Both Piaget and Vgotsky thought that knowing the childs development stage was important. I can see how both of their theories would work in the classroom. With Piaget's theory, I would get to know the development stage that a student is in, and teach them what they are ready to know. For example, I couldn't teach a 1st grader who doesn't know how to make a buzz in an instrument how to play Mozart in a day. With Vgotsky's theory, just because you are learning from one of the best in the field, doesn't mean you will sound like them in a day, but it dramatically improves the tone quality in a player. I think mixing these two is definitely the best option.
Thursday, September 8
Mod 7 Post 1
The big picture I got was all about how children develop cognitively. Whether in stages or by ZPD, every child has a different timeline of when they develop certain skills. Piaget believes that a child has to be at the appropriate development stage in order to learn more. Vygotsky argued that learning makes you develop the skills you have to have in order to learn the new material. Although the first few pages of this module confused me so much, when I figured out what it meant (hopefully), I think it's completely fascinating. It has made em think back to different band settings I have been a part of and ask myself how I learned new things and how I saw things taught effectively. I am confused as to what the appropriate mix of the two theories is. I definitely believe that you can't throw college level music at a 6th grader, but I also believe that a 6th student won't grow nearly as much given easy music verses music that will challenge them to their full potential. I want to know more about older students learning. It seemed that this chapter was mostly about elementary aged children, but how does this influence the high school teacher?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like your ideas on teaching children in different stages. I agree that it can sometimes be hard to see where that zone of proximal development is. For example, like you said, working with someone would definitely improve the tone, but how much can we expect them to improve -they're still young and still have a lot to work out on their own. Good thoughts! To answer your question, I believe that high school students are mostly in the formal operations stage. Therefore, they can work with abstract concepts. So, as a high school teacher, you could work with that information and not be afraid to discuss abstract or non-concrete ideas. I hope that helps! Also, I agree with your confusion on the balance of both theories, but I think the best bet is to find a good mix (like you said) between challenging students, but not challenging them too much so that they get discouraged and/or simply can't do it due to their developmental stage. It may just take some time in the field to see what that balance is, which will be a great thing to observe!
ReplyDeleteYou make a good judgement that 'some mix' of the two is probably most reasonable. The big idea from Piaget that children aren't CAPABLE of thinking in particular ways at very young ages, and the description of the trajectory that thinking may take, is very helpful (you know not to give tasks that require object conservation to a newborn). However, the stages aren't at all stable by person, age, or task....
ReplyDeleteI wanted you all to read the grouping chapter to think about one way of finding a compromise-- having different students of different capabilities grouped together may drive learning in the less advanced students, yet they are all of a similar developmental level that they can work on the same project.
Something like being given Mozart sheet music would cause disequilibrium for a student ('What are these notes I've never seen before??!') Additionally, seeing another student or professional play the music, and scaffold their playing, works within their ZPD. The nice thing about working with older students (if you are planning to do so) is that they are all near the highest stage that Piaget would describe, and the tasks that cause disequilibrium are typically more advanced tasks that Vygotsky would recommend (there's really no conflict between the two theorists in that case).