The students are the ones doing the work and figuring it all out. They come up with their own problem solving skills in order to complete the task at hand and to learn how to use it in the future to other tasks.

-Nicole G.

Yes, good, Nicole. You stopped just a little too soon: We should add here that in doing this, the students "become part of the culture of problem-solving mathematicians. And, in enculturating through this activity, they acquire some of the culture's tools--a shared vocabulary and the means to discuss reflect upon, evaluate..." etc. (p. 38) So the students become part of the community of practice that is practicing mathematicians. (NMB)

According to the theory of situated learning, an expert is a more knowledgeable member of the community (Situated learning powerpoint). This expert can guide the learner through his learning trajectory by means of different types of participation within a community of practice (Situated learning powerpoint).

In the article Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible by Collins, Brown and Holum, the authors describe what is essential to expert practice: cognitive strategies which "integrate skills and knowledge in order to accomplish meaningful tasks." (p. 2) By "expertise" is meant "the practice of solving problems and carrying out tasks in a domain." (p. 16)

An expert is found in the traditional apprentice-master relationship: the expert (master) shows the apprentice how to perform a task; observes the apprentice as he does parts of the task; and gradually lets the apprentice do more and more of the task until he can perform the entire task on his own. (p. 2) Experts are also found in the cognitive apprentice-master relationship: for example, to improve one's active reading or listening skills, a student can observe the (manifested) thought processes the expert (master) employs in reading or listening, and imitate these skills with the expert's guidance. (p. 3) According to the authors, some type of apprenticeship is necessary in order to achieve expertise in a domain. (p. 3)

In the reciprocal teaching reading task described in the article, the teacher "models expert strategies" that the students will then employ in turn. (p. 6) In reciprocal teaching, the students take on the roles of both producer and critic, which allows them to develop their metacognitive skills. This produces expertise in learners, since the knowledge they gain is thus made explicit and, "freed from its contextual binding", can be applied in other contexts. (p. 6) Overt modeling of expert processes can also be done for other practices, such as writing or mathematical problem-solving. (pp 6-11) This modeling has the benefit of showing learners that experts' processes are not necessarily "smooth and easy" (p. 8); that experts also experience difficulties in their work, which is then seen as normal rather than a sign that one is bad at an activity. (p. 11)

Finally, a teacher is not always the "expert" in the classroom. (p. 17) Students should be encouraged to become experts themselves, and to challenge the results experts have come up with. (p. 17)

Essentially, cognitive apprenticeship “attempts to promote learning within the nexus of activity, tool, and culture” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p.40). Basically, it assumes that people learn from one another through observation, modeling, and imitation. Thinking and reflection have to be done “out loud.” The student (or apprentice) observes the processes by which a teacher (or expert) thinks and practices her/his skill. By doing so, it allows students (or apprentices) to learn more on their own. The cognitive side of it highlights that techniques reach beyond the physical skills to cognitive skills that are associated with traditional schooling. Medical and law students have no doubt learned by completing an apprenticeship, but they have a lot of cognitive content.

Brown et al. (1989) give two really good examples about learning through cognitive apprenticeship (someone can elaborate on these examples if they want). Both teachers use different approaches, but both of their approaches promote characteristics of cognitive apprenticeship. For instance, in mathematics, we’ve all had to compute problems, and most of the time they were straight out of a textbook. At least, that’s how it was for me. I was never thrown into a real-world situation (in the classroom). Brown et al. (1989) explain that most pre-graduate students don’t see their professors engage in mathematical practice, but they are expected to understand that practice. Students should actively take part in a lesson through practice. Looking at mathematics again, students, along with their teacher, should: talk about the subject, explain concepts, collaborate with one another, and enjoy the personality interactions. In real life, mathematicians collaborate – they share ideas, experiences, etc. So by implicating this culture into the classroom, it feels more natural; and it can be fun. Students can experience the world of mathematics in a different, a way that might make more sense. “Cognitive apprenticeship methods try to enculturate students into authentic practices through activity and social interaction” (Brown et al.,1989, p.37).

-Amanda B.  

You got us started really well here, Amanda, with both an extended definition and excellent example from the field of math. I wonder if your classmates can continue, as you have invited them to do, by perhaps 1. adding even more to your definition, 2. drawing some comparisons to Vygotsky's ideas and/or 3. giving more specific examples or nonexamples? (NMB)

I would like to add to Amanda's definition of cognitive apprenticeship by incorporating that "cognitive apprenticeship is a model of instruction that works to make thinking visible" (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991, p. 1). Collins et. al (1991) explain that learners in traditional apprenticeship methods are able to see the processes of work, it is observable, for example piecing together a garment in sewing , cabinet making the learning of a tangible activity (Collins et al., 1991). In cognitive apprenticeship, the authors state that the" teacher's thinking must be made visible to students and also the student's thinking must be made visible to the teacher" by exposing these processes in the open " students can observe, enact, and practice ...with the help from the teacher and from other students" (Collins et al., 1991, p. 3). The authors of this article even though they compare the process of learning by the traditional apprenticeship method to that of cognitive apprenticeship makes the point very clear that cognitive apprenticeship involves cognitive and meta-cognitive thinking ( Collins et al., 1991). This means that students have to be involved in thinking and also reflect on their thinking. These skills are modeled at first by teachers in strategies like "think a louds" where teachers may verbally talk through the strategies used to understand what is being read, teachers then scaffold and coach students and then through a process of collaboration and social interaction, "ideas are exchanged and modified and belief systems developed and appropriated through conversation and narratives (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989, p.40). Students in this process learn the skills necessary to transfer what they learn in authentic activities, the authors present that "the challenge is to present a range of tasks, varying from systematic to diverse, and to encourage students to reflect on and articulate the elements that are common across tasks" ( Collins et al., 1991, p. 3). The implication is that students should be able to apply these cognitive and metacognitive skills in the school environment and within the real world environment. Also when they are faced with new problems should be able to use these skills developed to solve them.

I also think that cognitive apprenticeship is somewhat to related to Piaget's theory that deals with the stages of cognitive development, in this theory we see where students in certain developmental stages have the ability to learn abstract concepts when teachers use concrete objects, I would say in cognitive apprenticeship teachers model for students how to use abstract concepts in concrete authentic activities; real world applications that students may see the relevance or usefulness of the application. I think for all humans we have the ability to continuously learn but especially when we see the practicality or visible useful application for the information that we have learned. This translates for students the information that is learned in school they should see the practicality and usefulness in their day to day lives also the information that is learned outside of the school environment should also be useful within the school environment.

Tricia L.

Excellent, important points here, Tricia for helping us all to know how to apply this theoretical knowledge that we are reading. I especially like the connection to Piaget (NMB).

-Nicole G.

The socio-culturist learning by doing, Bruner believe that, when students discover it by themselves, it increases the responsibility to learn on their own and motivation to learn more. He emphasized the social nature of learning, according to Bruner, important outcomes of learning include the concepts, categories, and problem-solving procedures invented previously by the culture, presenting contrasting events that cause cognitive conflict, providing guide practice and encouraging reflection (Jones & reeves, 2006). Through such activities, learners ascertain regularities and relationship in the environment and achieve learning that they are more likely to retain, having “discovered” it themselves (Jones & reeves, 2006). On other hand, the power of Vygotsky’s ideas lies in his explanation of the dynamic independent of social and individual process (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 192). When beginning activity in the classroom, learner depends on others with more experience. “Over time they take on increasing responsibility for their own learning and participating in joint activity” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p. 192). (Sumaiya)

In Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), the concept of authenticity is absolutely central to the sociocultural theory of cognition and learning that is advanced by the authors. Specifically, their ideas hinge on the "distinction between authentic and school activity" (Brown et al., p. 34).

Brown et al. (1989) define the term "authentic activity" (p. 34) as "the ordinary practices of the culture" (p. 34). This definition, however, is deceptively simple, especially when thinking about authentic activity in the field of education. Indeed, Brown et al. ask for us to understand "academic disciplines … as communities or cultures" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 33). As such, when Brown et al. talk about "the ordinary practices of the culture" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34), I think they are referring to ordinary practices as they have been defined -- as they have been "socially constructed through negotiations among present and past members" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34) -- within a particular discipline, domain, or content-area. Authentic activity, then, refers to activities which are "coherent, meaningful, and purposeful" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34) within a given domain. Or, in simpler terms, authentic activities in the classroom are ones which would be considered ordinary, conventional, or standard practice within a given domain.  

Authentic activity is important, in the eyes of Brown et al. (1989), insofar as it relates to another of their ideas, that "learning is … a process of enculturation" (p. 33). In order to learn math, for instance, the student must enculturate (so to speak) into the culture of math: that is, they must come to think and act like mathematicians, they must "adopt the behaviour and belief systems" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 33) which are part of the culture of math. Authentic activity, then, can be seen as being at the very root of the learning-through-enculturation process: authentic activities ask students to think and act according to the ordinary practices of math (or any other culture); to think and act in accordance with mathematicians is indicative of enculturation into the culture of math; and enculturation into the culture of math is the driving-force behind learning math. It is for this reason, I think, that Brown et al. explicitly state that "authentic activity (is) a central component of learning" (Brown et al., 1989, p. 37).

-- Andrew

This is a really important point, Andrew, because it has influenced greatly the ways in which teachers (at least those subscribing to best practices) are now teaching in the various disciplines. Thus, you will probably learn in your methods classes that no matter what subject we teach, we should decide what and how to teach by referring to the ways in which those in our field (e.g., mathematicians, historians, etc.) think, act, talk, write, value, view the world, etc. I wonder if you or any of your classmates would like to add here examples of what this might mean for the specific ways in which particular subjects could (should?) be taught? (NMB)

According toBrown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), authentic activities are seen as being critically important to the construction of knowledge. Authenticities are most defined as the ordinary practices of the culture (Brown et al, p. 32). Authenticity is field of education; Classroom activity very much takes place within the culture of schools, although it is attributed to the culture of readers, writers, mathematicians, historians, economists, geographers, English, or music, which is overshadowed by the culture of schools.  Students are not immersed in a society; they are subjected to hybrid activities which restrict their chances to gain from the connection of real action. Activities are authentic, if they are simply the ordinary practices of the culture.  When authentic activities are transferred to the classroom, their context is inevitably transmuted; they become classroom tasks and part of the school culture.

Authentic activity is a pedagogical methodology that permits students to investigate, examine, and definitively build ideas and connections in settings that include genuine issues and project that are relevant to the learner (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989).Students must be able to realize that their achievements stretch beyond the walls of the classroom.  They bring to the classroom experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and curiosities and authentic learning provides a means of bridging those elements with classroom learning.  Students no longer simply learn rote facts in abstract or artificial situations, but they experience and use information in ways that are grounded in reality (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989). (Sumaiya)

Good, Sumi. So whenever possible, teachers should try to bring into the classroom real problems and real issues--like getting students to write letters to the editor after studying an issue that affects their community, perhaps? Thus, they learn to read closely for details, analyze an issue (perhaps a math lesson could even be tied in here as well as a history lesson?), write persuasively, etc.--all while doing a real world task. (NMB)

Based on both Lave’s theories and Brown, Collin, and Duguid’s analysis of Just Plain Folk, I conceptualized the text as a persuasive article outlining the determents of education’s influence on the imaginative mind. Brown et al. argue that schools inaccurately prepare students for real-life applications of theories, concepts, and background knowledge. While schools rely on well-defined problems and specific procedural solutions, most often, practitioners and JFPs rely on innovation, as referenced by the Weight Watch example. “The dieter's solution path was extremely expedient and drew on the sort of inventiveness that characterizes the activity of both JPFs and practitioners. It reflected the nature of the activity, the resources available, and the sort of resolution required in a way that problem solving that relies on abstracted knowledge cannot” (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). As such, Brown et al. are staunch supporters of activity/application-driven instruction as well as instructional opportunities for innovation. In school, I was a huge fan of any teacher who could relate what we were learning about to real-world applications. As a student, I have a hard time trying to understand a concept without first knowing how the new information can be useful outside the classroom. Moreover, I think that it is important for teachers to demonstrate that there is no clear-cut way of solving a problem. Think of all the modern inventions that we rely on today. Where would we be today without computers, electricity, and numerous innovative medical devices? If the people who have invented these objects were forced to apply their problem-solving skills in a specific manner, I would hazard a guess that a good majority of modern inventions would not exist today. It’s important for the education field to realize the significance of imagination and encourage its continual development, as well as critical thinking and analytical skills. (Bridget S.)

Yes, good, Matt and Bridget, especially your discussion of process in learning. One additional point to be made here: The situated cognition theorists are also making the point that when we give students "neat and tidy" problems to solve (for example, math problems that always come out evenly or problems in social studies or in literature that have neat resolutions), we are not giving authentic work to students since it is more likely that we will encounter in real life "ill-defined" problems--things that need to be grappled with and that don't always come out neatly. Thus, they are encouraging teachers to give more authentic work that JPF would do rather than made up "busy work" that is easily graded, but not very typical of what we would find in real life. (NMB)

Tricia

Yes, good, Tricia. You and your classmates may have come across this sociocultural idea framed like this progression of classroom activity:

"I (Teacher) do; You (Student) watch.

We do together.

You do; I watch." (NMB)

Piaget's influence: aimed to provide real world experiences for students to build knowledge from. In doing so, students are discovering contrasting views and developing their own ideas regarding a topic. Piaget also insisted on hands-on learning. In the Formal Operations stage, students are encouraged to develop different possibilities and outcomes and to also take peer comments in to consideration - this encourages reflection. Okay, good, Caroline, but don't forget the emphasis upon what Jones & Reeve call "cognitive conflict." Remember that Piaget thought that one of the best--if not the best--conditions for prompting learning was cognitive dissonance (NMB).

Vygotsky's influence: the idea of guided participation, modeling what needs to be done and encouraging the students to do it on their own, which leads to self regulation and reflection. Collaborative learning plays a significant role in Vygotsky's theory. Discovery learning is a great tool to incorporate collaboration among students. With proper teacher instruction and structure, the students can problem solve together, present contrasting ideas, and reflect on what they've learned together. Thinking aloud is another influence to discovery learning because the student is partaking in a conversation, whether that be with a teacher, peer, or internally, in order to discover and learn. - Caroline Pierce

Socioculturalists realize that there are differ views on semiotic means, "pluralistic rather than monistic theory" and that is how they came up with cognitive pluralistic cognitive (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). This interests the teachers who work with children who have special needs and work in a multicultural classroom.

-Nicole G.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice job of explaining cognitive pluralism, Nicole!

It seems that this concept of cognitive pluralism has also informed the ideas of Bruner (at least as they are described to us by Jones & Reeves [2006]). Bruner's is said to be a theory of "cultural psychology" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60). In this theory, Bruner argues that the goal of education "should be to teach and develop culture-creation skills" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60), and he acknowledges that fact that "different cultures emphasize the use of certain tools or concepts over others" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60). Bruner, in other words, recognizes that students will learn different tools and concepts depending on the characteristics of their particular culture.

That, to me, is a kind of culture-induced cognitive pluralism. John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) described cognitive pluralism as "a pluralistic rather than a monistic theory of semiotic mediation" (p. 193), one which is not limited to just language but also takes into account the semiotic functions of "drawings, musical notes, and scientific diagrams" (p. 193). So, insofar as Bruner's theory acknowledges the fact that different cultures equip learners with different kinds of tools, it seems to me that he is also recognizing that language is not the only, universal semiotic mediator -- while one culture might chiefly be concerned with the language, another might prioritize a very different semiotic mediator. As such, I feel that Bruner (although he doesn't seem to use the term explicitly) would agree with the notion that there exists cognitive pluralism within diverse or multi-cultural populations.

-- Andrew

Good job here, Nicole and Andrew. This concept of cognitive pluralism (derived from Vygotsky's ideas about semiotic mediation, but named by John-Steiner) is used by William Kist and other New Literacies researchers/teachers as support for their use of multimodal tools in their lessons. Thus, you will find teachers having students not only write "compositions" to express their ideas but also paint, draw, make digital videos, etc. and also study different media sources for their messages about modern life. (NMB)

Cognitive pluralism represents the relationship of language to thought, and different desire. “Semiotic mediation is a key to all aspects of knowledge construction” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p.192), human beings are collapse with information. Semiotic mechanisms mediate social and individual working and unite the outer and inner. Initially, there are numerous semiotic means. language is an essential one; Second, semiotic means are in light of social practices or cultural practice, for example, these demonstration of representation are installed in social practice and depend on semiotic means.“Ecology, cultural, and family organization play a role in patterning experience and events in the creation of knowledge” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p.192). Finally, pluralistic rather than monistic theory of semiotic mediation. These interest who work in multicultural settings and with youngsters who have special needs?

Evidence of cognitive pluralism incorporates words, drawing scientific diagram, and mathematical notation systems, diagrams, and maps. The use of diverse cognitive approaches are illustrated by the accounts of experienced thinkers. (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). (Sumaiya)

Good Claire. Perhaps for this week, you or one of your classmates might want to comment about who the MKO and the LKO might be in a classroom. Also, can anyone see a connection to the ZPD? Can anyone see a connection to collaborative activities like discussion groups, Book Clubs, or team projects? (NMB)

In the classroom, I think the MKO can be the teacher or another student. The LKO then is the student that may be struggling with content or who has not yet mastered it. Through scaffolding, guidance, and reciprocal teaching (Meece, 2002), students continue to develop their cognitive skills. All of the support given to students helps them progress in their zone of proximal development. As the MKO supports the LKO in tasks slightly beyond their independent level, they internalize and develop the skills to complete the tasks on their own. It is through these supports that LKO are able to advance within their ZPD. -Claire

In Jones and Reeves' (2006) article on Bruner's influence on the field of education, they identify four of Bruner's theories as having implications with regards toon matters of curriculum and pedagogy: "The Spiral Curriculum" (p. 59); "Discovery Learning" (p. 59); Bruner's ideas with regards to "Modes of Representation and the Importance of Learner Analysis" (p. 59); and his inclination towards "cultural psychology" (p. 60).

Bruner's theory of a "spiral curriculum" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59) is one that has influenced the field of education "for fifty years" (p. 59). In this theory, Bruner offers a vision for the way curriculum instruction should be sequenced. Specifically, it argues that "foundational concepts and principles should be taught first followed by specific cases" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59) -- in other words, basics must be taught first, and then more specific information can be laid on top of that foundation. Bruner supposed that this sequence of instruction "would enable learners to clarify connections between concepts encountered earlier and later" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59), especially when basic knowledge was continually and constantly revisited. Indeed, Bruner's spiral curriculum continues to "(influence) instructional design at the curriculum, module, and lesson levels for both face-to-face and online instruction" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59).

Next, Bruner is the individual behind the concept of "discovery learning" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59), an idea which still has currency within education today, and one which has come up (without reference to Bruner) in a number of this semester's readings and discussions. In discovery learning, students learn through doing and participating, and, through this style of learning, students "ascertain regularities and relationships in the environment and achieve learning that they are more likely to retain, having 'discovered' it themselves" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59). Jones & Reeves (2006) argue that Bruner's idea of discovery learning has been misunderstood and distorted over time. Indeed, while his ideas envisioned discovery learning as "a carefully planned (and) structured" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59) endeavour, many practitioners of discovery learning have mistakenly taken Bruner's theory as a call for an unstructured and entirely-'open' classroom. These misunderstandings are said to have provoked a backlash and a return to traditional methods of teaching. Nonetheless, discovery learning is far from extinct -- indeed, "designers of interactive learning environments continue to see its value" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59).

Finally, Jones and Reeves (2006) attribute to Bruner the theory "that humans understand and represent the world" (p. 59) through multiple means. More specifically, there are three ways in which humans understand and represent the world: "enactively (via motor responses), iconicly (via percepts and images), and symbolically (via symbol systems such as language" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59). As such, Bruner's theory suggests that learning can be facilitated by carefully observing the student, determining the means by which the student learns best (that is, their "dominant modes of representation" [Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59]), and providing instruction through that means. The teacher who recognizes the importance of multiple means of representation, then, will understand that "graphics, video, sound, text, and interactions are equally important" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59) tools for instruction. As I noted in the Padlet-square in which we discuss modes of representation, I feel this particular aspect of Bruner's theory has had major influence on the UDL framework (which calls for instruction through multiple means of representation).

Finally, Bruner's theories recognize the importance of culture, and, as such, they are at the basis of many of today's sociocultural constructivist educational practices. Although Bruner began his work as a cognitivist, Jones & Reeves (2006) claim that he became disenfranchised with the cognitive perspective for two reasons: because the cognitive paradigm privileged a computational understanding of learning over the all-important concept of meaning-making; and that it disregarded the matter of culture. Indeed, Bruner was very concerned with culture, and he believed that the goal of education was "to teach and develop culture-creation skills such as discovery, invention, negotiation, and sharing" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60). Furthermore, Bruner's theory was culturally relative. That is, he recognized that "different cultures emphasize the use of certain tools or concepts over others" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60), and so what is learned within a given culture will depend on the parameters of that culture. Jones & Reeves write that these ideas have inspired a number of ideas in education today, ranging from the tendency to encourage "collaboration among students to produce and share representations of their understandings of the world" (p. 60), to more specific practices such as "computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)" (p. 60).

-- Andrew

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the section above, I used the Jones & Reeves (2006) text to identify and describe most influential theories, and I also discussed some ways they are used in today's field of education. In this new section, I'd just like to make some remarks about certain things that interested me as I was writing about the Jones & Reeves piece.

First of all, I was struck by the fact that Jones & Reeves (2006) attribute the "spiral curriculum" (p. 59) to Bruner. I understand that he likely coined the term 'spiral curriculum', and I can readily accept the fact that he was perhaps the first to explain and elaborate on this method of sequencing a curriculum. I recognize that my thinking could be coloured by the fact that the ideas associated with spiral curriculums have become orthodox, but still, I cannot help but wonder if a 'foundations-first' approach to education wasn't in place long before Bruner? That is, can it possibly be true that, until Bruner, instruction did not start by addressing the basics of a content-area? And, if Bruner truly was the originator of these ideas, then what exactly was the previous approach to curriculum sequencing?

The next thing I wanted to mention was with regards to "discovery learning" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 59). As I mentioned in my description of this theory, Bruner felt that discovery learning needed to be a carefully guided and highly structured. Interestingly, in a previous week's discussion of Daniel Willingham's (Willingham, 2006) work, I actually criticized Willingham precisely on the basis that he advocated for a very tightly-structured mode of discovery learning. I suppose I owe Willingham (wherever he is) an apology -- as it turns out, he was simply keeping true to the spirit and intention of Bruner's theory!

Finally (and this is where things get very interesting, in my opinion), I wanted to say some words about Jones & Reeve's (2006) notion that discovery learning has been "erroneously translated" (p. 59) and "(misinterpreted)" (p. 59). Given the fact that Bruner was so interested in sociocultural "meaning-making" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60), is it even possible that 'erroneous translation' and 'misinterpretation' can exist? Is it not more in line with the spirit of Bruner to suggest that those who supposedly 'misinterpreted' his ideas simply made different meaning out of his words? Here, I'm approaching an idea that I attribute to Roland Barthes ("Death of the Author," 1967) and Michel Foucault ("What is an Author," 1969): specifically, these two pieces suggest that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author, but by the readers. If we follow that train of thought, I do not think Jones & Reeve's (who are interested in 'meaning-making') are justified in claiming that Bruner was misinterpreted -- rather, I think a different meaning of Bruner emerged (*a different meaning was made* of Bruner) amongst a certain set of teachers.

Why is the above so interesting to me? Ultimately, I think it suggests that Vygotsky and the Vygotskians are *not* the paradigm that will dominate our careers (Bailey, 2015). I feel that this contradiction -- paying lip-service to 'meaning-making', on one hand, and clinging to the belief that Brunel's theories are fixed, discrete, and definable, on the other hand -- belies the fact that the Vygotskians have not yet fully grappled with postmodernism. And, if that is the case, I think it is only a matter of time before a new, postmodern theory of education emerges. When that happens, I expect that postmodernism will change everything (as it has done to every other field which has allowed it entry). But that, I think, goes beyond our present discussion... unless someone wants to talk about it!

-- Andrew

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As always, you are very thoughtful and very thorough, Andrew. I want to add just a little history to offer another interpretation of Jones and Reeve--and Willingham, for that matter (As Vygotsky would say, historical thinking is important in meaning making). When I read the claim of Jones and Reeve that Bruner has been "misinterpreted" what I think about is the "free-for-all" that resulted in some classrooms, particularly in the late 1980s and 1990s, where teachers were claiming to be "constructivists" and asking their students to do "discovery learning." What happened (and, sadly, still does in some places--though I suspect that the move toward greater accountability by teachers is putting an end to this) is that teachers who did not really know much about constructivist theories merely set their students loose to "explore," "ask their own questions," and "find their own answers." Then they sat at their desks to read or do crossword puzzles (or went to smoke in the teachers' room--yes, believe it or not, I remember when teachers just left their classes for periods of time). They thought they were applying theory by letting students find their own answers without scaffolding (that is, without teaching them how to ask good questions, how to find good answers, how to employ strategies for higher level thinking, etc.) Some classrooms were crazy and teachers tried to justify what they were doing by saying that they were "applying constructivist theory." This is how many people came to distrust both discovery learning and constructivist teaching in general (I also remember when telling people you were a constructivist teacher was definitely not highly regarded). Thus, it took longer than it might have for constructivism to become a mainstream source of ideas for classroom instruction. The fact that it did as more and more people became familiar with its tenets, I think, points to the strength of those tenets. If one looks at Bruner (especially, with his notion of scaffolding) and at Vygotsky (with, especially, his complex notion of the ZPD), we would have to draw at least some conclusions about their intentions in regard to discovery learning and constructivist teaching in general that are very different from those made by the "free-for-all" teachers. My reading of Jones and Reeve and of Willingham is colored by the fact that I suspect that they are remembering those times in the early days of constructivist teaching, as I am when I read the word, "misinterpretation" (Jones and reeve) or recommendations for structure (Wiilingham).

As for your comments about postmodernism--I do see some occasional research coming out in which educational researchers are attempting to apply postmodern ideas to educational practice, though not a lot yet. I am by no means an expert on postmodernism, but I do not see postmodernism and Vygotskian ideas as antithetical. For example, I think of Vygotsky's ideas about the shifting identities of the MKO and the LKO as being in line with postmodern thinking, as well as his ideas about 1. the importance of history and culture for determining epistemological understandings and curriculum, and 2. of looking to what individual students bring to the process of learning in order to structure instruction within individual ZPDs. The idea that learning is context-dependent and also the relativism that seems apparent in Vygotsky's ideas also appear to me to be in line with postmodernism. Finally, socioculturally inspired lessons in multiliteracies and new literacies, with their emphases on multiple genres and texts--especially visual texts--and often framed by some of Vygotsky's ideas of semiotic mediation, also strike me as not unlike postmodern ideas. (NMB)

o Choosing and structuring activities to fit the skills and interests of children

o Supporting and monitoring children’s participation in activities

o Adjusting level of support provided as children begin to perform the activity independently (Meece, 2002, p. 161).

Scaffolding is similar to guided participation because it "refers to the process by which adults provide support to a child who is learning to master a task or problem" (Meece, 2002, p. 161). Both scaffolding and guided participation remind me of the process of private speech (see Egocentric Speech in the Padlet Glossary). Scaffolding has many forms from modeling , explicit instructions, breaking the problem into steps, partial group collaboration on a problem, asking persuasive questions, and providing construction feedback to the student. As with guided participation, the intended goal is "gradually pass more and more control of the activity to the child. By relinquishing control, the teacher enables the child to engage in independent and self-regulated learning" (Meece, 2002, p. 162).

There are six elements to scaffolding: recruitment, demonstrating solutions, simplifying the task, maintaining participation, providing feedback, controlling frustration. - Caroline Pierce (I thought one of my classmates would like to expand further)

Scaffolding (and guided participation) are way in which to support children and help them to function within their zone of proximal development. Scaffolding is a concept introduced by Jerome Bruner and his associated based on Vygotsky's work (Meece, 2002). When an adult scaffolds, they "perform or direct those elements of the task that are beyond the child's ability" (Meece, 2002, p. 161). Scaffolding can be verbal , such as providing verbal reminders or giving feedback, or physical, such as guiding a child's hand during a task (Meech, 2002, p. 161). Researchers have identified 6 important elements of the scaffolding process: recruitment, demonstrating solutions, simplifying the task, maintaining participation, providing feedback, and controlling frustration. Recruitment involves eliciting a child's interest in accomplishing the goal of the task. Demonstrating solutions is modeling a "more appropriate form of a solution then was originally performed by the child" (Meech, 2002, p. 163). Simplifying the task is accomplished by breaking the task into smaller more manageable parts that the child can complete on his or her own. The fourth element, maintaining participation, occurs wen the adult gives the student encouragement and keeps them focused on the task. When providing feedback, the adult identifies discrepancies between what the student is doing and what is being asked of them. Finally, controlling frustration involves helping the student control frustration and risk while finding solutions. -Claire

Good explanations here, Caroline and Claire. Just a couple of additions: Vygotsky(and Bruner) would say that scaffolding must be provided by a MKO who is often an adult, but doesn't have to be. This is a good place for me to put in a plug for multi-age collaborations. I always suggest to teachers to make friends with teachers from another grade level and see if your students can do some work together. Some of the most joyful learning that I have seen happen is when older students "coach" younger students and when younger students share and explain what they have made or learned with older students. This is a wonderful way to turn your Less Knowledgeable Others (LKO) to More Knowledgeable others (MKO). Have your weaker readers from 3rd grade practice reading aloud and then go to 1st grade to read and discuss the same book with some students there. Have your high school students who may struggle to read/write about a novel or a book from their history class put together a lesson to teach to middle schoolers. Similar things could be done in math and science. You will inspire the MKOs to "prepare" better than they might ever study for a traditional test. (NMB)

In addition, seeing curriculum as “animated conversation” begins with real questions and real problems (Bailey, Spring 2015). “To answer or solve them, [one] needs both the valuable knowledge and skills of a culture and the remembering, thinking, and hypothesizing of the learner” (Bailey, Spring 2015). Jones & Reeves (2006) explain how Bruner emphasized “that the objective of education should be to teach and develop culture-creation skills such as discovery, invention, negotiation, and sharing” (p.60). For example: while watching a biography about Descartes, Derick asks “what is the doubling of the cube?” The teacher can encourage that Derick do some research on his own and share his findings with the classroom the next day. His sharing sparked an animated conversation where students learned how the volume of a cube can be doubled: 1) it first arose in ancient Greece in relation to statue building, and 2) it is a problem of geometrical construction. Students can then think and make suggestions about different geometrical constructions on how to double the volume of a cube and then test their hypothesis. Students then acquire real-world application.  Good example for secondary classrooms, Amanda. Notice how the students' question gives rise to the discovery project which gives rise to more animated discussion. Caroline's example of the city planning that she observed was another great example of teaching through the use of animated conversation. Remember that Vygotsky tells us that language is the primary tool and sign. Using language to prompt questions and to collaboratively formulate answers (in whatever mode and method you want to do this) is good teaching, according to the socioculturalists.(NMB)

Takaya, K. (2013). Jerome Bruner: Developing a Sense of the Possible. New York City: Springer Science & Business Media.

How can a curriculum be used to bring an “animated conversation” in the classroom? What do teachers need to know in order to support learning through “animated conversation?”

-Amanda

I agree with all of the aspects of Animated Conversations that you covered Amanda. Bruner’s idea of “Animated Conversations” goes hand in hand with his stance on the role of teachers and his idea of spiral curriculum. Good connections, Matt. (NMB)
The role of the teacher and the spiral curriculum are each facilitated by
Animated Conversations. Bruner felt that curriculum should be an Animated
Conversation that begins with real questions and real problems (Bailey, Spring
2015). To answer or solve the questions and problems teachers need to relay both the valuable knowledge and skills of a culture and take into account the remembering, thinking, and hypothesizing of the learner (Bailey, Spring 2015). The teacher does this by re-defining the subject matter to match the developmental level of the learner’s internal cognitive structure (Bailey, Spring 2015). The conversations must be presented at a level that is appropriate to the developmental level of the students. The
aspect of spiral curriculum also calls upon the teacher to first introduce
foundational concepts and principles, then follow those up with specific cases
that apply to the developmental level of the students (Jones and Reeves, p.59).
Essentially the teacher relays content and curriculum through this Animated
Conversation that seeks to engage the students in solving questions and
problems. Yes. Notice how far this is from lecturing or transmission. It is the teacher and the students working together that creates the energy (animated quality) in the room and can lead to real learning--for both the students and the teacher (NMB)

My Question for
the class:

As an aspiring history teacher I can think of
many ways to use Animated Conversations in a social studies classroom. Please
share some examples of how you would use Animated Conversations in your
classroom. State the grade level and the concentration of the class. Thanks! How about you, Matt? Can you give us one example from your area? (NMB)

One example I can think of is the discussion that we had in my class I was teaching for my pre-student teaching seminar. I was teaching a lesson segment on the rise of dictators. I began the lesson
segment by asking this question: Since all of you know a little bit about all of the bad things these dictators did, how could these bad men get to their positions of power? What this was essentially doing was to get the students to think about what they already knew and make connections as to what the environment was like at the time of the dictators’ rise to power. In previous lessons the
students were taught about Stalin’s rise to power and the rise of communism. The purpose of this question was to get the students to make connections and begin to realize that certain factors allow so called “bad men” to get positions of power. History is such a great subject to have animated
conversations because of all of the similarities and repeating cycles over time. As teachers we can use this to our advantage. This is especially true with the spiral curriculum and animated conversations. We can introduce foundational concepts and principles such as economic and social factors constituting a shift in power and then use animated conversations to discuss specific cases
and then the students can draw on their background knowledge to make
connections and formulate arguments such as comparing the conditions of Hitler’s
rise to power to that of Stalin’s. –Matt H

Mathematics curricula can be seen as a ‘spiral’ approach: specifically in elementary, students cover the same topics each year, but these topics become more advanced as the years go on. A student who learns it for the first time may not remember it the following year. But the expectation after four years of revisiting, we expect the child to have mastered the basic concept. The illustrated figure is a helpful example of the spiral approach. We can see every passing year; more advanced topics are added to the basic notion of division and fraction. The new learning has a relationship with the old learning and is put in context with the old information. Jones & Reeves (2006) explain that a spiral curriculum has been a popular choice by instructional designers in that they “sequence content first by basic, foundational knowledge, then proceed to specific cases which gain in complexity and contain exceptions to the guiding principles of the subject” (p.59).  I think what’s really great about the spiral curriculum is the ease into transition from simple ideas to complex ideas. It’s beneficial because information is reinforced and solidified each time a student revisits the concept. Spiral curriculum requires students to remember and activate past knowledge and build upon that past knowledge with new material. 

- Amanda B.

You do a tremendous
job of highlighting what Spiral Curriculum really is. Like its name, Bruner’s
Spiral Curriculum notes that curricula should be taught and sequenced like that
of a spiral. Think of a tornado, you start with the foundational concepts and
principles at the bottom and they are taken up over time and reinforced by
specific cases then once they reach the top the skills become more concrete. In
other words, “In teaching any subject, foundational concepts and principles
should be taught first followed by specific cases. This enables learners to
clarify connections between concepts encountered earlier and later and thus
remedy the problem of transfer” (Jones and Reeves, p.59). Teaching a spiral
curriculum allows the students to use what they have learned in previous
classes, be it the current year or previous years, to make connections and
allow for a more seamless transfer of knowledge. The spiral curriculum should
repeatedly revisit the basic concepts until the student has demonstrated a
complete grasp of the concept (Jones and Reeves, p. 59). It is important to
note that curriculum can be taught to anyone it just must be represented appropriately
based on the developmental level of the students (Jones and Reeves, p. 59). I
really like the fact that you pointed out background knowledge. Background
knowledge is a key tool that teachers can use to promote learning. Not only
does Bruner discuss it in his ideas of spiral curriculum, but also Vygotsky and
Piaget each feel that in one way or another background knowledge influences the
learning process. –Matt H

Excellent explanation here, Amanda and Matt, and you both point out not only how the spiral curriculum works, but also the many benefits of the spiral curriculum. I am really glad that Matt added the part about the representational systems because that is definitely important for making sure that the foundational knowledge is taught correctly (and may explain why students sometimes don't get the basics, even though they were "taught"). One thing that is problematic to me, though, is teachers of any of the levels above first or second grade who see students who need remediation and think that this merely means "just keep drilling the basics." This concerns me because I have seen far too many high school students who are so turned off about school because for them it is merely workbook pages that drill and drill those basics. How could teachers resolve the need to spiral with the need for students to have a solid understanding of "the basics" (especially those in upper grades, but really any grade that relies on background knowledge) ? (NMB)

Question for the
class:

(Bridget S.)

I really do agree with your point here Bridget about Bruner's view of culture as being an important factor in education, the authors state that his view was that the "object of education should be to teach and develop culture creation skills" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p. 60), this integrates learning with social interaction and also this focus on culture develops competency skills (Jones & Reeves, 2006). I also think that Bruner's view about culture was also a precursor of what educators refer to as meaningful learning. When students are taught to develop culture- creation skills that"equip learners with the tools needed to operate and solve problems within their culture [their daily experiences]" (Jones & Reeves, 2006, p.60), they will be engaged in the learning as they see the benefits that they may derive from it.

(Tricia L.)

For my Classmates: How do you think Bruner’s view of culture in education has influenced curriculum development in schools today?

(Bridget S.)

.

Bridget, I think that Bruner's view of culture has really influenced curriculum today unless it is just a coincidence. Now more than ever, there has been such a large focus on helping ELLs and understanding other cultures so we can help students and relate to them in the education system. There has been such an emphasis throughout this teaching program so far on helping everyone and catering to everyone's needs, especially those with disabilities or those from other cultures who may need help adjusting socially and academically. I like Bruner's thought on "joint culture creation", which was explained as considering learning as a communal activity which results in the group making their own, new culture that incorporates all different cultural morals, values and beliefs (Jones & Reeves, 2006). If you think about it, this is what happens in classrooms if the teacher is sensitive to and knowledgeable about diversity and cultural backgrounds. If in one student's culture, it is rude to point then the teacher may ban pointing in that class, while if another's culture involves bowing to say hello, the teacher may bow at the student as a sign of respect and cultural understanding. While the bowing and lack of pointing may not be the teacher's or other students' culture, they have in a sense created a new culture among the class, which is a wonderful concept. I think that Bruner's thoughts on key components of education (discovery, invention, negotiation and sharing) have impacted today's curriculum development as teaching is a lot less black and white (teacher lecturing, students memorizing and regurgitating facts). It includes a lot more grey area now that encompasses Bruner's ideals of discovery (new information, of oneself), sharing (ideas/cultural backgrounds), invention (new ways to connect and relate to material) and negotiation (there is usually more than one right way, especially within responses and expressing understanding).

- Kailey S

Bridget, to address your posed question, I think that Bruner's view on the importance of culture in education has had enormous impact on education and classroom structures. As Kailey pointed out above one aspect in regards to ELL's, living in a culturally diverse world, and wanting to have more inclusive classrooms, it's hard to dismiss the students who come from different cultural backgrounds than our very own. Often these students are pushed out and left to fall through the cracks, often labelled as troubled kids. Therefore, teachers should do their best to be culturally responsive - taking initiative to understand the culture of which their students are coming from and to be sensitive to them and their learning styles. Fostering a classroom environment that is culturally accepting and sensitive to other cultures, helps the students learn in a communal setting that is inviting and motivating - as the students teach one another about who they are, and where their beliefs, practices come from. This is definitely something I wish to foster in my classroom as we all have something important to contribute, and learn from another. (Sr. Nadia)

I agree with your comments above, Kailey and Sr. Nadia with respects to Bridget's question about the curriculum today becoming more sensitive to diverse cultures in the classroom. From Bailey's notes, we read that as a result of Bruner, the "goal of education is to teach understanding that connects prior knowledge of the learner" (Spring,2015), this prior knowledge would be mostly from the students' experiences that may be as a result of their culture. It is important to note that the students need to make a connection to the broader conceptual knowledge of "school" culture, the school's culture however according to Bruner, is that of "the majority culture that is reflected in the school culture"(Bailey, Spring 2015). If the school's culture is one of acceptance and respect of others cultures and the value they bring to the class room, then this results in a partnership of cognitive development.

Tricia

Good discussion here, Bridget, Tricia, Kailey, Sr. Nadia. It is important to note Bruner's important point that the school culture (often reflecting middle class, majority ideas) too often ignores the cultural ideas that students bring with them to school. This has led to many important ideas about inclusion in classrooms of ways of thinking and doing from students' home life. I know that you are learning about this in your other classes, and now you know where many of these ideas have come from. I would be remiss, however, if I did not bring in here the ideas of Lisa Delpit, an African American writer and theorist, who insists that teachers-- while respecting the cultural ideas and ways of being that students bring with them to school-- MUST teach students about "the culture of power" and help them to learn the thinking and communicating skills they will need to take their place in that culture of power. (NMB)

This model of teaching even though it was developed to teach comprehension skills has " allowed students to better monitor and regulate their comprehension in other learning situations as well" (Meece, 2002, p. 163).

(Tricia L)

I like your connection to "guided participation," Caroline. After reading about Bruner, perhaps you or one of your classmates might want to add to this.

After reading the Meece article, I discovered that peer interactions plays an important role in learning and development of a student. Piggy backing off of the idea that "when beginning an activity, learners depend on others with more experience" (Steiner, Mahn, 1996, p. 192). Vygotsky argued a child's development is enhanced through collaboration with peers. Pairing a more advanced student with a struggling student can help the struggling student achieve higher comprehension. It is important that the teacher scaffold instruction and provide a structure for which the students are to work together. This is because the students must come together and mutually agree on the procedures they used and the result of the problem. This reminds me of sports, which is argued to help develop students on and off the field. Participation in organized sports leads to collaboration, respect, and teamwork. The coach begins practice by modeling what he wants the team to do. Then, the team partakes in "drills" which are intended to hone the new skill. Often times, the coach will split the team in to two groups to perform a scrimmage. Often times, the coach would ask a skilled team member to demonstrate how to perform a drill. This is when the advanced players can demonstrate to the less advanced players how to perform different "moves". The intended result is for the coach to transfer his or her skills to the teammates in order to win the games. The coach is developing skilled team members, and the team members are learning from the coach and each other. - Caroline Pierce Great example, Caroline. YOu can see how effective group work in a classroom can be if we form our groups carefully, right? Another thing to think about is that this is another reason to know your students well because if you know at least some strengths for each student, then everybody gets to be the MKO at least once in a while, right? (NMB)

Learning and development:

Human development begins with reliance on guardians. Learning and development were in based on  the idea that human activities occur in social setting or cultural context, intervened by language and other image frameworks or symbol system, and can be best comprehended when researched in their historical development (John-Steiner and Mahn, p.191). Vygotsky added to a rich, multifaceted hypothesis through which he examined a scope of subject including the psychology of art, language and thoughts, and learning and development, including an attention to the training of students with special needs. (John-Steiner and Mahn, p.192).

Caroline, I like that you relate guided principle and shared reading:  “guided participation is a principle of learning and development”. This standard characterizes social collaboration. Students are relays on others with more experience. Rogoff proposed that, "this methodology as guided participation, in her cross-cultural studies." For e.g. Mayan Mother's with their youngsters as a case of the nonverbal guidance, an adult give children.- Sumaiya

Yes, Sumi, you bring up a couple of good points here, especially the point that guided participation can be both verbal or nonverbal. (NMB)

Egocentric speech is a bridge between two types of thinking, "first intermental and then intramental" (Bailey response to question1, Padlet).

Please see the Comparisons and Contrasts boxes for ways in which Vygotsky's and Piaget's notions of egocentric speech converge and diverge.

--Parissa

I prefer Meece's term, Private Speech, to Egocentric Speech. Piaget and Vygotsky both introduced these ideas, yet they differed from each other. Piaget argues that during this stage, children focus solely on themselves. He viewed egocentric speech as a form of immaturity, because the child is seen as unable to interact with his/her peers. On the contrary, in Meece's article, he coins the term Private Speech as an educational principle that can help students learn, and can even limit a child's misbehavior. 

Private speech "is the means by which children guide their own thinking and behavior" (Meece, 2002, pg. 160). Meece views private speech as a "self-regulatory function". This overt form of inner speech is one reason why children are categorized as being so adorably honest, they say whatever comes to their mind! In the Meece article, private speech is praised as a comprehensive tool for students to self-learn difficult concepts. For example, when solving a tough math problem, evidence shows that students received higher grades when they "talked the problem out" with a teacher, or to themselves. To this day, when I am having trouble understanding difficult concepts (I've done this many times during my reading for this class) I read aloud to myself to let the words sink in. As the child matures, this overt speech transforms to covert, inner speech (Meece, 2002). The Meece article recognizes a program called Cognitive Behavior Modification which makes great use of self-regulatory speech to help children stop impulses, control their frustration levels, and promote inner reflection (Meece, 2002). It begins with cognitive modeling by the teacher, followed by overt guidance, or having the child talk aloud to himself, then using these modeled strategies, the child is encouraged to complete the task on their own, which is categorized as covert self-instruction (Meece, 2002). During this process, the cognitive modeling is key for a child to understand what is expected of them. When the teacher performs what is expected explicitly, it increases the child's opportunity for comprehension.

- Caroline Pierce

Good, Caroline. As you point out, when guided well by MKOs, (e.g, parents, teachers) this private speech can help students to regulate both their behaviors and their thinking. See my example of learning to tie shoes in my answer to Parissa's Question 1, above. I am also glad that you pointed out that you still use private speech to help you to focus when you read. One is never too old for using private speech: Adolescents and adults use private speech to regulate behaviors and thinking sometimes too. I know I use it when I am driving in heavy traffic and have to really talk my way through the maze of cars and road hazards. (NMB)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicole has made some excellent points here. One thing I'd like to point out is that, in the abstract of their article, John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) identify "three central tenets of a Vygotskian framework" (p. 191). The first of those tenets is that "individual development" (p. 191) stems from "social sources" (p. 191). Logically, then, it follows that if we hope for our students' cognitions to develop (and I think it is a given that all of us do want that), it is crucial that we encourage social interaction.

Something that stands out in this regard is the matter of language. John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) point out the fact that "the acquisition of language" (p. 192) is rooted in "social (sources) of development" (p. 192). Language, of course, is a crucial "semiotic mechanism" (p. 192), one which "(mediates) social and individual functioning and (connects) the external and the internal, the social and the individual" (p. 192). Through language, we are able to "(internalize) … external dialogue" (Vygotsky on p. 193) and we are also able to 'externalize' (so to speak) our thoughts -- in other word, through language we are able to take-in and act-on the world around us. Without social interaction, we would not be able to develop this incredibly important tool.  

-- Andrew

Andrew briefly touched on an idea which Meece introduces in his article. He stated that "development involves a complex interaction of genetic and environment influences" (Meece, 2002, p. 159). This is very true. Meece questions how Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and asks, where does cognitive process come in to play? He mentions that cognitive processes enable social transformations which is reminiscent of Piaget. The example he provided was excellent in explaining this idea, "what cognitive changes enable the child to move from an assisted reader to an independent reader?" (Meece, 2002, p. 159). when a student graduates from an assisted reader to an independent reader, he notes that memory and attention processes are what account for this maturation, as well as help from home (reading to the child)/peers (social interactions).

- Caroline Pierce

I'm glad that you brought in this part of Meece's chapter--the part about limitations in Vygotsky's theories. Giving an example to make a point, Meece says that while Vygotsky can help us to see that social interaction can assist students in learning to read, Vygotsky does not talk about what happens cognitively to the student, and therefore, we don't know exactly what cognitive processes can help students move from "assisted reader to independent reader." Thus, Meece says, we must look to other theories (such as IP and schema theories that explain attention and memory processes) for this. This is a great argument for teachers to use theoretical diversity in thinking about their practice, right? (NMB)

Bruner's three modes of representation are enactive (physical movement), iconic (images and perceptions) and symbolic (language and other symbol systems) (Jones and Reeves, p. 59). Bruner believes that intellectual development progresses through these three stages in the order given: first enactive, then iconic, and finally symbolic (Jones and Reeves, p. 59).

Contrast with Piaget's stage theory:

The preoperational stage is concerned with the acquisition and use of language and therefore of symbolic thought (being able to represent things not immediately available to the senses) (Piaget chart). Piaget categorizes intellectual development into two still higher stages, while for Bruner symbolic thinking using language and other symbol systems describes the highest level of thinking available (though it may implicitly or explicitly include elements from Piaget's higher categories as well).

Piaget's stages are entered into and completed prior to entry into the next level (though Piaget notes that transitions between stages can be lengthy, and that children in one stage can show characteristics of another stage in various situations (Woolfolk pp38-39)). By contrast, each of Bruner's stages are described as being at a certain time "dominant" in a given learner (Jones and Reeves, p. 59). This and the fact of Bruner's modes being age-independent suggest that while a given mode may be dominant for a certain thinker, he will still be able to think through the other modes of representation (eg, an iconic 15 year-old thinker will also be able to think symbolically, but perhaps not as often or as well). Yes, this is important, Parissa. I am not sure who came first, but like Bruner, some of the neo-Piagetians also concluded from their research on developmental stages that perhaps someone who reaches the formal operations stage for some tasks like thinking about abstract ideas and doing combinatorial thinking when studying something like literature may not show signs of full formal operations when studying other topics, like physics. In other words, experience, interest, and formal schooling can make more of a difference in reaching developmental stages than Piaget originally thought. (NMB)

-- Parissa

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Tricia, as I pointed out in my note to Andrew in the block on Historical-Cultural theory, this part of Vygotsky's thinking is especially relevant to us today because we will all, probably, have culturally diverse classrooms. (NMB)

Hmmm...some more good, independent thinking, Sr. Nadia, that makes me think of another question: What do you think that Vygotsky (and probably the other socioculturalists) thought intelligence is? (NMB)

--Parissa

I find the concept of egocentrism interesting. I completely agree that most children at the preschool age are egocentric, yet in my experience working with pre-k and kindergarten aged students, I have witnessed many actual conversations. For example, I witnessed two students having a conversation during snack time and the third student wanted to join. Student 3 started talking while Student 1 and 2 were already in a conversation, so they ignored him. Student 3 then stopped and tried a different approach. He gently rested his hand on Student 1 and said, "Excuse me Oliver...." then the three students continued in a conversation together. These students are aged 4-5. Is this an example of non egocentric behavior? This is the BEST example, Caroline! I can just see this sweet little boy who has obviously appropriated (maybe even internalized) good manners :-). What we see here might be what the Neo-Piagetians have shown, which is that Piaget's stages are not as closely aligned with age as he originally thought. Here, your students were obviously moving out of preoperational egocentricism, especially Student 3. All three students seem to be beyond the stage where they might be talking on the phone to Grandma and answering her questions by nodding their heads, thinking that she could see them (an example of full egocentrism). Also, Piaget's idea that interaction with others could help to prompt development past egocentricismmight be in evidence here. (NMB)

On the contrary, when I was playing Candyland with a 5 year old girl, she constantly cheated, trying to hide the fact from me, because she wanted to win the game. Throughout our time together, she would make up rules for each game because she wanted to ensure that she would win.

-Caroline Pierce

This is another good example. Piaget might have explained this in two ways. This five-year-old is still in the preoperational stage and she may not fully understand what it means to cheat. She is hiding her cheating, but that may be more because she knows that you hold power and can take a win away from her for reasons that she doesn't fully understand. And while she knows some basic ideas about right and wrong, her egocentrism may make her project her thoughts and wishes about winning onto you. In other words, she thinks that she should win and you should think that too. This, of course, would make your application of rules that make her lose even more confusing. It would be interesting to know what the age suggestion on the Candyland box says. We can certainly understand better where some of the "Age 7 and up" suggestions come from, can't we? Also, perhaps Piaget would see this girl making up her own rules for the game and see this as progress toward the next stage of development in which children learn to classify and conserve. (NMB)

Leontiev, Vygotsky’s colleague, used the term appropriation to describe the process of internalization (use of psychological tools). He wrote “children cannot and need not reinvent the artifacts that have taken millennia to evolve in order to appropriate such objects into their own system of activity” (Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p.193). Thus, individuals are actively engaged in the community by access of psychological tools.

Steiner & Mahn (1996) describe Vygotsky’s analysis in his book “Thought and Language”: the functional relationship between speaking and thinking is an example of the general process of development in which social tools are appropriated and transformed into individual tools of thinking and problem solving. Thus, the relationship between language and thought illustrates the process of appropriation. The movement from social to individual tools requires an individual to be actively engaged in social interactions (e.g. a child uses speech and gestures to identify, classify, elaborate, explain, and regulate attention). Later, by the social use of language, the child can reflect and transform experience. The use of speech as a means of making sense of experiences is a step towards intellectual functioning.

This distinction between appropriation and internalization is really important, Amanda; good explanation. Maybe for next week, you or your classmates could think of a couple of classroom examples of appropriation and internalization?? (NMB)

Appropriation is necessary for cognitive development within the zone of proximal development (Steiner & Mahn, 1996). This means that individuals participating in guided teacher instruction for example, must share the same focus in order to access the zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development is defined as “the distance between what the child is capable of thinking and doing on her/his own and what she/he can do with assistance from a more knowledgeable other (Bailey, Spring 2015). Collaboration and shared problem solving is needed for social, emotional, and cognitive interchange.

-Amanda B

Since you brought up the idea of parents and their gestures, you might be interested in the little news story that I have linked here. (NMB)

I actually see (and participate) in this kind of interaction a lot! I work at a daycare in the 1 1/2 - 2 year old room, so a lot of the children are just starting to develop language. They do a lot of pointing and gesturing at objects or other people in order to ask what or who it is. They like to go around the table at lunchtime and point to each individual child and ask who everybody is. Some of them also use different gestures for words. For example a couple of the students use the sign language gesture for more if they want us to continue to sing or dance or if they want more food. They've recently started to articulate the word with the gesture as well! We've started working on getting one little boy to use the word please more at his mother's request. He will make a gesture for the word but will only say the word occasionally. I've also seen some of them make gestures for things like hats (patting the top of their head). I just thought it was a cool connection! -Claire

Great example from "real life," Claire. What a good example of Vygotskian principles at work. Can you say more here for this week and explain exactly why Vygotsky would approve of this practice that you and the other teachers are using with these very young children? Use some of the concepts that he would use to explain, if you can. (NMB)

Bruner created the term discovery learning, which he viewed as “requiring a carefully planned structured environment encompassing activities such as focusing on problem solving, presenting contrasting events that cause cognitive conflict, providing guided practice, and encouraging reflection” (Jones & Reeves, 2006). According to Bruner, the role of a teacher in implementing the theory of discovery learning would be to use these activities in the classroom, which would make it easier for the students to retain the information that they learned because they “discovered” the material themselves instead of having to memorize This part sounds like Piaget, doesn't it? (NMB) facts (Jones & Reeves, 2006). These activities that promote discovery learning are “most appropriate when learners have some related prior knowledge and when learners are properly scaffolded and coached in the environment” (Jones & Reeves, 2006). - Kailey S. And this latter part sounds like Vygotsky, doesn't it? (NMB)

Later on in Bruner’s career in the 1980’s, he started to shift his views of learning toward using culture as a valuable concept in learning. “He recognized culture as a significant factor in learning and considered learning as a communal activity that results in “joint culture creation” (Jones & Reeves, 2006). Bruner stated that “different cultures emphasize the use of certain tools or concepts over others and that education should equip learners with the tools needed to operate and solve problems within their culture” (Jones & Reeves, 2006). The role of a teacher when considering this cultural concept of Bruner’s would be to be aware of the diversity in your classroom and use it to your advantage. The different cultures represented in your classroom should be included in your lessons and let the students be interactive. Create a collaborative and social learning environment that gives the students opportunities to learn about different cultures as well as use their own knowledge of their culture to problem-solve and make their own conclusions. - Kailey S.

Question for my peers:

1. Another concept that Bruner viewed as important is animated conversations. What would the role of the teacher be with regards to this concept? - Kailey S.

I think that the teacher plays a critical role in the direction and continuation of animated conversations. In fact, Bruner argues that teachers are the first individuals to encourage animated conversation through their ability to match the subject matter with the developmental level of the learner (Bailey, Spring 2015). When teachers facilitate animated conversation, they are promoting their students to continue their learning and growth. Teachers encourage animated conversation when they activate their students’ prior knowledge and utilize representations to illustrate their learning (Bailey, Spring 2015). Nevertheless, while teachers are the main facilitators of animated conversation, I also think that Bruner would state that animated conversation can be started by almost anyone, particularly individuals of different cultures. Bruner argues that learning is a “communal activity,” and thus, involves several individuals (Jones & Reeves, 2006). Therefore, I think that anyone who is able to teach another individual in any way can be a facilitator of animated conversation.

(Bridget S.)

I agree with has been said above, and wonder if Bruner would have had a stance that since learning is a communal activity as Bridget has pointed out, that each individual having much to contribute, in some degree would act as a facilitator? This would make sense, wouldn't it, Sr. Nadia, since the roles of MKO and LKO could (and should) be passed around the group, right, so that the expertise of everyone is utilized. As we get to the concept of distributed cognition when we talk about situated learning theories, this will become even more clear. (NMB)

I believe that the role of the teacher within the classroom is to facilitate student learning and help motivate students to do such on their own. For Bruner, learning came from the interaction between prior knowledge and conceptual knowledge and accomplished when students learn to ask themselves, one another, real authentic questions (Bailey, Sprint, 2015). Yes, here we definitely see influences of cognitive theories as well as of Vygotsky, don't we, Sr. Nadia? (NMB)

The role of the teacher is to model for students how to think for themselves and engage in animated conversations that help them to develop thinking and critical problem solving skills. However, once students have mastered this ability, the role of the teacher changes from a guide to a fellow traveler that helps students along the way if the need presents itself. (Sr. Nadia) Yes, I think that both Bruner and Vygotsky would approve of your image here--learning as a collaborative construction of knowledge, yes? (NMB)

Perhaps your classmates will have other examples. Anyone....? (NMB)

- External and internal factors.  These can include culture, religious institutions, peer groups, socioeconomic status, availability of technology, books, etc.

- Qualities and characteristics of teachers and students.  Teachers and students will have their own beliefs, knowledge, personality, communication skills, etc.

- Classroom processes. I think what Steiner & Mahn (1996) mean by classroom processes is the way teachers and students behave in the classroom, or the relationship between teacher and student. I’m sure there are other variables as well. It might also include the way students are assessed. Am I on the right track Dr.Bailey?  

You are definitely on the right track, Amanda! I especially like your chart, below.

For Tricia, Amanda, and Everyone: When the socioculturalists talk about transaction, they are talking about the learner bringing his/her background knowledge to a learning experience (that's why the elements that Amanda listed above are important). If exposed to conducive learning processes (like those listed on the right side of Amanda's chart below), the learner will take on ideas from the learning experience (including the ideas of the other learners in the experience) which combine with his/her background knowledge to form new meaning for the learner. This transactional process then changes the original knowledge (thus transforming it--and them). This is an especially popular theory in reading education where we learn that readers bring what they know to a story or piece of nonfiction and transact with the text to derive an integrated meaning that is greater than the meaning that they had originally as well as greater than just the meaning in the text. Louise Rosenblatt who is one of the proponents of this transactional view of reading says that the same text can mean different things to different people at different times or even to the same person at different times. (I think about hating a book that my friend "just loves." Also, think about reading your favorite book as a child and then reading it again someday to your own children. Will it be the same text? Probably not because of this transactional process.) The same kind of transactional process is at work in all learning situations, according to the socioculturalists. In order to bring about this transaction in learners, teachers will need to enact the teaching practices listed on the right side of Amanda's chart, below. You can also see why a class that is heavily into transmission (see left side of the chart) is not conducive for this kind of transaction and transformation to occur. This is not to say that all classes that transmit are bad. A good learner, actually, could probably engage in transaction in a lecture class. It is just more likely that you will get ALL learners to engage in transaction if you guide them skillfully in good, collaborative activities where they must interact with more knowledgeable others in some way. (NMB)

I found something on the Internet that can be of help. It was retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=NcZb51MfxlUC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=what+is+transaction+model+for+education&source=bl&ots=MaRdhU0_Cf&sig=UC6Pl2gdCFDe1MkrHSmFdNDV55A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=asv8VJGdCPGwsAS9poFQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=true

The table below was found on pg. 16; and starting on pg.17, the transaction model is explained in more detail. - Amanda B

I've seen the concept of dialectical theory a number of times over the course of my university education (especially in terms of Marx and the concept of dialectical materialism). Truth be told, though, I have always been somewhat confused by the concept! As such, I was wondering if we could talk about it a bit during the coming weeks.

I do understand the basics of dialectics. I think about it in terms of Socratic dialogues: Socrates invents two characters who each have a different perspective on a given philosophical problem; the two characters discuss and debate the problem in question; and, at the end, they come to a resolution of the problem in a way that incorporates both of their ideas. This is dialectics in action, as far as I understand the concept -- two opposing views are synthesized in order to arrive at a greater 'truth' (greater precisely because it considers opposing perspectives). I suppose this is what John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) are getting at when they describe dialectics as a method which "surmounts dichotomies" (p. 195) and results in the "the unification of contradictions" (p. 195).

But what, precisely, are the contradictions which Vygotsky is unifying? What dichotomies is he surmounting? John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) suggest that Vygotsky's concept of "verbal thought" (p. 195) is reached through applying the dialectical method to the thought/speech binary. But is that the full extent of the dialectical method in Vygotsky's theory?

Is there a single, core dialectic which underpins Vygotsky's ideas (is his whole theory based on this "verbal thought" dialectic)? Or, are there multiple instances of dialectics at work in Vygotsky's theory? If so, can anyone identify some of them? What concepts does Vygotsky unify and what dichotomies does he overcome?

-- Andrew

Vygotsky's theory emphasizes the importance of learning in social contexts. Although early learners may not always be conversational with adults, they still interact with them on many levels. For example, helping around the house, or working together in different contexts (grocery shopping, running errands). During this time together, the early learner picks up strategies and new knowledge from the caregiver. Language acquisition happens at home and in the classroom. Steiner and Mahn include a four step process including: transmission, construction, transaction, and transformation "in a continuing, complex interplay" (p. 192).

These principles are similar to the three dimensions of change in mental functioning: "intellectualization of mental functions, bringing them under conscious and voluntary control; decontextualization, being able to detach a concept from the context in which is was first encountered; and a movement toward integration and systemization" (p. 203). These principles outline how a learner acquires new information, comprehends that information, and then applies it to their surrounding world.

Speech plays a significant role in understanding Vygotsky's theory because it is the main way adults interact with young children. The literacy acquisition of the child first starts with gestures and signals, they then transfer this to paper by writing scribbles. This is the beginning stages of their writing development as Vygotsky said, "it is the initial visual sign that contains the child's future writing as an acorn contains a future oak" (p. 203). The child then places importance on objects using gestures, which integrates Vygotsky's idea of play in the development of children (Bailey, Spring, 2015). These beginning signs of play lead to the child "acting out roles in imaginative play, or creating representations" (p. 203). When a student engages in this type of learning at home, they bring to school with them a completely different perspective that a teacher can integrate in to her learning objectives, ensuring that the students learn from each other (Steiner, Mahn, 1996). When the early learners engage in conversations, or Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills, they are relating to each other on a social level which can then affect their Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency. 

Steiner and Mahn also touch on the importance of creating a culturally diverse learning environment. "Such difference in langauge use in ethnicially mixed classes often result in differential access to literacy experiences" (Steiner, Mahn, 1996, pg. 203). In theme with Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, the need to incorporate culture differences in to education is very important. Steiner and Mahn cite the use of "dialogue journals" that allow ESL learners to internalize and construct their own experiences in an expressive way. - Caroline Pierce

Good, Caroline. Vygotsky calls language the ultimate tool and sign. Perhaps for this week, one of your classmates will build on what you have said here to explain why. (NMB)

For my classmates: How does Vygotsky’s definition of internalization influence his theory regarding language and thought development? Do you think that his explanation is plausible, or does it need additional refining? ~Bridget S.

Bridget, I do agree with your definition of Internalization
as “a process that occurs
simultaneously in social practice and in the human brain/mind”
(John-Steiner& Mahn, 1996).  In regards to your question I feel that
Vygotsky’s definition of internalization has major implications on his theory
regarding language and thought development. What I feel Vygotsky’s views of
internalization focus on are the social consequences of internalization and
from these social consequences come more developed and refined language and
thought skills. This is noted from some of the examples you pointed out such as
the children learning to ride a bike by first watching, then mimicking, and
eventually mastering the skill. As John-Steiner and Mahn point out, “In working
with, through and beyond what they have appropriated in a social participation
and then internalized, individuals coconstruct new knowledge” (John-Steiner&
Mahn, 1996).  It would be helpful if you put a page number with your quotations, Matt (and everyone) so that people could look at the part where you chose your quotation and perhaps continue the conversation. (NMB) This essentially means that through social interactions such
as mimicking and observing, children then internalize what they see and then
act it out to eventually master the skill. Where I feel the definition of
Internalization is lacking is in noting the cognitive processes of
internalization. The definition does a great job in noting the social
ramifications and how “Internalization is simultaneously an individual and a
social process” (John-Steiner& Mahn, 1996) however, the definiton lacks in
highlighting the individual process and the cognitive processes that go along
with it. -Matt H.

My question
for the class:

Let me help to answer your question and also add to your point above it a little: Remember, first, that Vygotsky didn't think in terms of cognition in the ways that the schema theorists--or even Piaget--think about cognition. Vygotsky thought that thought develops though a transactional process which combines the social and the internal (the latter, I suppose, we could call the cognitive). In other words, what we have in our heads and what we experience through our interactions with others must come together in order for us to "get smarter." You use a great example, above, Matt, when you talk about kids learning to ride a bike. And you are essentially right when you say, "children then internalize what they see and then
act it out to eventually master the skill." However, it is more complicated than just learning a skill, though learning a skill could be part of the process of "getting smarter": A step on the way to internalization is appropriation. I appropriate when I take on what someone else is saying, doing, believing, valuing, being, etc.--sometimes without fully understanding what it is that I am saying or doing. Think about little kids (or adolescents) who repeat things, like prejudiced statements, swear words, or even terms of endearment, that they learn by hearing someone else say them (or they repeat actions like riding a bike or riding a bike in a certain way; they may even "take on" someone else's beliefs about why we ride bikes--fun, physical fitness, be cool, etc.). Even adults "take on" or appropriate speech patterns or dress styles of those that they frequently hang out with. I think, especially, of verbal memes that come in and out of style (e.g., "Far out, man" or "Dude..." or "I pledge allegiance to the flag...") . We appropriate these words, even, sometimes, the ideas behind them as mediating signs and tools that enable us to "be" in our social world and to interact with the people there to learn, get jobs done, find pleasure, etc. When the words, actions, ways of being that I have appropriated actually do mediate meaning and change (transform) who I am so that I actually take on the meaning of the words, beliefs, values, then I have internalized them. For example, I have become a bike rider. Or, if I live with Quakers, it is likely that I would gradually appropriate words, actions, ways of seeing the world that those around me use/live by, etc.. If the words, actions, ways of being, ways of valuing, etc. actually become part of who I am, what I value and think so that I actually use them to think about other things or act upon them, then I have internalized them. Using Bridget's example above, it may not just be the way that I pour the milk that I have internalized from my parents, but also the fact that I think milk is good for my health or that I think that milk is drunk with chocolate chip cookies but not with tostadas. (NMB)

Steiner & Mahn (1996) point out how cultural values and complex social relationships shape interdependence within the process of the co-construction knowledge. Seeing that ones construction of knowledge is a process dependent on social and cultural interactions, over history, it can be said then that it is necessary to seek out and understand different cultural practices, as knowledge then becomes "relative to different cultural needs" (Bailey, Spring, 2015). Culture is the prime determinant of cognitive development. - Sr. Nadia

Hi Sr. Nadia,

I am curious about your final statement, that "culture is the prime determinant of cognitive development." Do you think this is true in light of Vygotsky's emphasis on "dialectical methods" (p. 159)? If dialectics resolve either-or problems such that we arrive at a-bit-of-both solutions, is it possible for there to be such a thing as a "prime determinant" within Vygotskian theory? 

I feel like there is a lot of 'fuzziness' at play in our readings about Vygotsky so far. For example, John-Steiner and Mahn (1996) cite Vygotsky who says that "all higher psychological functions are internalized relationships of the social kind…" (Vygotsky on p. 192) -- that statement makes it seem like our psychologies are, as you said, primarily constituted by sociocultural factors. Later, they cite (and agree with) Penuel and Wertsch (1995) who write that "sociocultural processes on the one hand and individual functioning on the other [exist] in a dynamic, irreducible tension rather than a static notion of social determination" (p. 196) -- I don't know about you, but I feel like that statement is somewhat contradictory in relation to Vygotsky's!

It's almost as if Vygotsky had one set of ideas but the Neo-Vygotskians have taken a slightly different path -- could it be that Vygotsky felt that culture was a prime determinant while the Neo-Vygotskians have taken a more 'balanced' position? Actually, this wouldn't surprise me given my understanding of how the Marxist paradigm has developed: Marx himself felt that the means of production (the 'base') was the prime determinant of culture (the 'superstructure'); Post-Marxists like Gramsci, however, argued that there was no prime determinant, and that base and superstructure were continually shaping each other. I wonder if something similar isn't at work with Vygotsky and the Neo-Vygotskians, especially given that their theory is rooted in Marxist thought (Bailey, 2015)?

-- Andrew

Great questions, Andrew, but I am wondering if it would help if you were to add onto Vygotsky's statement above, by thinking about his idea that those "internalized relationships of the social kind" come about through transactional processes?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory applies dialectical synthesis. He specified cultural signs and symbols as psychological tools that humans created in order to progress toward complex thinking. For an individual in society, the task is to appropriate the symbol of one’s culture to develop reasoning. For example, Whittaker states that learning “was tied to my sociocultural world where, in the context of a specific activity, tools became resources for my thinking” (p.29, 2008). According to Vygotskian theory, knowledge is cultural: “particularly knowledge of how to use a culture’s psychological tools to manipulate the environment consciously and systematically” (Bailey, Spring, 2015). This is clear in the description of Whittaker’s use of the metro map as a sign and symbol.

Vygotsky used genetic analysis to focus on the interconnectedness of origins and history of phenomena (Steiner & Mahn, 1996). He believed the historical study of behavior forms the base of theoretical study. He emphasized the need to concentrate on the process of development rather than the product of development (Steiner & Mahn, 1996).  This can be referred to as higher cognitive functions, which requires self-mastery. Vygotsky studied the role of speech in children; through speech, children acquire views that reflect reality in a more adequate way. Higher cognitive function requires the child’s mastery of the external materials of cultural reasoning, which become internal mechanisms of thinking. Because schools differ in different cultures, children living in different cultures will generally think differently. “Human development and learning originate and grow out of social and cultural interaction” (Bailey, Spring, 2015). Thus, these interactions involve people, cultural artifacts (e.g. books, toys), and cultural practices in which a child engages in (e.g. classroom, home, playground). These children construct knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Essentially, the history and culture in which a child grows up determine much more than what that child knows or likes – it determines which tools the child will learn and how these tools will shape the child’s mind. Yes! This is helpful, Amanda. (NMB)

-Amanda B

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. Nadia and Amanda have both raised a number of excellent points with regards to Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory.  Perhaps, however, I can contribute one or two additional ideas.

Something worth mentioning, I think, is that Vygotsky’s attention to historical and (socio)cultural matters is one of the things which sets him apart from Piaget (the theory which he displaces, to a certain extent [Bailey, 2015]).  Indeed, Piaget can be thought of (to an extent, at least) as a biological determinist, and his is a “universalistic theory of development” (p. 197) which supposes that all children at all times develop in exactly the same way (in accordance with natural biological progression).  Vygotsky’s theories of learning and development, on the other hand, are “contextualized” (p. 197) – Vygotsky and his disciples consider “the ways in which learning and teaching take place under different cultural circumstances and in different historical contexts”(p. 197).  And because he feels that "historical [and cultural] conditions are constantly changing" (p. 194) in ways which change the "contexts and opportunities for learning" (p. 194), Vygotsky seems to see no value in "universal schema" (p. 194) -- like Piagets -- which try to explain development in a decontextualized way.

Good, Andrew. This can help us to see that while Piaget might be helpful to us as we plan instruction, we need to look especially to Vygotsky to think about and plan for the cultural diversity in our classrooms. (NMB)

Another thing that hasn't been discussed is what Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory actually means to us as teachers. It seems to me that Vygotsky's theory asks us to pay careful attention to the cultural-historical backgrounds of our students. How children think, learn, and develop is very much related to the culture in which thinking, learning, and development occurs (Bailey, 2015). As such, Vygotsky's theory implies the need for teachers to take a "culturally sensitive approach" in the classroom (p. 198). John-Stein and Mahn (1996) illustrated this point in an extremely interesting way when they mentioned research which compared students of Hawaiian and Navajo descent (p. 197). Students from these divergent cultural-historical backgrounds behave, think, and learn in markedly different ways (as a result of their backgrounds). It follows, then, that we need to teach these students in different ways, ones which take into account the way their minds have been shaped by the parameters of their distinct cultures. Yes! This is so important to bring up. (NMB)

A third (and final) thing I wanted to bring up is that Vygotsky's attention to history and culture has implications for those of us who are interested in reform (a matter which is briefly discussed at the very end of John-Stein and Mahn's [1996] work [p. 204]). According to John-Stein and Mahn, Vygotskian theory sees there to be a "dynamic interdependence [between] social and individual processes" (p. 192). To me (and please correct me if I am wrong), this implies a two way relationship between the child and their culture: yes, culture informs and shapes the child; but at the same time, the child acts on and shapes the culture. Vygotskian theory, then, implies that the reform-minded teacher should teach their students in ways which will facilitate (what the teacher perceives to be) productive cultural change. For instance, say we have a concern for gender issues within our culture: keeping in mind the Vygotskian idea that our students will one day act on and shape their broader cultures, it seems to me that the concerned-teacher must foster in their students the type of learning and development which will lead these students to challenge and reject oppressive gender roles within their cultures.

-- Andrew

Hmmm...very interesting, Andrew. I hope that some of your classmates will comment on this provocative point for one of their postings this week. (NMB)

 Vygotsky's constructivist theory on language opposes Jean Piaget's language acquitional theory.Maybe we should say "acquisition theory." (NMB) Piaget believed that children build their knowledge on language based on complex processes of assimilation, and the needs of the child's inherent abilities to adapt to stimulations. Vygotsky on the other hand, stresses that within the social nature of language learning, the environment within which the child is raised plays the key role in building language knowledge.   -Sr. Nadia

Vygotsky also offered an alternative to Piaget's constructivism - where Piaget felt that human beings make sense of the world by means of the mental processes (external). Development precedes learning. Whereby Vygotsky felt that knowledge is actually the internalization of social activity, where the external world models the mind. So learning precedes development. Excellent answer here and a very important distinction, Sr. Nadia. (NMB) - Sr. Nadia

Another contrast, is the Vygotsky focused on the mechanisms of development whereas Piaget stressed distinguishable developmental stages.   - Sr. Nadia

In response to Sr. Nadia's mention about how Piaget and Vygotsky differ in their developmental stages. I found this interesting after learning about Vygotsky's theory of placing more importance on cultural impacts rather than dividing students in to cognitive stages like Piaget does. Vygotsky's theory is much more applicable to current education standards. I found Vygotsky to be similar to Schema theory because social surroundings (a child's scheme) play such an important role in cognitive development. Yes, good connection and helpful addition to Sr. Nadia's point, Caroline. The whole idea of transaction is dependent upon the idea that the child brings knowledge with him/her to a learning situation (which could be anywhere and any time, right?) Can you see what an impact this has had on how we think about educating students, especially students who come from homes where the language and content of school is not available. Since our schools have been becoming increasingly diverse, you can see the appeal of Vygotsky's theories for guiding instructional thinking. (NMB)

-Caroline Pierce

Vygotsky initially suggested intellectual development that can be seen just in term of cultural historical contexts children’s experience. Piaget defined that a child’s intellect or cognitive ability progress through different stages. Learning is not possible until the learner is developmentally ready to get the information. This is a very important point, Sumi. It was the basis for "kindergarten readiness tests" for many years. (Perhaps you or your classmates took a kindergarten readiness test?). Now, with the growing influence of Vygotsky and Bruner (who said that the schools should be ready for the student, not the other way around), we don't see kindergarten readiness tests as a condition of entering school very often anymore. (NMB)

Vygotsky believes that development depends on the sign system as the individual grows up with the symbols that cultures creates to help people think, communicates and solve problems, for example, a culture's language and writing system. (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Piaget’s define the language acquisition theory, stages of development, Sensorimotor, Preoperational, Concrete operational and Formal operational. Piaget believes that, Sensorimotor (birth to 2 years), concept of object permanence and gradual progress. Second stage he defines as Preoperational (2-7 years) ability to use as symbols to represents an object in the world, thinking remains egocentric. The third stage would be concrete operational (7-11 years), abstract thinking is not possible (but remember that now we know that this is not as definite as Piaget thought. Some abstract thinking can be seen in concrete operational children, especially if concrete methods are used to help them to understand abstract ideas -NMB), and improvement inability to think logically, and identity, compensation, and reversibility. Final stage of Piaget development would be formal operational (11 years to adulthood), abstract and purely symbolic thinking if possible. (Woolfolk, 2008). –Sumaiya.

Good summary of Piaget's stages here, Sumi. Perhaps for the present week, you (or one of your classmates) might want to talk about Bruner's stages of development? (NMB)

According to John-Steiner and Mahn Vygotsky criticized theories such as Piaget’s idea that “maturation is viewed as a precondition of learning, but never the result of
it” (John-Steiner& Mahn, 1996). Vygotky argued that maturation is a result
of learning and that learning “awakens a variety of internal developmental
processes” (John-Steiner& Mahn, 1996). Essentially, Vygotsky set out to
prove that theories such as Piaget’s that felt development was not a result of
learning were wrong. Vygotsky did note that, “learning was not development,
however properly organized learning results in mental development and sets in
motion a variety of developmental processes” (John-Steiner & Mahn). Vygotsky
would further elaborate on these ideas through his theory on the Zone of
proximal development that is more clearly defined in one of the sections below.-Matt H.

An example of using the ZPD is when a person is learning to dance. They will do what the music makes them feel but they will seek help from others by looking around and incorporating certain movements into their own dance moves. - Kailey S.

Very good explanation and a helpful example, Kailey. This is probably one of Vygotsky's best known concepts and all of you will, no doubt, run into it a great deal as you progress in your classes.

I think it is important to note that the zone of proximal development is a repetitive process that is continually evolving and changing (Bailey, Spring 2015). As one's learning and development continue to evolve, their ZPD will continue to expand as well. I have been taught, and now think of, ZPD as circles within circles. The largest outside circle is what one cannot do, the smaller circle inside of that is what one can do with guidance (the ZPD!), and the smallest circle inside of that is what one can do independently. I believe that ZPD can be used in teaching, especially when it comes to planning and creating appropriate lessons or activities for students. I think it is ideal to be teaching within the ZPD or what students can do with support and scaffolding. To go too far beyond that would cause anxiety or frustration while giving students something they can do without challenge would lead to boredom. -Claire

Vygotsky characterized the zone of proximal development, the distinction between what a learner can manage without helping and what he or she can do with the help, which means, it is difficult for the student to do his/her, but they can be done with the guidance and encouragement from the expertise. Help can be taken from people, adult and children, expertise, book videos, computer environment, and scientific equipment (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996).  In other words, the zone of proximal development is an area of learning that happens when a student is helped by a teacher or peer. "learning evoke is a variety of internal development process forms that have the capacity to work just when the child is connecting with individuals in his surroundings incorporation with his peer", he believes that learning and development are different, so teacher should look at what are they capable at, learning is an essential part and universal aspect of the process of development which is culturally organized and psychological functioned (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). The concept of ZPD is which define, “the distance between the actual development levels, as determined students are able to complete a task within a group before others are able to complete it on their own (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996).

According to the social cultural theorists, the concept of ZPD, emphasizing conceptualizes learning as distributed, interactive, contextual, and participation in community of practice (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). -  Sumaiya.

Kailey, Claire, and Sumi, we certainly have a well elaborated understanding of this concept from your very thorough explanations. I am wondering if in this week, you and/or some of your classmates might want to try to continue this by doing some synthesizing and integrating of some of the other concepts that we have been discussing here. For example, how do concepts like MKO and LKO connect with the ZPD? How about scaffolding (Claire mentions this; how exactly does it work in the ZPD)? The role of language? Kailey gave us a great example in dancing; what, very specifically, might the ZPD look like in a classroom? What is the role of formative assessment in the ZPD (and is it an accident that we didn't regularly use the term, "formative assessment" in education until Vygotsky's work began to influence us)?

I'm glad that you asked...  Vygotsky thought that learning to think was sort of a 3-step process (my term, not his).  He said that all thinking happens on two planes--first intermental and then intramental.  The step from one to the other is this egocentric speech where we "rehearse" what we hear others say and do.  I always think of the example of a little kid learning to tie his shoes whose mother has told him, "Make the right loop over the left," and you can hear him saying that to himself in a low voice as he struggles (usually with his tongue out) to make his little hands manipulate the shoelaces.  Eventually he does this without saying it to himself, but he thinks it through each time he does it until he can do it quite automatically without conscious thought. Teaching his own child years later how to tie shoes, he says, "Make the right loop over the left." His egocentric speech has become thought and also social speech--something he "knows."  It should also be noted that the Vygotskian principles of appropriation and internalization are at work here. So to answer your question, for Vygotsky internalized speech (and/or actions/ways of being) becomes thinking. Another way to say this is that appropriated language/actions/thinking/ways of being become internalized thought, and this is how we become who we are--which, not accidentally, is a lot like the people with whom we live and work. 

Tricia

--Parissa

Similarly, language could also be referred to as a sign, or a symbol of a person’s ability to express their thoughts, feelings, and emotions. In this case, writing utensils, such as a pen, pencil, or keyboard, would be the tools, as they provide us with the external ability to interact with society. Thus, despite their interconnectedness, tools and signs are separate entities, each with distinct meanings. - Bridget S.

Bridget did a great job explaining the article about Vgotsky’s model of Signs and Tools by Whittaker. I’d like to extend her definition. According to Vgotsky, learning is not merely a matter of children “growing up” and maturing but it’s how we come to see and act upon the world in terms of tools and signs (Whittaker, 2008). This model is important because if we are able to differentiate between a sign and tool and understand how they are significant in making sophisticated meaning around the world, then we can use them in our everyday life to change ourselves, learn and see symbols in a new capacity. As teachers, it is important, because if we regard our students as being successful only by their destination and whether they have reached the end goal, we are not truly tapping into their strengths and abilities and are not allowing them to create meaning within their learning processes. As teachers, if we use Vgotsky’s model of Signs and Tools in the classroom, we would view the children’s learning as a place of experience and not as a place of destination (Whittaker, 2008). The focus would be on which tools the students use to learn and how we can guide them to transform these tools into signs to master their inner self with regards to learning and identity. Upon further reflection, I found that if we wanted to really define his model, it comes down to three different ways that Signs and Tools can be compared and contrasted:

1. Signs and tools are different in the ways that they orient human behaviour. (A sign is internally oriented and a tool is externally oriented.)

2. A sign is the mastery of oneself while a tool is the aim of a human’s activity mastering of, and triumphing over nature (Whittaker, 2008).

3. They are similar in that they are both ways of creating meaning in the world around us.

- Kailey S.