Of the two sets of theories presented by Piaget and Vygotsky, I tend to agree most with Vygotsky. Piaget's idea that children have to construct their own knowledge, that knowledge is not something teachers transmit to students seems deeply flawed. If children cannot figure out that their parents are giving them presents on Christmas morning, and instead conclude that it's Santa, then they're constructing their own knowledge of the world. That knowledge is, of course, wrong. Allowing children to construct their own knowledge is allowing children to create flawed ideas about society and the world in general. It's the educator's role to guide the educated away from ignorance. Granted, the constructivist approach instructs the teacher to pose questions that will help them rethink such ideas - but sometimes, the teacher just has to tell the child that an idea is flat out wrong.
Vygotsky, in contrast, sees learning as a partnership between the educator and the educated; that knowledge is constructed between the two parties as they interact. I absolutely agree with his idea that children grow through the use of language. He stresses the role of adults in the child's education - that direct instruction is used as well as the partnership arrangement.
From my experience, trying Piaget's approach, and getting them to draw their own conclusions... in effect, getting them to 'teach themselves' by interacting with their environment produces deeply flawed determinations, like the previous example of "Santa leaving the presents," or "I can't explain it, therefore it's magic." While this tends to be the end result for some subjects with younger children, using this approach with older children seems to create a different kind of flawed reasoning. I have seen that older children will imbue the subject with qualities it never had; for instance, I have seen them imbue historical figures with the personality and value system of themselves, which only serves to confuse them when that historical figure does something that is absolutely opposed to their own set of morals.
Using at least some of Vygotsky's theory, and having active participation and partnership, with an adult playing a guiding role, true learning occurs.
After reading the book and listening to the lecture as well as learned about the two theorists in previous classrooms, I tend to lean towards Vygotsky's theory more. I believe in scaffolding and that children should be active participants in what they learn. The adults role is to guide the children using authoritative style which involves high demandingness with high responsiveness. I also believe that the zone of proximal development is important to know as a teacher so you know what the child is ready to learn next. Overall I tend to side with Vygotsky's theory because he places more of an emphasis on the role that culture and society play in the development of children where as Piaget focuses more on "initiated" self discovery. I also tend to side with Vygotsky's theory because like him I tend to view learning as continuous instead of having concrete stages that don't overlap.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Imholes, I too am leading more towards Vygotskys theory. Like you mentioned, scaffolding is very important to use with children and having them be a part of what they learn. Like Vygotsky and you I believe that culture and society play a huge role in the development of children.
ReplyDeleteBlog Post 4: Harry, I understand your point on Piaget, but what boggles me is the fact that parents are telling their children to believe in Santa Claus so for so long children believe this is true. Once they find out it's not or hear otherwise, usually from their friends, their beliefs change. Same goes with teaching. If a teacher were to tell a student that 5+5 is 15, they too might believe it for a while because, a teacher or a parent or a friend is someone who a child trusts. They are less likely to retain "information" from staranger. Student create their own knowledge from being out and about and experiencing life. We do the same thing and we build on our experiences. I don't think he actually means that students are not learning from teachers.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, I agree, parents and teachers indulge child-like fantasies for far too long - whether it's Santa, or 'ghosts' on Halloween, or the Easter Bunny, etc, etc. We've been telling them, as you said, that 5+5=15 for so many years, and suddenly we've changed our minds. It's a trust issue, and students need to know their teachers are telling them the truth. As for students not learning from teachers, that's what I thought he was saying. I'm going to continue to read his writings; they may grant a different perspective.
ReplyDelete