EDUF 7130 LEARNING THEORIES AND APPLICATIONS



Sarah Bennett

EDUF 7130

Fall 2011

Dr. Chambers

Exam 2

1. Choose a specific subject area/concept (develop an original example) and imagine that you are attempting to approach instruction (or a professional presentation or a group counseling session or any other setting where you are attempting to “teach” someone something) from Ausubel’s meaningful reception learning perspective. How would you go about preparing your instruction from this perspective? For example, what would you want to know about your learners before beginning the instruction? Is there a specific way in which you would organize and present your materials? *Be sure to include a description and application of the following concepts in your example: Anchoring ideas, advance organizers, subsumption (derivative and/or correlative), superordinate learning, and combinatorial learning. (8 pts.—roughly 1-2 pages)

In most circumstances, my best friend Christine is teaching me. She is a studying to get her doctorate degree in clinical psychology, and her knowledge of all things psychology related has brought me a lot of clarification over the course of my Master’s program, as well as clarification in my personal life. However there is one area that I enjoy teaching Christine and that is cooking. While she is a wonderful cook, even though she denies it, she is French and Swiss, and her knowledge of American cooking does not suit her husband’s South Georgia tastes. One night a few weeks ago, her husband suggested we have a cooking lesson in preparation for his family’s upcoming southern Thanksgiving feast. In the interest of time, a cooking lesson, which could be considered discovery learning, is not practical; however, using Ausubel’s meaningful reception learning theory, I plan to prepare Christine to make her own southern dressing. While Ausubel’s theory was designed for classroom learning, I feel that I can use an example outside of the classroom much as I would within.

For reception learning to occur according to Ausubel, Christine must be presented in the final form the content of what she is to learn. This Sunday I am making dressing for our church’s fall luncheon. I will reserve some for Christine to taste so she can have a clear idea what she is reaching for with her final product. Using the reception learning theory, I will have to verbally take Christine through the steps of the recipe so at a later time she will be able to create this dish.

I may want to consider, before I plan how to teach Christine how to bake dressing, the use of an advance organizer. Ausubel found that students need to have the gap between what they know and what they need to know bridged together. In order for this to work, I may want to speak to her husband about the American dishes she knows, or her native French or Swiss dishes that may be close in relation to the dish I will help her prepare. By having knowledge of Christine’s previous knowledge, I will be better able to help her with this new idea.

First, in preparation for my lesson with Christine, I should consider her native dishes and think of what she may already know, as Ausubel found that learners must be able to relate prior knowledge to what they plan to learn to make it meaningful. Identifying an anchoring idea will allow me to relay information to Christine that she can relate to and connect with previously known information. Christine already is very fond of fondue, and makes it regularly. Soaking bread in a liquid is something she is already familiar with, and she will use a similar principle in the creation of dressing. Ausubel also believed that subsumption is how these anchoring ideas will connect in Christine’s mind. Since baking dressing is really no more complicated than making fondue, through derivative subsumption, I will explain to Christine that she will take bread and soak it in liquid and bake it, which would be no different than if she were to take her cubed fondue bread, dip it in her fondue liquid, and throw it in a dish and into the oven. Here, she is familiar with a general French concept, and we are “hooking” it to a new and more southern concept. If she is able to connect something she knows with this new idea, she should have no problem understand and creating the new dish.

Another way that I could present the new information to Christine is through Ausubel’s processes of superordinate or combinational learning. If I were to present the information to Christine through superordinate learning, let’s first suppose that by saying to Christine, “you will be making dressing,” she had no idea what she would be making. Because this type of learning occurs through a synthesis of established ideas, I could say that dressing is a side dish, much like any French side dish such as ratatouille or I could say it is a casserole, and prepared much like cassoulet, or any type of dish where a number of ingredients are thrown together and baked in the oven. By being able identify that it is a side dish, or a casserole, she should be able to grasp the concept of the dressing.

All of the previously explained examples show a hierarchy of information, in that something new is added to something already known. Another way Ausubel would have suggested I prepare Christine for the creation of her dressing is through combinatorial learning. In this case, I am not relating something in a specific sense to the new idea, but through a similar idea, Christine should be able to connect the combinatorial learning idea with the new recipe. By explaining how a sponge, a universal cleaning item, absorbs liquid, and can also dry out with heat or air, could be a way to link two ideas, or combine them. By using all or a combination of Ausubel’s processes, I will most certainly be able to assist Christine in making a delicious and authentic Thanksgiving dish.

2. How do think a schema theorist would analyze a situation in which learners are

experiencing difficulty achieving some instructional goal? In other words, what types of factors would schema theorists believe contribute to a problem like this? What specific recommendations would be made by schema theorists to help the learners? Explain with a specific original example. (5 pts.—roughly ½-1 page)

We all have schemas, or files of information that help us in identifying and understanding information. A schema theorist would argue that mental models of what we already know exist can influence and guide the way we think. If someone is having a difficult time achieving a goal, schema theorists would believe that it is possible that the new idea is in violation of an already developed schema. New schemata would have to be established to overcome this misunderstanding. A schema theorist would suggest using accretion, tuning or restructuring to help the learner achieve their goal.

For example, my fiancé was raised in a family where his father managed the family budget. It was engrained in him at an early age that women turned to men, just as his mother turned to his father, for access to money. Now, as he is an adult, he is trying to overcome that schema, as he realizes that I am the better money manager between the two of us. He could at times have difficulty remembering that I am capable of paying the bills, budgeting and managing funds because his mother would not have been able to do these things. A schema theorist would try to help him overcome this schema first through accretion. By adding new information to a schema, or changing a variable, there is a chance that his schema could change. Tuning would be trying to reshape and modify his already known schema. Now, restructuring in my opinion would be the most appropriate form of modification of my fiancé’s schema. This is when an entirely new schema is recreated. With repeated consistencies, such as regular mortgage payments and an accumulation of savings due to proper budgeting by me, a new schema could be engrained in his mind. This would be the preferred result; and they say you cannot change a man!

3. Describe in your own words the main arguments that Piaget made regarding the nature of cognitive development, including the processes involved. (*Note: you don’t need to go through and describe the characteristics of all of the stages of development here.) Then, briefly explain, specifically, how instruction would differ depending on the stage of cognitive development of the learner, with a specific example of learners in a specific stage. After evaluating the research evidence and criticisms that have been raised regarding various claims of Piaget, which of his claims do you think is the most “controversial” or detrimental to his theory in terms of not being supported? Cite specific research findings to back up your argument. (8 pts.—roughly 1-2 pages)

Piaget believed that children develop their cognitive skills in stages. The development of cognition is affected by heredity, environment and self-construction. Knowledge is found through actions, Piaget believed. He argues that a child must be able to have improvement in knowledge and cognition before going on through his established stages of development. Each stage builds on the previous, and a child should not digress to prior stages, as if they have accomplished an ability, they can only expound upon it in upcoming stages. Basically, the youngest children are not able to reason and think the way older children and adults do, because they have not yet reached that stage of their cognitive development.

Because characteristics of children vary at each stage of development, instruction too should be suitable for children at each stage. For a child in the sensorimotor stage, from birth to age two, what are first motor reflexes become more advanced actions. What at first is a concrete goal, very quickly becomes abstract according to Piaget. For example, a child will recognize their mother and call for her using unidentifiable noises. Throughout this stage, an instructor or parent can elaborate on these noises to help the child make letter sound, which eventually turn into whole words such a “mama.” At the second stage, preoperational, a child ranges from two to seven years of age. Children have not yet developed their ability to defy egocentricism. An instructor or parent must keep this in mind, as Piaget would believe that a child is not yet ready to focus on multidimensional conversations or ideas. Children in this stage should be taught early problem solving skills and language skills. In the next stage, the concrete operation period, where children are seven to eleven years old, children are much more logical. They are now able to solve number conservation problems, and instruction should be focused on logical reasoning. These children are not yet prepared for hypothetical thinking, which will not come until the last stage, the formal operational period. Here in this last stage children begin to reason like adults. They can process abstract thoughts and become logical. At this point instruction can begin to focus on hypotheses, as well as things outside of reality, such as “what would happen if…” type scenarios.

There are quite a few criticisms of Piaget’s theories, but the one I find the most controversial is that every child, regardless of culture, progresses through all stages at about the same rate and age. While research shows that despite culture children do progress through these stages, their ages vary, and many children, despite their culture never make it to the highest level of development, as Piaget would claim they should. Even Piaget’s own research has shown that many adults still reason at a concrete level that most seven to eleven year olds are supposed to reason. For example, I followed the exercise on formal informational thinking in the text and found that I, like most other adults when asked to draw a picture of a bottle over a glass, I drew just that- a bottle over a glass- not a bottle pouring liquid in a glass, as someone at the highest level of thinking would draw. This would show that I reason at the concrete level, with most seven to eleven year olds. This variation in Piaget’s theory shows that in not all cases does someone in a certain age group reason a certain way; not all people develop at the same rate; and it does seem possible, if only in certain circumstances, it is possible to digress in your ability to reason.

4. Briefly explain how one might approach instruction from the perspective of Robbie

Case’s Neo-Piagetian theory of cognitive development. In other words, what are the specific implications of this theory for the learning process? (3 pts.—a few sentences)

Case believed that children’s problem solving abilities are affected by their short term memory capacity and that part of that capacity is for operating space, and the other part for storage space. Using this theory, an instructor would have to keep in mind that younger children need more mental space and time to process information. In order for a young child to learn how to talk, they need a lot of operating space in their memory. As talking becomes fully operational through practice, some of that space is released, and more room is opened to learn more things. Mastered processes require less memory capacity, and more room is available to consume more information. An instructor must not be too hasty in adding new ideas should a child not be mentally prepared to hold and basically process new things until the original ones are mastered. With mastery, a child should be able to have space in their memory to begin to learn new tasks.

5. a) Develop an original example of a learning situation (either from the perspective of the “learner” or the “instructor”), and explain specifically how one would go about instruction based on Bruner’s interactional theory. Be sure to include a discussion of the 3 modes of representation in his theory, and how one might adjust instruction within this context to suit the modes represented by the learners. (*Note: I’m looking for you apply the 3 modes of representation in this example, but this is not sufficient to answer the entire question.) (roughly 1-1½ pages)

Bruner described how people structure their understanding of the world by their development in three areas. An affective instructor must be able to adjust instruction to meet the needs of the learner through enactive, iconic and symbolic representation, depending on how the learner has cognitively evolved. The first is through action, which he called enactive representation; the second through imagery and perception, or iconic representation; and the third through language and reason, which Bruner called symbolic representation. 

The first thing to consider is where the learner is in their ability, what they have previously learned, and what their capabilities are prior to creating your means of instruction. For example, my fiancé is trying to teach me to drive a stick shift, and while I have never driven a Jeep stick shift, I have driven a manual four wheeler before. I could not tell you where the gears go, or how to adjust my feet, but I am familiar with the process and should be able to relate that to driving the Jeep. A few nights ago, he decides to give it a try. According to Bruner, it is enactive representation, the first stage that explains my ability to maneuver a manual vehicle, but not be able to comprehend the movements any other way than doing it. As Ryan tells me what to do, jumping to the third stage, symbolic representation with language being the primary symbol, I increasingly get more and more irritated, because I am familiar with the motor responses, not the language associated with those responses. I have no idea what he is telling me to do, but if he would not talk at all, I would be able to maneuver the vehicle just fine.

Using iconic representation, the second stage, Ryan may have wanted to draw a diagram of the gears and use an iconic mode, rather than trying to use language to relay the information. Understanding through a diagram of the spatial structure of the gears may have helped me, had I not understood where each gear is located and the purpose of each. It is the next logical step after enactive representation.

Going back to symbolic representation, with language being the primary symbol, it is reached when the learner has already mastered the first two stages. It is obvious that I am no master of the Jeep, as I had a very difficult time my first time around. I believe the order of Bruner’s modes makes logical sense, in that we must increase our knowledge of concepts before we can make sense of the whole. If Ryan were to show me the steps (enactive), then draw me a diagram (iconic), at that point I would be able to absorb the words and directions (symbolic).

b) Using the same example as in Part a, briefly discuss in general terms how Ausubel’s approach to instruction would be different. (roughly a few sentences) (8 pts total: part a is worth more than part b)

If Ryan had tried to teach me how to drive the Jeep using Ausubel’s theory of meaningful reception learning, the approach would have been quite different. The entire idea of how a Jeep is to be driven would have been presented in its final form. I would then be able to internalize the information and use it at a later time. There are two forms of learning that Ausubel believed, reception and discovery. In this case, discovery could be a disaster, as learning to drive a vehicle should not be something you just try to learn by doing, like an experiment. If Ryan were to use reception learning, he would most likely drive me around so I can see the final product, then give me a manual, so I can learn on my own.

6. Compare and contrast Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories of learning and

development, in your own words, noting important specific similarities and differences. *For example, both theorists would be in favor of group work in classrooms, but for different reasons. What would each theorist say about why group work would be beneficial? Further compare/contrast their views, and then develop an example of a Vygotskian approach to “instruction.” Be sure to include a discussion of specific concepts that Vygotsky discusses, with an explanation of at least 3 of the following: zone of proximal development, scaffolding, intersubjectivity, private speech, mediating tools. (8 pts—roughly 2 pages).

While both Piaget and Vygotsky were considered constructivists in cognitive development theory, their similarities are few. Both men believed in societal differences influencing development, and the belief that one stage of growth grows off of the prior. However, Piaget focused his stages of development on age, and they were very rigid, while Vygotsky focused on more environmental factors such as culture and language in the development of a child. Vygotsky did not have stages like Piaget, but ideas and processes that children go through as they develop, and there is no endpoint to development. While Vygotsky believed that learning comes before development, Piaget seemed to think the opposite, that development provokes learning.

Vygotsky’s approach to learning is much more flexible it seems than Piaget. An example of Vygotsky’s approach to instruction can be seen in the adult education classes at the college where I work. All adults, each person is attempting to receive their GED diploma, but all at different rates. The instructor has to take a different approach with each student, because they all have specific needs, including those with developmental delays. The ideas of reading and writing are new for some of the students. While a student is learning to read for example, many of Vygotsky’s functions can be highly effective. The first is the zone of proximal development. Tapping into a student’s potential is seen through this function. The teacher guides the student along with a lesson that is above their present level, but with assistance, they are able to complete the task. Here, a teacher can see the student’s potential they just need to see that they are capable of achieving the task. Another task can include scaffolding, which involves encouragement and suggestions which can help in the student’s ability to grasp a new concept. Connected with the zone of proximal development, the student is bridging the gap between what they know and what they can know. The third concept I will address is private speech, or essentially talking to oneself aloud. We never actually stop doing this in life, even if we keep it to ourselves. By talking out loud, or sounding out words for example, a student is gaining confidence in their ability to read, along with confidence in speaking in front of others. In using all of these examples, I feel that a GED instructor, who has a class of adults whose motives and skills vary greatly, would find much success in following the concepts of Vygotsky.

Bonus question: After considering all of the theories discussed in this section, which theory appeals to you the most, in terms of its orienting assumptions about the nature of learning and development, and/or its applicability for you in your profession? Give at least 2 specific examples of concepts from the theory that appeal to you here. (2 bonus pts—a few sentences).

I found the most logic in Vygotsky’s theories. I feel that your culture and language drives your ability to develop, as prompted by those around you. Like a goldfish, you are only as big as you are allowed to be, I feel. And, you always have room for growth. For example, his theory of sociocultural history and how it affects development. If you take a seven year old child that is raised in a home where they are immersed in culture, has access to extracurricular activities, etc… this child should develop far beyond a child who is neglected, for example, lives in a rural area, and does not have access to stimulating environments. The second thing that appealed to me was the variation he provided in his experiments. While examining children, he did not do controlled experiments, but instead allowed for disruption in normal problem solving. It wasn’t how well they performed, but their responses, which I feel is indicative of cognitive development.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download