write a critique for each reflection(there are 3 in the attachment) each critique would be between 8-9 lines with critical Question in each one
dead line 8 hours max
for example
Your level of writing had definitely elevated and I really enjoyed reading your reflection for this week. I did notice that you didn't cite or give credit to the" writers in your reflection, even though you included a reference section. Driscoll (2005), indicated in this chapter that learning happens through active participation and I would like to know your take on this point. Do you believe that this notion could be applied to all kinds of learning and wh
Reflection (1)
Following chapter 6 where
Piaget’s cognitive development theory was discussed, this chapter extends this
discussing by adding to, comparing and contrasting Piaget’s theory. Burner and
Vygotsky are two developmental theorists that share with Piaget that the belief
in cognitive development (Driscoll, 2005). In contrast, they, Burner and
Vygotsky, focused on interactional theories and connect consider learning a
cause for cognitive development (Driscoll, 2005).
Burner, introduced the three
modes of representations, believed in schooling as a means of observe cognitive
development. In fact, he linked the representation modes (i.e., enactive,
iconic, and symbolic) to the readiness of learning (Driscoll, 2005). What marks
Burner is that he believes that type of subject, stage of cognitive
development, and child’s characteristics none of which is a condition to
effective learning (Driscoll, 2005). Defining these three modes clarified the
distinction between Piaget and Burner’s views of readiness (Driscoll, 2005).
While Piaget attributes the student’s understanding of the lesson to its
logical appropriateness, Burner sees that each lesson could be modified to suit
the student’s cognitive ability (Driscoll, 2005). In addition, the variation in
thinking level in these three modes led Burner to reject Ausubel’s perspective
regarding that prior knowledge determines the student’s readiness for learning
explaining that thinking ability is actually the factor that measures the
learning readiness (Driscoll, 2005). Burner presented modes justify some
failure situation that happens in learning. Providing students with a symbolic
mode of instruction without realizing that this mode actually goes beyond their
current ability is an obvious reason of failure to understand (Driscoll, 2005).
This makes more responsibility on teachers, as well as curriculum developers.
Besides taking the students’ level of thinking into account when developing and
giving the instruction, temporal factor is critical. Burner claimed that full
understanding of the instruction means achieving the symbolic mode, and that
lack of time my affect the learning outcomes and produce only iconic learning
(Driscoll, 2005).
By regulating the discovery as
a means of learning, Burner is taking instructors to a higher level of
teaching. Setting hypotheses, testing them, conducting inquiry, defining
concepts, and having feedbacks and reflections are some strategies that
regulate learning by discovery and produce a discover model as Burner suggests.
Culture has a lot to do with learning. Burner declared that culture influences
thinking (Driscoll, 2005). Cultures have been always playing a pioneering role
in defining the primary issues that should be covered in education. We see that
universities everywhere are teaching the majors that are valued in their
communities. By doing so, they do not necessarily believe in these majors but
may be responding to the learners’ major demands.
Unlike many developmentalists,
Vygotsky focused on how the psychological development occurs (Driscoll, 2005).
When conducting an experiment, all variables and contextual differences should
be taken into account (Driscoll, 2005). However, he also believes that culture
and cognitive development is interrelated (Driscoll, 2005). Mediation that
Vygotsky introduced as the technique we use to convert an existed stimulus to a
solution is telling us how thinking is naturally developing (Driscoll, 2005).
Gradually, mediation becomes symbolic and results in internalization and
proximal development as Vygotsky called them (Driscoll, 2005). Internalization
represents how powerful signs and gestures are. As a part of his psychological
development, the child starts to perceive external signs, register them as
internal meanings, and then they become internalized (Driscoll, 2005). If we
were wondering what make children act differently in classes and in front of
teachers, internalizing might be the reason. As Driscoll (2005) said in the
monkey example, some students may behave in one class because they internalized
that the teacher are strict in reacting to their naughty behaviors. As for the
proximal development zone, Vygotsky insisted that teaching the student on their
cognitive level is considered an effective learning (Driscoll, 2005). Instead,
he believed that teaching the students on a higher level would prompt their
learning, especially with the guidance they find from the instructor (Driscoll,
2005). I guess that this concept is worth applying. We sometimes encounter
intelligent kids that, for example, read fluently while they still in
kindergarten. When asking their mothers, we got surprised that they learned to
read early when because they were trying to read with their older siblings.
In conclusion, this reading
includes some valuable findings and theories about learning. Interactional
theories revalue the interactions happen between instructors, students,
cultural beliefs and society in learning.
Reflection (2)
After talking last week about the cognitive knowledge and
development, the assigned chapter for this week discusses the interactional
theories of cognitive development (Driscoll, 2005). This chapter starts by
providing different scenarios “Pet Monkey” and “Beginning Spanish”. In these
scenarios, the teacher is shown as an authoritative figure in which knowledge
is controlled by the teacher and right answers accordingly are rewarded as a
result. Also, Driscoll (2005), indicated that Bruner believed that the theory
of development should coexist with the theory of instruction. The first approach
discussed in this chapter is Bruner’s. Bruner contemplated education to aim at
enabling learners to become “autonomous and self-propelled” (Driscoll, 2005).
For Bruner’s approach to be applied in real life education, thinking is the
focus of his theory. In this sense, he considers three modes of representation.
These three modes are Enactive representation, Iconic representation and
Symbolic representation. Enactive representation mode evolves around
representing past events through appropriate motor responses. Iconic
representation is all about summarizing events within percepts and images.
Symbolic representation includes representing things that include remoteness
and arbitrariness. These three modes of representations are said to take place
in order. Unlike Piaget, Bruner’s theory of development is not dependent on age
groups. Therefore, any sequence of learning could be taught to children
regarding their age differences. As long as they developed the understanding of
the previous stage, they can move on to the next accordingly without taking
into consideration their age. The question was, which of these two theories
should we consider as dominant and to be followed as a result? I would say both
of these theories include flaws and shortcomings as I mentioned in the previous
chapter concerning Piaget’s theory and its focus on age groups development of
cognition. Bruner believes in transfer of knowledge, in which the intended
instruction could be flexible enough to accommodate the intended goals. Driscoll
(2005), indicated that Bruner emphasized learning by discovery and the notion
of having a non-haphazardly discovery with regard to what students poses in
their heads. This inner discovery is essential to their learning and to the
development of cognition. This notion might give students more freedom in their
learning for having the chance to further discovering their knowledge.
According to Bruner, culture is important for cognitive growth. In which skills
are said to be influenced by culture and where students live. Having students
enjoy the whole process of discovery is important, because it will give them
the opportunity to seek feedback by themselves and get awarded for that as a
result. Another great figure mentioned in this chapter is Vygotsky. Vygotsky
believed that development is not as Piaget or Bruner believed it to be, it is
more complex and nature changing (Driscoll, 2005). His developmental method is
more concerned with the complexity of human development. So far we had three
views concerning the development of cognitive learning and if I were to choose
one, I would choose to follow the theories of both Bruner and Vygotsky.
Reflection (3)
Students
have their own preferred methods of training, and so instructors should come up
with ways that improve retention of information. One way to achieve this goal
is to make learning an exciting experience. Three proven techniques that
enhance learning are mnemonic, structural, and generative strategies. It is
incumbent upon the instructor to understand which strategy works well for his
or her students, and which one increases effective training. Choosing the right
strategy is crucial because an appropriate strategy for one group may prove
unsuitable for another. Mnemonic strategies are fundamental in increasing the
amount of information a student learns. Structural strategies increase the
building of internal relationships while generative strategies help students to
build external relationships. The best approach to employ depends on the
complexity of the subject under education, learners’ age and orientation, and
the ability of the instructor to tailor the approach to meet required results.
Mayer (2008) states, “When the goal of instruction is verbatim
retention of specific facts, verbatim copying (or underlining in a text book)
guides he learner’s attention. When the goal of instruction is retention of
important information and transfer, students need to engage generative
activities aimed at building connections among ideas” (p. 426). Understanding
these express instructions should inform the approach the teacher adopts when
delivering content to learners. It also proves how central the instructor is to
the learning process. It proves the teacher must be competent enough to
understand what the purpose of the lesson is before beginning to teach. The
teacher must discern the dynamics of the class in order to design a lesson that
achieves preset objectives. It is important for the outcomes to increase
effective learning and retention of content.
Thinking on these methods reveals some inherent weaknesses. They
put emphasis on the part of the teacher while they put the learner away. They
assume that it is the duty of the instructor to choose the goal for any lesson,
and that learners should play a passive role. This premise does not augur well
for modern learning techniques. There is the student-oriented learning where
learners get the opportunity to control the lesson, and self-directed learning
where learners choose the structure and approach to any learning activity.
These two procedures show that teacher-centered learning is not the only
approach that meets objectives. Nevertheless, the techniques provide an insight
into appropriate approaches to learning, and offer guidelines on how the
learning process should proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment