All of my life in psychology classes, I have heard of Piaget and his theory of cognitive development. Piaget's research on cognitive development greatly contributes to the understanding of the development of learning in children. The article discussed four of Piaget's concepts that apply to learning at any age: assimilation, accommodation, equilibration and schemas.
Piaget believed there were two major principle guides to intellectual growth and biological development. Those are adaptation and organization. First, for an individual to survive in an environment, he or she must adapt. There are two parts to the adaptation process: assimilation and accommodation. Piaget believed that human beings process mental structures that assimilate external events. These mental structures accommodate themselves constantly changing aspects of the external environment. Assimilation occurs when a child perceives new objects or events in terms of existing schemas or operations. Piaget emphasized the functional quality of assimilation, where children and adults tend to apply any mental structure that is available to assimilate a new event, and activity to use this newly acquired mental structure. Also, Piaget believed that cognitive development in children is contingent on four factors: biological maturation, experience with the physical environment, experience with the social environment and equilibration. Equilibration refers to the biological drive to produce an optimal state of equilibrium between people's cognitive structures and their environment. Equilibration is an attempt to bring about a state of equilibrium between the first three factors and the reality associated with one's external environment. This state must be present for cognitive development to take place.
Human beings continually attempt to make sense of the world around them by assimilating necessary information into pre-existing mental schemas and accommodating thought processes as necessary. This effort to maintain a balance, denoted by equilibration, allows for cognitive development and effective thought processes.
Piaget defined schema as the mental representation of an associated set of perceptions, ideas and/or actions. Piaget considered schemata to be the basic building blocks of thinking. As cognitive development proceeds, new schemata are developed and existing schemata are more efficiently organized to better adapt to the environment. Cognitive development becomes evident through changes in behavior as this adaptation takes place.
Cognitive development is a complex process comprising three principal concepts affecting the development process: assimilation, accommodation and equilibration. All three are associated with the formation of the schemata and their modification in order to attain a balanced sense of understanding of the external world.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Review of article on Bloom's Taxonomy
After reading "Bloom's Taxonomy: Original and Revised," I feel more enlightented and have a better understanding of thinking and learning. The article addresses the question, "where do we begin seeking to improve human thinking?" One website responds with "One place to begin is in defining the nature of thinking. Before we can make it better, we need to know more of what it is." In fact, learning, teaching, identifying educational goals, and thinking are all complicated concepts interwoven in an intricate web.
The basis of this article is Benjamin S. Bloom's Taxonomy and it's revision by one of his former students, Lori Anderson.
Benjamin Bloom made the inprovement of student learning the central focus of his life's work. In 1948, Bloom led a group of educators in the task of classifying educational goals and objectives. This group's main purpose was to develop a method of classification for thinking behaviors believed to be an important part in the process of learning. The result was the taxonomy.
Bloom's taxonomy consists of three domains: the cognitive-knowledge based domain, the affective-attitudinal based domain and the psychomotor-skills based domain.
The word "taxonomy" confused me in the beginning but later in the article it is explained as being synonymous with "classification." Bloom's taxonomy is a multi-tiered model of classifying thinking according to six cognitive levels of complexity. Teachers have used the levels as ways of encouraging their students to climb to a higher level of thought. In Bloom's taxonomy, the lowest three levels are: analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Each level of the taxonomy is subsumed by the higher levels. A student functioning at the "application" level has already acconplished the material at the "knowledge" and "comprehension" level. In my opinion, it is sort of like building blocks, using what you already have learned to move on to a higher level and more complicated material.
In the 1990's, one of Bloom's former students, Lori Anderson revised the taxonomy to fit the 21st century. She wanted it to relate to today's students and teachers. The changes she and the team made came in three categories: terminology, structure and emphasis. Anderson and her team changed Bloom's six major categories from noun to verb form. Knowledge was renamed remembering, comprehension was renamed understanding and synthesis was renamed creating. Bloom's original was a one-dimensional form, the revised taxonomy takes the form of a two-dimensional table. One dimension is the Knowledge dimension and the second is the Cognitive Process dimension. The change in emphasis is placed upon its use as a more authentic tool for curriculum planning, instructional delivery and assessment.
Bloom's taxonomy is used by teachers to measure their students' ability accurately. The taxonomy has been applied to a variety of situations, but the educational setting (K-graduate) remains the most often used application.
The basis of this article is Benjamin S. Bloom's Taxonomy and it's revision by one of his former students, Lori Anderson.
Benjamin Bloom made the inprovement of student learning the central focus of his life's work. In 1948, Bloom led a group of educators in the task of classifying educational goals and objectives. This group's main purpose was to develop a method of classification for thinking behaviors believed to be an important part in the process of learning. The result was the taxonomy.
Bloom's taxonomy consists of three domains: the cognitive-knowledge based domain, the affective-attitudinal based domain and the psychomotor-skills based domain.
The word "taxonomy" confused me in the beginning but later in the article it is explained as being synonymous with "classification." Bloom's taxonomy is a multi-tiered model of classifying thinking according to six cognitive levels of complexity. Teachers have used the levels as ways of encouraging their students to climb to a higher level of thought. In Bloom's taxonomy, the lowest three levels are: analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Each level of the taxonomy is subsumed by the higher levels. A student functioning at the "application" level has already acconplished the material at the "knowledge" and "comprehension" level. In my opinion, it is sort of like building blocks, using what you already have learned to move on to a higher level and more complicated material.
In the 1990's, one of Bloom's former students, Lori Anderson revised the taxonomy to fit the 21st century. She wanted it to relate to today's students and teachers. The changes she and the team made came in three categories: terminology, structure and emphasis. Anderson and her team changed Bloom's six major categories from noun to verb form. Knowledge was renamed remembering, comprehension was renamed understanding and synthesis was renamed creating. Bloom's original was a one-dimensional form, the revised taxonomy takes the form of a two-dimensional table. One dimension is the Knowledge dimension and the second is the Cognitive Process dimension. The change in emphasis is placed upon its use as a more authentic tool for curriculum planning, instructional delivery and assessment.
Bloom's taxonomy is used by teachers to measure their students' ability accurately. The taxonomy has been applied to a variety of situations, but the educational setting (K-graduate) remains the most often used application.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The argument of learners as digital natives and educators is one that is certainly valid. Speaking from the point of view of a digital immigrant wanting to be an educator, I know I must adapt and learn to speak the language and thinking mannerisms of the digital native.
Mr. Prensky makes several valid points in his articles. Today’s students do think and process information differently. They are used to receiving information really fast…immediately. Whereas, I would go to the library for information on a subject and possibly spend endless hours researching different books, journals, etc. for a project, a digital native would immediately go the Internet, spend half the time researching the same subject and probably have more current information. This, in my opinion, is natural instinct for the digital native.
Digital immigrant educators must accept the fact that students learn differently today. The entire learning environment, culture has rapidly changed in the last decade. Students spend more time in front of the television than reading a book. Methods that worked years ago are no longer valid. Some of the older methods may not even hold the digital natives attention because they find it slow and boring. Methods must be adjusted, the digital native will not adapt to the digital immigrants outdated methods. In my opinion, the best thing for the digital immigrant educators to do is to integrate and interact with the digital native students. In other words, take advantage of their technological knowledge. Let the students be an integral part of implementing the new language, methods and technology into the classroom. I’m not saying let the students take over the classroom, but learn from them what interests them, what methods hold their attention so that your content/concept can be learned faster…while at the same time, teaching the digital native good thinking skills.
Now, the creation of “edutainment”, I’m not so sure I agree with this idea. Video games are great, but they are just that…..games. I understand bringing the “mountain to Mohammed” but sometimes the mountain is too big to conquer and “Mohammed” may misuse the “mountain.” By this I mean, the digital native can get more caught up in playing the game rather than retaining the concept or content that the game is intended to teach.
As far as digital immigrants and digital natives thinking differently, I agree with that concept. However, I do not think it is because our brains are different. I think it is because of our life experiences and cultural environment. The ins and outs and goings on of the world of the digital native today is totally different than that of the world in which the digital immigrant was raised and educated.
Mr. Prensky, also, makes the point that the digital native has lost the ability to reflect…learn from experience. It is not that they do not reflect but life is so fast paced sometime there is just not time to reflect. It is up to the digital immigrant educator to figure out ways to implement reflection and critical thinking in their criteria. The lessons must be interesting enough to hold the digital natives attention but at the same time cover the concept in a way that it can be taught and learned quickly.
Mr. Prensky makes several valid points in his articles. Today’s students do think and process information differently. They are used to receiving information really fast…immediately. Whereas, I would go to the library for information on a subject and possibly spend endless hours researching different books, journals, etc. for a project, a digital native would immediately go the Internet, spend half the time researching the same subject and probably have more current information. This, in my opinion, is natural instinct for the digital native.
Digital immigrant educators must accept the fact that students learn differently today. The entire learning environment, culture has rapidly changed in the last decade. Students spend more time in front of the television than reading a book. Methods that worked years ago are no longer valid. Some of the older methods may not even hold the digital natives attention because they find it slow and boring. Methods must be adjusted, the digital native will not adapt to the digital immigrants outdated methods. In my opinion, the best thing for the digital immigrant educators to do is to integrate and interact with the digital native students. In other words, take advantage of their technological knowledge. Let the students be an integral part of implementing the new language, methods and technology into the classroom. I’m not saying let the students take over the classroom, but learn from them what interests them, what methods hold their attention so that your content/concept can be learned faster…while at the same time, teaching the digital native good thinking skills.
Now, the creation of “edutainment”, I’m not so sure I agree with this idea. Video games are great, but they are just that…..games. I understand bringing the “mountain to Mohammed” but sometimes the mountain is too big to conquer and “Mohammed” may misuse the “mountain.” By this I mean, the digital native can get more caught up in playing the game rather than retaining the concept or content that the game is intended to teach.
As far as digital immigrants and digital natives thinking differently, I agree with that concept. However, I do not think it is because our brains are different. I think it is because of our life experiences and cultural environment. The ins and outs and goings on of the world of the digital native today is totally different than that of the world in which the digital immigrant was raised and educated.
Mr. Prensky, also, makes the point that the digital native has lost the ability to reflect…learn from experience. It is not that they do not reflect but life is so fast paced sometime there is just not time to reflect. It is up to the digital immigrant educator to figure out ways to implement reflection and critical thinking in their criteria. The lessons must be interesting enough to hold the digital natives attention but at the same time cover the concept in a way that it can be taught and learned quickly.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)