Week+4+questions

The first perspective of learning and development gave an example to demonstrate that development is a precondition for learning or that learning and development are independent using Piaget’s question to a five year old child. They however failed to provide an example to show that learning is not a precondition for development. Why do you think this perspective has been widely used as it is reflect our present learning structure? (NA)

According to Piaget, the response is there first before the stimulus. How can an answer (response) come before the question (stimulus)? He says a stimulus is a stimulus only when it is assimilated into a structure which is already there. If there is not response, then the structure is not there. Or if there is no structure you can’t get a response. Piaget however equates structure to response and I seem not to understand. I need some clarification on this. “The egg and the hen which came first?” (NA)

It seems as though Vygotsky and Piaget imagine "opposite" relations between development and learning. In Vygotsky, "the developmental process lags behind the learning process" (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90), but in Piaget, "learning is subordinated to development" (Piaget, 1964, p. 184). In what ways are these conceptual differences significant? What statement about the learning process could we make that Piaget and Vygotsky would both support? (RK, 02/01). -- Good question, Rob, I'm having a hard time making sense of this aspect of Piaget's theory. (NF, 02/01/10)

Both Vygotsky and Piaget use the terms "development" and "learning." Do these concepts mean the same thing for both authors? I would benefit from some discussion of the meaning of these terms in Vygotsky and Piaget. (RK, 02/01).

Is the "optimal mismatch theory" described in Kuhn (1979) basically the same as Vygotsky's zone of proximal development? If a task is optimally mismatched for a student, does that mean it lies in her zone of proximal development? And vice versa? If not, I would benefit from an attempt to articulate the differences between these ideas. (RK, 02/01).
 * As I understand it,these ideas are very similar. Both seem to refer to a tasks which are difficult, but not impossible to the student, that are used to push the student to further understanding. (JDS 2/2)

Kuhn (1979) defines Piaget’s notion of “equilibration” as “the critical process whereby the individual’s system of mental actions, or operations, is reorganized into a new, more advanced structure” (p. 352). In what sense is “self regulation” consistent with Sfard and Linchevski’s (1994) “reification”, or the “generalization” that Dubinsky (1991) refers to in building on Piaget’s theory of reflective abstraction? Are these legitimate comparisons to make? (NF, 02/01/10)

In thinking about some of the curricula presented in Kuhn (1979), I couldn’t help but think about progressive education (and the self-directed activity or experiences intended for children). Is there a relationship between Piaget’s theory and the ideals of the Progressive Education Association? (NF, 02/01/10) 

When Davydov (1995) describes the zone of proximal development (p. 18) it makes me wonder about the role of assessment and the way in which assessments are designed to perturb this zone of proximal development. (NF, 02/01/10)

Is it possible to hold to both Piaget's four stages of cognitive development and Vygotsky's zone of proximal development? Why or why not? (JE, 2/2/10)

How do both Piaget and Vygotsky view the role of structures in the learning process? How do their views differ and how are they similar? (CZ, 2/2)

How do Piaget and Vygotsky view assimilation and accommodation? (CZ)

I see a lot of comparison between Vygotsky and both socio-cultural and distributed cognition models. Could his work be seen as an attempt toward an overarching theory of cognition (a sort of Grand Unified Theory)? Specifically I think Davydov's comment on page 16 (bottom left) seems to suggest this: "'first, collective activity, then culture, the ideal, sign or symbol, and finally, individual consciousness.' We cannot overestimate the significance of this outline as a deep theoretical basis for organizing all of education." Does this work? Do we need to add another level to deal with behaviorist perspectives or do they already fit at the level of individual consciousness? Or do they not fit at all in this model? Are some of these levels being ignored? And if so, why? (JDS 2/2)

The readings on Piaget's ideas this week made me wonder, is it possible to be at different stages of development in different subject areas, for instance in Biology and in Math? (JH, 2/2)

In Davydov's paper, he state that the fourth idea of Vygotsky was that the teacher or the upbringer direct and guide the students, but do not force their own will to them. How is K-12 education faring in this sense? (JH)