Module 4 Qs

1) The principal contributions of Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory are mainly described as how an individual construct his or her own knowledge to be able to adapt in the environment. The social component of learning is taken away from Piaget’s theory. Thus, only the individual makes his or her own meaning by being active in the environment. People are able to form schemas through their past experiences in order to adapt and make sense of their surroundings, and in turn, gain knowledge. Since individuals are able to construct their own meaning through their experiences, not everyone’s meaning will be the same. Therefore, there is no absolute truth and intelligence is flexible.
Q: Are schemas like reinforcement (once you experience a good outcome of the stimulus, you most likely repeat that same behavior to the stimulus)?
2) The connection I made with Piaget’s developmental stages and James’ theory of acquiring ideas is that they both view knowledge as something that develops with age. Thus, if a child is at the stage of learning basic mathematics, then that child must not be given a problem that is too abstract, such as geometrics. Plus, the child must be given some kind of assessment, proving that she understands the material in order to move on to the next tasks. In addition, both Piaget and James believe that children make their own meaning through their experiences. In James’ chapter “What the Native Reactions Are,” he explains how a stick can have different meanings for different individual (James, 1899/2001). Since James thought that constructiveness, was what he called “instinctive tendency,” and that teachers should attract this native tendency and enhance the students’ passive and active experiences (James, 1899/2001). James said, “But the wise education takes the tide at the flood, and from kindergarten upward devotes the first years of education to training in construction and to object-teaching” (p. 30).
3) After observing Bart’s new class, Airasian and Walsh would first be amazed, and then they will have several questions to ask in regards to how the faculty was able to implement constructivism in the class, what is the student application process, how each student is doing in the class, what are the pros and cons in the students’ and teachers’ perspective, etc. Furthermore, I doubt that Airasian and Walsh will believe that that type of learning environment is effective for every student to gain knowledge of every subject. They would disagree that the Bart’s classroom instruction should only involve one form of learning. Yet, it would be a good observation for them to witness and evaluate. Yes, I believe that Bart’s new class is a form of constructivism.
Overall, I believe that the constructivist theory is most definitely an interesting theory, in which, it lays a mystery because it is something that cannot be measured. Also, since there are not many classrooms that fully implement constructivism, it would be difficult to even observe. I think that the theory has some truths to it, in regards to how individuals make their meaning, and how everyone’s meaning is different through the experiences one may have. I just do not think that the implementation of it is feasible in the classroom.