Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development

Vygotsky believed children’s thinking is affected by their knowledge of the social community (which is learnt from either technical or psychological cultural tools). 

He also suggested that language is the most important tool for gaining this social knowledge; the child can be taught this from other people via language.

He defined intelligence as “the capacity to learn from instruction”, which emphasizes the fact there is a requirement for a more knowledgeable other person or ‘teacher’. 

He referred to them as just that: the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). MKO’s can be parents, adults, teachers, coaches, experts/professionals – but also things you might not first expect, such as children, friends and computers.

He described something known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is a key feature of his theory. There are two levels of attainment for the ZPD:  Level 1 – the ‘present level of development’. This describes what the child is capable of doing without any help from others.  Level 2 – the ‘potential level of development’. This means what the child could potentially be capable of with help from other people or ‘teachers’. The gap between level 1 and 2 (the present and potential development) is what Vygotsky described as this zone of proximal development. He believed that through help from other, more knowledgeable people, the child can potentially gain knowledge already held by them. However, the knowledge must be appropriate for the child’s level of comprehension. Anything that is too complicated for the child to learn that isn’t in their ZPD cannot be learnt at all until there is a shift in the ZPD. 

When a child does attain their potential, this shift occurs and the child can continue learning more complex, higher level material.

Another important feature of this theory is scaffolding. 

When an adult provides support for a child, they will adjust the amount of help they give depending on their progress. For example, a child learning to walk might at first have both their hands held and pulled upwards. As they learn to support their own weight, the mother might hold both their hands loosely. Then she might just hold one hand, then eventually nothing. This progression of different levels of help is scaffolding. It draws parallels from real scaffolding for buildings; it is used as a support for construction of new material (the skill/information to be learnt) and then removed once the building is complete (the skill/information has been learnt).

Is Knowledge Taught or Learned

 If the members of an academic community are polled on ways to improve the quality of education, the students are likely to suggest hiring and promoting faculty who are better teachers, while the faculty probably will suggest admitting brighter, better prepared, and more motivated students. 

• Whose opinion is the more valid? 
• How responsible in fact, are the faculty for how much students learn and for how insightful they become?
•  How responsible are faculty members for students' proficiencies in fundamental skills—reading, thinking, writing, and speaking—or for students' attitudes toward learning? 
• Who is most to blame when students pursue college merely for vocational rewards or social distractions?

 Conversely who deserves credit for those rare students who not only master basic content and skills but understand a discipline in fresh and original ways and are somehow able to integrate the knowledge they have gleaned in various areas into a single, personal vision? In College Professoring, O.P. Kolstoe answers these questions by asserting that "nobody can't teach nobody nothing" (1975, p. 61). He is correct. No instructor can make students learn. Consequently, college teachers cannot claim full credit when a student learns something well, nor must they cam' all the blame when students fail to learn. Given students' freedom to take or leave what we instructors have to offer, it is crucial that we take pains to see that they become involved in learning. The importance of this motivational function is immense.

What differences among students require different teaching methods' Individual differences in students" abilities to do academic work are foremost. Students learn a subject at different rates and with strikingly different levels of completeness. College teachers are often amazed at the brilliance of some students and the shallowness of others. Regardless of the amount of work some students put into their studies, the complexity of their thinking fails to match that of others. Our society's contemporary social ethic tends to deny the importance of differences in fundamental academic ability, but psychological research (Guilford, 1968; Scarr, 1981) and the experience of college teachers support the influence of intelligence on the quality of student learning. How fully students apply the themselves also affects how much they learn, but motivation can go only so far in compensating for differences in ability. 

We as instructors cannot be held responsible for the differences in ability students bring with them, but we are responsible for motivating all students, from the gifted to the barely adequate, to do their best work and to love the learning experience. College teachers have as much power to dampen students enthusiasm for learning as to excite it.

What is Meant by Teaching?

 What all the great teachers appear to have in common is love of their subject, an obvious satisfaction in arousing this love in their students, and an ability to convince them that what they are being taught is deadly serious. Epstein (1981. p.xii) If I were to ask you to picture a masterful college teacher, any of a number of images could come to mind One image might be that of an awe-inspiring scholar lecturing from the stage of an amphitheater to an audience of students who are leaning forward to catch every word. Another might be that of a warm, approachable person seated at a seminar table among a group of students, facilitating an animated discussion, firmly but gently guiding the students to insight, awareness, self-confidence, and a heightened ability to think critically. Still another image might be that of an instructor engaged with one or two students in freewheeling sessions in the professor's study, over a glass of beer in the students" haunt, or in the laboratory—sessions in which each student has the opportunity to see at close range the way the teacher thinks and perhaps to glimpse an older person attempting to live a life committed to ideas and knowledge. Varied as these images are, they are alike in fundamental ways. In each of them the instructor is pictured not while studying alone or presenting a paper to learned colleagues but while interacting with students. The images all convey a sense of impact, of an instructor having a potentially profound effect on the students. In each, the students are emotionally as well as intellectually stimulated by the proceedings, whether as members of an audience or in one-to-one relationships.

Welcome to GECE W Thatta

 Welcome to GECE W Thatta.

This website is aimed to support ADE/B.Ed Elementary prospective teachers.