Piaget's development and learning...and 2 examples!

So this is how I understand Piaget's description of learning and development for knowledge...It seems pretty clear to me...but pretty blurry at the same time!

For Piaget, development for knowledge is related and associated with the individual’s physical development, and certainly comes before learning, and also explains learning (through the stages of development that he describes). Development is a process that knowledge is based upon, for completeness and structure. On the contrary, learning occurs through situations (instead of physical progress), and therefore, it is not spontaneous (as is development). It concerns situations, problems and structures. Without development, learning cannot occur, since there need to be the adequate mental structures that will host learning (the structures develop in 4 stages; sensory-motor, pre-operational representation, concrete operations and operations on abstract ideas).

For example, learning to ride a bike requires first physical development (body and brain-mental structures) before the individual manages to cycle effectively. Apart from the body parts that need to be developed, the brain developed is crucial for the individual’s perception of speed, depth and coordination. Without these schemata developed, it would be impossible to learn how to ride a bicycle effectively. Similarly, when the case is learning to read, there needs to be physical development prior to learning, since the child would have to the function of eye coordination (something that would occur between the sensory-motor and the pre-operational representation stage). Once the physical development is done, then learning can take place effectively, and the student can manage to read.

Accidentally found a podcast... with my voice in!

I was just checking out Global Kids and I found this podcast! I forgot I was interviewed! Didn't know that my voice was heard!

http://odeo.com/quicklist/entry/23534433-RezEd-Podcast-Episode-10-Special-GLS-Conference-Overview

Acquisition and Participation metaphors...you use it wrong!

I was reviewing an article for a Journal a couple of weeks ago and I noticed that the authors had misconceptions on Sfard's (1998)article about the two metaphors for learning... They were only supporting the use of the acquisition metaphor, and it was mentioned only once, but there were two references, just for one small paragraph...which were not even supporting their actual claim... Even worse (from my perspective) was the fact that they were supporting the sociocultural perspective for the design of learning environments. The authors' views were very contradictory to each other; supporting only the acquisition metaphor but at the same time supporting situativity theory in a design that looked constructionist from the way they were presenting it! I am wondering whether we actually know what we cite and how we cite in the articles that we write. As academics, but more importantly, as educators in general, we need to be providing adequate and valid resources!

The two metaphors that Sfard described are the assimilation metaphor and the participation metaphor. For the acquisition metaphor, she supports that individuals assimilate learning (more behavioral and rationally oriented metaphor), while the participation metaphor is oriented towards the sociocultural perspective.

However, she supported that the participation metaphor alone does not solve the problem of learning, since there is not a problem stated from the situated perspective. On the other hand, empirical evidence alone does not solve any issue around learning either and both sides study different things with different approaches.

According to Sfard, both metaphors are needed, in order to avoid what she calls ideological “dictatorship”, where one metaphor guides all the practices. Each metaphor has different things to provide, that the other cannot. It is important to look at the particulars of learning from different perspectives if we want to understand them and develop critical theory around them. We cannot look at the educational practices without considering the contexts where they occur, and we cannot develop effective instructional strategies without organizing what is to-be-learned.

For using both metaphors, Sfard proposes that we can approach both metaphors as different ways of seeing things, rather than two competing views. She also supports that, even though it is hard to approach both perspectives as complementary to each other, researchers can adopt whichever metaphor serves their interest, depending on their area and subject of research.

I rejected the article submission telling the authors to review and use the citation more accurately (among other suggestions)!

Motivation in games

I was reading an article by Kenny & Gunter about Intrinsic motivation and learning. I am trying to think about games and learning in relation to Chance's and Kohn's articles on rewards, extrinsic, and intrinsic motivation. Kenny & Gunter support that game designers must exploit the natural motivation that players/learners have by developing them to promote intrinsic motivation, content learning, transfer of knowledge, and naturalization. As learning scientists, we need to consider the learners' needs, and provide (or not) rewards that are effective for meaningful learning. Several studies that are mentioned in Chance's and Kohn's articles show that there are cases where rewards work for intrinsic motivation, but in some other situations, rewards do not work as we think they do.

The reference for the article is: Kenny, R. F. & Gunter, G. A. (2008) Endogenous fantasy-based serious games: Intrinsic motivation and learning. International journal of social sciences. Vol.2, No.1. pp. 8-13