction, Vol. 22, Issue 4, p. 393.

• Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Other Books on Reserve Shelf

• Karpov, Y. V. (2005). The Neo-Vygotskian Approach to Child Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Kozulin. A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V.S., Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Note: E-reserve does not hold articles which are available through the Library’s subscription to online electronic journals. You are expected to use your library research skills to locate and print such articles from online journals.

Procedural Notes for the Essay

| |

|EXTERNAL STUDENTS |

|Essays in hard copy must reach Centre of Open Education (COE) by 5 pm on the due date 8th October. The Centre is located on |

|campus at level 1 of Building X5B. The entrance to the Centre is on the southern side of the building adjacent to the W4 |

|carpark. |

| |

|Do not hand in to Education Office. |

External students will submit one hardcopy and ecopy to OCD. The ecopy is for security purposes as occasionally hardcopies are lost. The hard copy is the one that will be marked.

The hardcopy essay must be submitted with the Assignment Cover Sheet at the end of this Unit Outline. Your essay will not be marked unless the certification is signed and dated. Do not submit assignments in any other kind of folder. Please no plastic folders!

Essays should be typed on one side of an A4 page, with a margin of at least 2.5cm. Use 1.5 or double line spacing.

All essays should represent your own work. Plagiarism is an offence and will be penalised (see Section on Plagiarism).

Ensure that your essay meets the requirements outlined on the front of your Assignment Cover Sheet.

For this essay, if you wish, it is acceptable to use headings within the text.

The Department of Education subscribes to the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing guidelines. You are expected to adopt these in your assignments. Use APA for referencing. Eg. the author and year of publication are cited in the body of the text with the complete reference listed in your Reference section. You do not use footnotes for references. Students who are unsure of correct referencing procedures may collect a handout from the Department Office (C3A828).

You must adhere to the stated word limit (+ or – 10%). Essays which exceed the word limit will not be marked. References, tables and appendices are not included in the word limit. It is a short word length to work with but that is part of the skills needed of academic writing.

NOTE: You will receive a grade not a numerical mark for your essay. A total mark will be given with your final grade for the overall unit.

|Name |Student ID |Marker: |

| | Levels of Attainment |

|Assessment attributes |Developing (Fail) |Functional (Pass) |Proficient (Credit) |Advanced (Distinction to High |

| | | | |Distinction) |

|STYLE: Literacy |Significant errors; inappropriate |Errors, but attempts at |Clear appropriate |Fluent, skilled style; no grammar or |

|(Grammar / Vocabulary /|usage of vocabulary and grammar. |appropriateness. |expression; comprehensible|vocabulary problems. |

|Written Expression) | | |grammar, few errors. | |

| |Some errors are hampering |Written expression requires | | |

| |communication. |minor to some improvement. | | |

|CONTENT: Understanding |Irrelevant content, does not answer |Adequate understanding of |Good understanding of |Excellent understanding of theory by |

|and relevance of theory|question. |theory |theory. |the use of substantial research |

|and use of research | | | |(experiment results from journals). |

|from journal articles |Inadequate understanding of theory |Use of some research |Use of research | |

| |and/or research (experiment results |(experiment results from |(experiment results from |Clear evidence of additional reading.|

| |from journals). |journals). |journals). | |

| | | | | |

| | |Little to some evidence of |Evidence of additional | |

| | |additional reading. |reading. | |

|ARGUMENT AND ANALYSIS: |Unclear or no argument, organisation |Adequate structure. |Evidence of some critique.|Well structured argument. |

|Clarity of Argument / |of essay undermines intelligibility | | | |

|Structure of argument | |Some argument development. | |High order analytic skills evident. |

| | | | | |

| | |No critique (criticism). | |Good critique. |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Excellent critique. |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Essay makes a substantial |

| | | | |contribution to new knowledge. |

|CRITICAL / EVALUATION |Misinterprets the question and |Adequate interpretation of |Accurately interprets the |Accurate interpretation of question |

|SKILLS |evidence. |question. However could be |question and evidence. |and evidence. |

| | |greater evaluation of evidence | | |

| |Draws unwarranted conclusions, fails |by (effective) use of more |Identifies some relevant |Thoughtful analysis and evaluation of|

| |to justify points of view. |references. |arguments. | |

| | | | |arguments. |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Draws warranted conclusions. |

|Use of APA referencing |Unsatisfactory |Some errors | Satisfactory |

|system | | | |

|Comment:- |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|Grade:- |

Outline the main principles behind the 1. Piaget and 2. Vygotsky theories of development. How would they apply to you as a teacher of secondary (Yr 7-12)? In your answer cite specific classroom strategies you would use to link theory with practice and enhance a child’s development. (Do not just relate facts. Use analysis in your argument eg criticism/compare and contrast, and research experiment/s results from journals).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download