If you can't read please download the document
Upload
jerome-moody
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Jerome Bruner Goal of education is to make learner “as autonomous and self-propelled a thinker” as possible Education occurs via cultural integration Contrasts with ideas of: Transmission of knowledge “Culture-free” knowledge Before addressing specific elements of the video, let’s talk about Bruner and some of his ideas: He argued that the goal of education is to make each learner “as autonomous and self-propelled a thinker as possible” in his own culture Culture is increasingly important, such that it becomes a vehicle for how knowledge is created and used and imparted to others. Education no longer is viewed as a transmission of knowledge, nor is knowledge viewed as something that can be separated from an individual’s culture. Instead, individuals learn information through the filter of their culture and then adapt it for their own purposes. More interested in how individuals understanding meanings rather than retain information. This idea is central to folk psychology, in that how people make and use meanings is wrapped up in the culture beliefs and practices. Thus, similar to situated cognition, he argued that understanding how an individual participates in a culture is important to understanding how that person perceives and understands information related to that culture. Bruner is also the first theorist that we’ve discussed to really talk about motivation. He argued that there is a “golden mean” for motivation, in that you want students to be engaged and invested in a task, but not so much that they can’t step outside of it and reflect on it. Although we are representing his views as a theory of cognitive development, his ideas about education, policy, cognition, and development were all very tightly integrated Folk psychology Focus on creating and understanding meaning “Contextual Revolution” as opposed to the cognitive revolution “Golden mean” in student motivation
Citation preview
Bruners Theory (about 15 min) Jerome Bruner Goal of education is
to make learner as autonomous and self-propelled a thinker as
possible Education occurs via cultural integration Contrasts with
ideas of: Transmission of knowledge Culture-free knowledge Before
addressing specific elements of the video, lets talk about Bruner
and some of his ideas: He argued that the goal of education is to
make each learner as autonomous and self-propelled a thinker as
possible in his own culture Culture is increasingly important, such
that it becomes a vehicle for how knowledge is created and used and
imparted to others. Education no longer is viewed as a transmission
of knowledge, nor is knowledge viewed as something that can be
separated from an individuals culture. Instead, individuals learn
information through the filter of their culture and then adapt it
for their own purposes. More interested in how individuals
understanding meanings rather than retain information. This idea is
central to folk psychology, in that how people make and use
meanings is wrapped up in the culture beliefs and practices. Thus,
similar to situated cognition, he argued that understanding how an
individual participates in a culture is important to understanding
how that person perceives and understands information related to
that culture. Bruner is also the first theorist that weve discussed
to really talk about motivation. He argued that there is a golden
mean for motivation, in that you want students to be engaged and
invested in a task, but not so much that they cant step outside of
it and reflect on it. Although we are representing his views as a
theory of cognitive development, his ideas about education, policy,
cognition, and development were all very tightly integrated Folk
psychology Focus on creating and understanding meaning Contextual
Revolution as opposed to the cognitive revolution Golden mean in
student motivation Bruners Instrumental Conceptualism: Some Basic
Assumptions
Social and cultural interaction and influences are very important
Theory of instruction doesnt evolve out of theory of development
two should go hand in hand Development of thought follows
development of semiosis Bruner is best known for his ideas about
the steps involved in learning, which he described in terms of how
learning was represented 3 modes of representation. Assumptions
underlying this view are: 1. Like Piaget, he believed that social
and cultural interaction and influences are very important. He
argued that culture shapes the mind, the way individuals think
about themselves, and the way individuals think about the
environment. linguistic relativity is sort of related to this Whorf
argued that language shapes thought (Eskimos have more words for
snow than English, and they tend to think about snow differently)
although the ideas behind linguistic relativity have been disputed,
you can see what Bruner meant how we interact with a culture and a
people on a day to day basis shape how we think about it. 2. A
theory of instruction doesnt just evolve out of a theory of
cognition or development. Bruner argued that the two should
actually go hand in hand. 3. Bruner was not just interested in the
development of cognitive abilities, but he was also interested in
the development of thought in general. The idea of semiosis comes
back here, in that Bruners theory follows the sequence of the
development of the representational systems for knowledge that
children acquire and use to understand their worlds. He argued that
this is an active process. Bruners Instrumental Conceptualism: More
Assumptions
We construct knowledge by relating it to a previously acquired
frame of reference Acquisition of knowledge Transformation of
knowledge Check for relevance and accuracy of knowledge Cognitive
development can be viewed as trajectory from individuals need for
interaction with stimuli to their interaction with more abstract
ideas Understanding or insight occur via perceptual leaps from the
incoming stimuli to the underlying ideas or concepts 4. Like schema
theory and situated cognition, Bruner argued that it is important
to understand an individuals frame of reference. That is, he argued
that we construct knowledge (note construct not acquire) by
relating it to our previuosly acquired frame of reference. We do
this via three almost simultaneous processes: acquisition,
transformation, and checks of knowledge 5. Similar to other
theorists, Bruner viewed cognitive development as a change in
thinking. Instead of viewing it as a qualitative change in thought
processes like Piaget, though, he viewed it as a trajectory from an
individual needing active manipulation of a stimulus to being able
to think more abstractly about a stimulus. Again, this is where
semiosis comes in. 6. We talked in the debate about how theories
can explain the kind of insight that Kohler observed with his
chimps. According to Bruner, insight is a perceptual leap from the
incoming stimuli to the underlying ideas of concepts. We tend to
think of learning as a continuous trajectory, and within this view,
you can think of insight as taking bigger leaps instead of the
usual smaller steps involved in learning Bruners 3 Modes of
Representation
Enactive Representation = information is represented through action
I cant tell you, but I can show you. Iconic Representation =
information is represented through images and perceptions E.g.,
maps, flow-charts, diagrams Symbolic Representation = information
is represented in more abstract form Language, mathematics, symbols
Bruners Theory of Cognitive Development is in terms of 3 Modes of
Representation: 1. Enactive Representation = information is
represented via actions. Think about the child who cant really tell
you about something without acting it out. Adults do this even with
hand gestures, often unconsciously. My advisor in graduate school
used to always ask me questions about a particular software program
we used at first I was never able to answer his question without
going through the motions in the program myself. 2. Iconic
Representation = actions arent necessary to represent events (but
they can still be useful); individuals in this stage can also
represent events through images and perceptions. Individuals at
this stage might be able to understand a process by looking at a
diagram or a flow-chart. 3. Symbolic Representation = although they
may still use actions and images, individuals in this stage may
also use more remote abstract features to represent knowledge. We
use language, symbols, mathematics, etc. to represent knowledge.
What would represent a shift from using pictures to using
symbolism?
Were children able to solve the problems at first just by thinking
about them? Why or why not? What did physically manipulating the
tiles and the balance beam do for learning? Why was this important?
At what point were children able to move from the physical act of
putting tiles on the balance beam to using pictures of balance
beams on their worksheets? What would represent a shift from using
pictures to using symbolism? Before specifically stating how the
children in the video mapped onto the three stages, lets first
consider some questions with respect to the video: 1. Were children
able to solve the problems at first just by thinking about them?
Why or why not? 2. What did physically manipulating the tiles and
the balance beam do for learning? Why was this important? (Think
about Tad, whose light went on while he was counting up and
thinking about the tiles on the balance beam) 3. At what point were
children able to move from the physical act of putting tiles on the
balance beam to using the pictures? Was it a clean transition, or
did they go back and forth between the balance beam and their
worksheets? 4. What would represent a shift from using pictures to
using sybolism? Bruners 3 Modes of Representation: Solving Balance
Beam Problems
Enactive students actually placed tiles on the balance beams Iconic
students solved problems by drawing pictures of balance beams
Symbolic students could solve the problems mathematically; props
were no longer needed As said previously, Bruner believed that a
theory of development has to be tightly integrated with a theory of
education. As you can see in the some of the answers you just gave
to my questions, the children in the video moved through the stages
of Bruners 3 modes of representation: 1. Enactive Representation =
children actively moved tiles around on the balance beam to solve
the problems 2. Iconic Representation = children solved balance
beam problems on their worksheets and on the blackboard by drawing
pictures of the balance beam 3. Symbolic Representation = kept
hearing the children and the teacher talk about number sentences
this is the idea that they can solve problems that involve
combinations of multiplication and addition problems. Bruners Bogus
Stage Theory
Although development usually proceeds in order, it isnt necessary
Stage sequences are invariant, but are not age dependent Childs
readiness determined not by what he knows but by how he thinks
Instruction needs to be ready for learners, just as learners need
to be ready for instruction Process holds for anyone acquiring new
knowledge Although his theory is technically a stage theory, Bruner
called it a bogus stage theory. That is, although development
usually proceeds in this order, it isnt always necessary: 1.
Individuals need to go through the stages in the learning process,
but in contrast with Piagets theory, the stages arent innate and
age-dependent 2. A childs readiness for a given stage is not so
much dependent on what he knows (or the content of his cognitive
structures) but by how he thinks in the video, Suzanne wasnt really
ready to solve the problem on the board by just looking at the
picture she had to keep looking back at the balance beam itself
this also relates to how we should tailor our instruction; we
shouldnt plan lessons that arent ready for the children (too far
above or below), nor should we put children who dont have the right
knowledge or skills through a certain instructional lesson 3. This
process holds for anyone acquiring new knowledge children or adults
- Back to the video Did everyone in the group progress at the same
rate? Why or why not? Were there clear qualitative shifts from
stage to stage? What stage of development in Piagets theory do you
believe these children were in? Why? How do these assumptions apply
to what you saw in the video? 1. Did everyone in the group progress
at the same rate? Why or why not? 2. What stage of Piagets theory
do you believe these children were in? Why? 3. Did you see clear
qualitative shifts from one stage (enactive, iconic, symbolic) to
another, or did children go back and forth between stages?