After reading about Paiget’s theories, one aspect of his
thinking really jumped out at me. This had to deal with his “constructivist”
(as it is often labeled) view. Piaget had an assumption that explained how
children were mentally and physically active from the very beginning-birth. He
explains that children go through three stages: hypothesis, performing
experiments, and forming conclusions. I think that this model has a lot to do
with children’s’ natural curiosity and the way they go about satisfying their
undying need to figure things out.
In my above model, first there is a boy scratching his head
to resemble the hypothesis part of this three-step system. In this instance he
would be thinking about what would happen if he put the match in a candle or
some form of fire. The second picture is of a little boy looking at the match
as it is lit on fire because this is the part where children perform the
experiment. Lastly, the picture of the boy writing in a notebook symbolizes the
conclusion being formed about what happens when a match is put in fire.
I believe in this theory too because I watched it happen
with my own little cousin. He would be extremely curious about everything and
my family would joke around about the fact that we could see Joey (my cousin)
thinking about what he was about to do to get himself in trouble before he did
it. After he actually “performed the experiment”, while Joey was being scolded,
he would be staring at what he had just made happen. One example of this was
when my aunt was pregnant and was painting a canvas that was going to be put in
the new baby’s room. I was at their house and was supposed to be watching Joey.
He stared at the paint can for a very long time and, in an instant, pushed over
the paint can. As my aunt was yelling at him and trying to clean it up, Joey
was just staring at the paint running down the table and dripping onto the
carpet. I believe that this was Joey’s way of forming a conclusion.
Kim,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I hope your aunt's carpet is looking a little better! Also, I've had an experience similar to your cousins. It actually happened to my sister though. She wanted to help my mom with dinner but was not allowed to because mom was working with a hot stove, and it could burn her. My sister is stubborn, though, so she went ahead and touched the stove anyway. I think she learned her lesson because she does not go near the stove anymore!
This is kind of a mix of both Paiget's theory and Vygotsky's theory. Vygotsky's theory comes into play with the verbal speech coming from an adult figure. My sister received instructions from my mom to not touch the stove,but she decided to not listen. However, I think Paiget's theory has more of a role in this situation because my sister had to have the experience for herself to learn from it. She constructed her own knowledge from her experience. It is pretty obvious by her never returning to the stove that she drew a conclusion to not touch the stove.
Based off of my sister's experience, I think there is a personality factor that goes into her actions as well. This may be part of a social aspect, which leans toward Vygotsky's theory. In his theory, social activities start the mental processes for learning. Somewhere in my sister's social experiences, she found that trying things for herself may give her better results.
In your example of your little cousin Joey as being used as an example of Piaget's constructivist theory which I understand what your trying to explain but I feel like you should have explained his experiment using the terms assimilation- which is the process by which a person takes into their mind from the environment, which may mean changing the evidence of their senses to make it occur. So in your example Joey staring at the paint can could be the assimilation and him pushing the paint can over could be the accomadation phase - which is where they information learned doesn't fit into the scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Andra Winslow
Great points everyone. I agree with Andra that the core ideas of Piaget is related to the concepts of (dis)equilibriation. So as Andra has mentioned, Joey could really be trying to figure out what paint does. Maybe he has a schema of paint and attempted to spill it. Depending on the result, he may either assimilate or accommodate information. Another important factor to note is Joey's age - Piaget would say that the child also has to be developmentally ready before he/she can learn. All in all, great work!
ReplyDelete