Reflective Journal Post #1

 

Description:

              Readings this week in EDAT 6115 explored different views on when and how children develop cognitively, how language and literacy develop, and the implications of developmental stages in education. The research and findings of Vygotski, Piaget, and Bronfenbrenner were also examined.

 Analysis:

              Piaget’s constructivist theory views cognitive development “as a process in which children actively build systems of meaning and understandings of reality through their experiences and interactions” (Slavin, 2018, p.26).  He defined stages of cognitive development (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational) that children progress through, providing benchmarks for cognitive growth often used by physicians, psychologists, and educators (Slavin, 2018, p. 26).  Piaget’s thoughts on cognitive development are deeply embedded in curriculum and instruction throughout education. Piaget’s theories have shaped our “developmentally appropriate education” structure and encouraged educators to focus on 1) how children think not just what they can do 2) creating inquiry-based and experiential learning environments 3) age-appropriate cognition and 4) differentiation for learning differences (Slavin, 2018, p. 32-33).  Piaget’s stages of cognitive development have historically been used to establish curriculum and performance expectations for students within the classroom.  For example, the adolescents in my classroom (aged 14-18) should easily be able to think abstractly and solve problems through experimentation since they have entered the formal operational stage (Slavin, 2018, p.27).  This task would be too advanced cognitively for students in earlier stages of Piaget’s framework who may lack the ability to think logically or abstractly. Criticisms of Piaget’s theories center around the idea that “development precedes learning” and that children develop in predictable, age-based stages progressively (Slavin, 2018, p.31).  Research has shown that when taught or exposed to higher level tasks, children often respond by being able to complete tasks in higher Piagetian stages (Slavin, 20188, p.32).

              Vygotsky’s theories about cognitive development focused more on the environmental context of learning. He proposed that cognitive development was more of an “outgrowth of social development through interaction with others and the environment” (Slavin, 2018, p. 42).  Vygotsky’s stages of development rely on the increasing ability of children to be self-regulate their response to signs in their environment. The most impactful of Vygotsky’s thoughts is his explanation of the zone of proximal development. Tasks within this zone are those that “a child cannot yet accomplish alone but could accomplish with that assistance of more competent peers or adults” (Slavin, 2018, p.34). Vygotsky’s influence on instructional strategies such as cooperative learning, scaffolding, and ability grouping. Like Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner linked cognitive development to the influence of environmental factors but expanded his focus to include all social and institutional influences. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological view of cognitive development emphasizes the “interconnectedness of the many factors that influence a child’s development” including the sociocultural factors that show “a more complete model of the          influences beyond biology” (Slavin, 2018, p.36).

              The understanding of how children cognitively develop is essential to educators, particularly those teaching language and literacy at young ages.  Whether biological or environmental, influences on cognitive development are important for teachers to understand and plan intentionally for.  Language and literacy are the cornerstones for further education as learning all other subjects requires a strong foundation in reading and comprehension. Creating environments in school and at home that emphasize the importance of language and literacy are critical for cognitive development and further academic success (Slavin, 2018, p. 38).

 Reflection:

              My own classroom is typically composed of high achieving, mostly gifted students ranging in age from 14 to 18. As a Biologist and educator, I am no stranger to the nature versus nurture argument that often arises when discussing cognitive development. I have seen just about every scenario in my 17 years in the classroom. I have had students that are cognitively further advanced at 14 than most are at 18. I have had students with ridiculous cognitive potential that cannot be successful because of environmental influences beyond their control. Regardless of what factors are shaping students’ cognitive development, it is our responsibility as educators to not only be able to identify where our students are but to also be able to differentiate for them to be successful. Identifying a students’ zone of proximal development, understanding their sociocultural influences, and intentionally differentiating for their cognitive abilities is all a part of being an effective educator. For me, understanding what tasks my students should be capable of doing allows me to prepare lessons that are engaging and challenging.  My goal is to always create lessons that provide the right balance of productive struggle for students and encourage a growth mindset.

 

Reference

Slavin, R.E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12^th ed.). Pearson.