R8

Quote: “The mechanisms of perception go to a lot of trouble to ensure that what we see corresponds to what is usually out there” (Pinker, 2002, p. 200). The idea of what is “usually out there” depends on a number of variables, so I’m not sure this is particularly helpful.

Question: Although Pinker managed to argue that cognition is not framed effectively by relativists nor naïve realists, I wonder how underlying beliefs and meaning fit into his “third alternative” theory? For instance, he mentioned that our experiences lead to more accurate perceptual systems. In this case, what is accurate? Must people not have beliefs about what “is usually out there” in the first place to determine accuracy? As Pinker mentioned, this is not arbitrary, but based on survival and our assumptions about the world. Isn’t it possible that our survival needs and assumptions about the world could create skewed beliefs, which are then later confirmed over and over again based on accuracy?

Connection: “People are not helplessly programmed with images; they can evaluate and interpret what they see using everything else they know, such as credibility and motives of the source” (p. 216). This idea is very questionable, based on experiences I have had working with children and students with disabilities. In every case, I must consider the development of the person and their capabilities. In working with a teenager who may be depressed, I cannot assume that they are able to evaluate and interpret images using credibility and motives. Actually, I might consider the exact opposite. They may not have a sufficient knowledge base or cognitive ability to assess reality or at least an adaptive reality for survival.

Connection: In reading Pinker’s article, I think about Piaget’s theory of cognitive constructivism. Since that theory seems to address individual meaning making and active participation, I wonder how Pinker would critique it. Although he manages to address social constructivism and its limitations, how would he address individual construction of reality? Would that be considered mature realism or relative truth?

Module 4 responses

Q1. Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory contributed stages of development in learning. These stages show a progression from concrete to formal operations. His theory also introduced the learner (individual) as a key component that affects learning in addition to the environment.

1. Key questions

a. In his theory, is the learner a more important factor than the environment?

b. Is the learner distinctly different than the environment? How can one tell?

c. How does Piaget use the term logical…too freely? Are some pieces of knowledge constructed in ways that are not logical?

d. How is that individuals are born without mind?

e. How does a student with disabilities fit into this model?

Q2. In Piaget’s stages of development, a learner is actively constructing knowledge in dynamic process, building “differentiated and comprehensive cognitive structures” (slide 16 of 98). In the same way James discusses how the learner forms relationships between ideas, and the mind forms conceptions based on these relationships (James, 1969, p. 69). James goes on to state that the process of education is about gaining ideas, with “the best educated mind which has the largest stock of them, ready to meet the largest possible variety of the emergencies of life” (James, 1969, pp. 69-70). In terms of specific order, James discussed how teachers should be aware of the proper order of thinking: from concrete, object-relations learning, typically in childhood to abstract learning in adolescence (James, 1969, p. 73).

Q3. The authors of the article would probably refer to one of their cautions, “Do not believe that the opposite of “one-right-answer” reductionism is “anything-goes” construcvism” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 448). In the Simpsons episode, the teacher does not provide appropriate standards or criteria for learning. The teacher says that the only rule for students is to make up their own rules. In this case, there was little emphasis on fact and checks for understanding. In the end this proved problematic, when Bart blew up the lab. In a certain way is based on constructivism but it is a bad application of it. Although students constructed their own meaning, their prior knowledge was never questioned, nor was the knowledge acquired while in the classroom.

Constructivism would be very difficult to apply purely in the classroom setting. Each learner proceeds at their own pace and balancing the influence of a teacher (or other parts of the environment) and the learner could become cumbersome and eventually impractical.

R7

Question: Should schools and curriculum be designed differently, based on the information about constructivism in this article? If so, how?

Quote: “The vision of the constructivist student is one of activity, involvement, creativity, and the building of personal knowledge and understanding” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 446).

Connection: “ It describes in the broadest of strokes the human activity of knowing and nowhere specifies the detailed craft of teaching” (Airasian & Walsh, 1997, p. 444). This quote clearly relates to James’ writing within Talks To Teachers. It seems that some theories about knowledge and learning are not easily to transferred directly to the complicated practice of teaching in a classroom.

Connection: When this week’s article addresses student learning as opposed to instruction, this make me think of all of the innovations and reforms that are currently being introduced into education. Although learner involvement is important, I connect this to my experiences observing special education students. Can constructivism be applied to teaching students with certain disabilities? Does a teaching approach that stresses constructivism actually help students with disabilities more?