Post #4: "Mind in Society" by Lev Vygotsky and the Third Design Principle
As a constructionist, Vygotsky believed that cognitive development depended upon the use of "tools", so associations could be made with its environment. Tools such as symbols and speech allow for socialization to do work and eventually internalize the symbols. Once internalized, generative thought could morph them into a new tool to perform new kinds of work. Through play, the conscious realization of the purpose of activities is realized. At the end of development, rules emerge and create a relationship between situations of thought and their real-life counterparts.
I had a very difficult time reading this book, especially the first half, but from our discussion in class I got some better understanding. So higher psychological functions such as reflection, synthesis and application of new tools developed from internalization of previously learned symbols and tools. Symbols such as speech, graphics and numbers allow for socialization and assimilation into culture. By using a tool or symbol to do work, the mind realizes the usefulness of it and helps move activities from "what I'm ready to learn to do", across the "zone of proximal development" into activities that "can be done independently". Speech is the main tool, I think Vygotsky is saying, that has the most bang for the buck in cognitive development because of the way it leads to socialization, internalization and new generative thought.
For my classes, I'm using a new data analysis software tool to look at graphs of moving objects, which the students download for free onto their own laptops, so that they can do the analysis of the data graphs of the change in position, velocity and acceleration motion in one dimension on their own. When they look at each of the three graphs it helps associate each part of the motion with what is really happening. In studying motion, we also use "arrows" to symbolize the direction of the object's change in position, velocity and acceleration, and sometimes they don't point in the same directions. Both of these tools help the students internalize the relationships of changes in position, velocity and acceleration. This internalization will then be synthesized in the next chapter when we study projectile motion, which is linear motion but in two dimensions.
I too had a lot of difficulty grasping the true nature of the reading. It was not until I sat in class and had it explained to me in a more meaningful manner that I was able to fully grasp what Vygotsky was getting at. I realized that I was having so much difficulty understanding it because I had no real connection to the content. Because of this, I was not able to internalize it properly. Once it was explained to me in a way that gave it meaning, I was able to synthesize and categorize the information.
ReplyDeleteI really like the new software tool that you are using with your students. It is nice that they can bring their laptops to school to use in your class. It sounds like the program really gives them a nice way to understand what they are learning and internalize the information presented.
Yes, the class discussion really helped clarify what Vygotsky was talking about. The laptop/tablet availability in high school puzzles me because there isn't a strong requirement at the college level for pc's in the classroom. There are all the online tools to speed up communication and collaboration, such as "Blackboard", but in the classroom it's really seems the same.
DeleteWow. It seems that all of us had a difficult time with this particular reading. However, between class and a second reading, it is a bit more understandable. If you can get to the essence of what he is saying, it (sort of) "make[s] sense"--to quote our lovable instructor. It's just getting to the essence that is so hard. The language is a bit of a barrier, but I think that the need to discuss things face to face that really is what was missing for me. I cannot overstate the importance of actually being present with all of you, at least for me, to discuss this work in class.
ReplyDeleteOne of the fears I have for education is the notion that teachers can do all of what we need to do online. It has never really worked for me as a student, and I have serious doubt that it would work for many of my own students. The ability to actually deal with people in real time, in person, makes a lot of difference in my mind. And even with real time electronic presence, Skype for example, is just not the same.
We really need to consider the affordability of class time as compared to online time. I do have some assignments that I put online, but they are limited to writing assignments. Perhaps I might email out a couple of reading assignments, but anything that needs to be discussed, at least initially, I do first in class.
I agree with the concerns about everything being online, sometimes I wonder if we are making ourselves obsolete by doing so? However good or bad, designing for the digital learning may necessitate it. It's just tough to get up to speed on every new tool coming down the pike. When do we get to rest? June?
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one who thought this book was really easy to read? kidding.
ReplyDeleteI agree that once I was in class and half way through the book I was able to understand it a little better... especially when he covered education and play.
On another note, if Vygotsky was around today, I wonder what he would think about artificial intelligence. I was thinking about what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom so there would obviously be differences between humans and computers.