Final Post - Maslow's Hierarchy

Hello.

See the period up there? Yes it isn't as excited as usual. as this will be the final blog post I make with regards to my Educational Psychology course, as the blog itself is due tonight at midnight. I've had fun ranting over the term, about various things. I mean, I just like to rant. Don't judge. EITHER WAY,

I do feel that the blog has been a valuable part of the course. While it may not always be easy to sit down and write about things rolling around in our head from class, this sort of reflection and expression solidifies the knowledge and helps us really think more deeply about the concepts we're talking about in class, which is good...and will definitely help on our journeys to be teachers.

*wipes eyes while violins play*

Anyways, I think I'll finish with one of my most favourite topics!

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. See below in the awesome triangular diagram.

So, as we can see in the very nicely coloured pyramid, Maslow's theory is actually a rather simple theory to understand, that I agree with. However I feel that this broad idea of motivation and priorities can be applied to such a broad range of life situations, that it is invaluable.

Ive actually applied the pyramidal structure to a variety of my own theories, my favourite being human interpersonal relationships (I love social Psych. Especially relationships, fascinating stuff) HOWEVER, this is an EDUCATION blog, so I will not digress so much as to go into my ideas on relationships at the time, email me if you want to hear that boring rant.

Education, right. As we talked about in class, Maslow's structure can have quite drastic effects on the learning of individual students. *Gets out laser pointer* As we can see, the need to "Know and Understand" or engage in advanced cognition, is actually quite a way up the pyramid. In fact, the two distinct categories discussed in class are the top four tiers being more like "Growth" needs that allow us to further ourselves, whereas the bottom four tiers are "Necessity" needs that must be filled before we can move onto the growth part of things. Now, since the drive to learn and think is above these four "Necessities," Maslow's theories state that this need for cognition and knowledge is not pursued if the bottom four are not satisfied. So if a student is not receiving proper nourishment, has no place to live, or another immediate deprivation of basic needs, there is not a chance he is going to focus on schoolwork, which does not necessarily mean he is not smart. The child could be brilliant, but if his Physiological needs are not met, he will be unable to perform at his potential.

The same can be said for the next three levels, Safety, Belonging, and Esteem needs. If you think about the case of a child being bullied at school, is he going to feel safe, coming to class? Is he going to feel loved and cared about if he is being excluded? And as for his esteem, is he going to believe in himself and have a high level of self esteem if he is being put-down and fed negative messages? No. All of these things "prevent" the child from focusing on his academic goals, by Maslow's theory. This outlines how important making a child comfortable and cared for in a school environment is, or else, how can we expect them to focus on schoolwork if they have to worry about these much more pressing psychological needs?

Even beyond the first four tiers, and once a child has achieved the level of need that allows him to pursue knowledge and higher cognition, then what? Then a child who is understanding, and drinking in this knowledge can move to focus on aesthetic and beauty needs ,which I also see as creativity and generative thinking personally. Don't think it gets better? If the child is still achieving all of his needs up to this point, he can move on to become self-actualized. This used to be regarded as the ULTIMATE form of accomplishing and fulfilling ones need, as self actualization allows the individual to fully realize their identity and become the best they can be. This is best put simply (in my mind) As realizing their potential, and it is one of the best experiences a teacher can have is one of their students self-actualizing. Of course, there is now a new tier called Transcendence.

To be honest Ed Psych was the first time I'd heard of the added tier transcendence as the top of Maslow's pyramid, and I understand it was a newer addition so outdated information in my other psych classes must have missed it. I personally kind of view transcendence as a part of self actualization, almost as if they exist side by side at the top of the pyramid, rather than transcendence being on top. Either way, it implies that now that we have become the best we can be through self actualization, the final step is to begin to selflessly help others become the best they can be as well. People who achieve transcendence believe strongly in helping others and doing things to contribute to society and humanity as a whole. They are the people putting themselves on the line to tirelessly help others, further human knowledge and understanding, and make big contributions to society and humanity as a whole. It sounds pretty grand, but the question is...does this kind of transcendence really exist? I believe so, yes. This opens up the entire "Existence of Altruism" debate from Social Psychology the other day however, and this post is already rather large and wordy, so I'd best not.

I urge you (the reader) to think deeply on Maslow's ideas as I have, and see how you may apply them to your lives and careers in order to maximize not only your teaching, but how you live your own lives as well.

For now, this is Zach signing off for the last time, I wish everyone the best in their teaching careers!

Zach Wanner =)

Working as Groups

Hello!

"Teacher, can I work with my friend(s)?"

You know most people's first thought here is, "No! You just want to talk, and put some of the responsibility of your work on others, and goof off, and be pains in my arse, and generally not work effectively." No? Well it crossed my mind. I remember being in school, everyone loved group work. We ALWAYS wanted to work with our friends, or other classmates (especially the really bright ones). Is that because we want to practice social loafing and slack off? Not entirely. Whether kids realize it or not, I believe we gravitate toward group work because we're social creatures. By that I mean to say, I believe that consulting with peers actually helps people to learn much better, and it is a beneficial technique of learning,

Some argue that group work actually causes children to learn less, due to the fact that they aren't personally responsible for as much work. So, if one child is writing the work out and three are watching him do it attentively (To make sure it is adequate and that they will all get good marks) the only student  that gets much benefit is the one writing the work out, obviously, right?

Wrong.

Our brains contain structures known as Mirror Neurons. When we watch someone performing a task, or observe them doing something, we can learn substantially from this observation. This is called, observational learning (surprise). The really interesting part, is that scans of brain activity indicate that virtually the SAME areas of the brain light up with activity when we are performing a task, as when we are OBSERVING someone perform the task. Neat huh? This means that attentively watching someone else do something actually allows our brains to learn it just as well, simply by watching. That means, with group work in the classroom every single child is benefiting from the work done by even just one member of that group. Students with weaknesses in certain areas can even be paired with students that have exceptional abilities in said area, and through observing the other student excel the weaker student improves his/her own abilities greatly, and actually learns a great deal.

Another benefit of group work brings us back to Gardner's multiple intelligences. While each child having unique styles of learning and presenting information may present certain challenges to teachers, it also opens the doors to great opportunities to mix different skills in groups and allow students to collaborate together and create unique work that reflects multiple different individual perspectives. Even us, as teachers can learn from this as we observe children collaborating in unique and creative ways, surprising as more than once over one's teaching career I would imagine.

Either way, my point is, group work is a positive force in the classroom, and a tool that I believe should certainly be utilized when applicable to create the best learning environment possible!

Zach

Inclusive Education

Hello!

Today we tackle one of the most fiercely debated topics in the education world (At the college) as far as I have noticed, and that thing is

*Drum Roll*

Inclusive Education! *Dramatic horror music*

Right, so I'm kind've over doing it. It happens. Anyways,

My opinion on this matter is that this is an incredibly (wait for it) ...Care-Bear theory and this is something I strongly feel is a step in the wrong direction, at least the way it is being implimented.

IN THEORY, being able to have children with a wide spectrum of learning and mental disabilities, as well as those with a "giftedness" or above average acadaemic skill all together in a classroom with all other students who fall into the "average" range isn't wrong. I mean, it's cool to have more social interaction, especially between students who function in distinctly different ways and can all benifet from eatchother and learn equally in the classroon. If those kids who needed it had extra help such as aides, specialized work tailored to their needs, and an INDIVIDUAL PLAN in which the best way to help them achieving learning is outlined, this would be great. But...realistically? These supports aren't there. A teacher can only be asked to do so much on their own in the way of making their lessons and classroom individual to each students needs. I mean, we can do the little things, but we can drastically alter the classroom for each and every student's needs, its just not possible.

To comment on why I have "INDIVIDUAL PLAN" In all caps up there, its because I am made to beleive that IPP's are being abolished and are not to be used anymore, because they may impart labels on kids. Hold on, we took away Individual Placement Plans? Those things that we created to outline the specific needs of each child? The things that served as tools and helped us deliver the best education possible? Perhaps I heard wrong, but this is insane,

I understand that labels are bad, I really do. Im a Psych-nut, I know all about self-fullfilling prophecy and how much labels and social treatment can affect a child. I get it. But this is NOT how to solve the problem. Labels in the form of IPP's and specialized programs to aid students in succeeding to the best of their abilities are not set with the purpose of demeaning any child, any student. They are there to HELP. Getting rid of these because other children and adults might see these classrooms and programs negatively and think bad things is just... just...Care-Bear, and incredibly illogical. It's like a leap backwards in progress. Im wondering if some of the parents of these kids are more interested in their own image and how their child looks on them than the child themself, or the academic assistance they need to succeed. Like, come on now.

Alright, well, I've made my side abundantly clear. I'd be happy to  listen to arguments, this is a complex idea and I certainly don't think it's black and white, my way or the highway. So what are some other thoughts on this?

I'll leave it at that today!

Zach

Multiple Intelligences

Hello!

First of all, this is NOT, split personality disorder. Yes, I have legitimately had people come up to be and ask "Oh, Howard Gardner and Multiple Intelligences? Like...when someone is just one person, but they think they're like...more than one person, you know....man?"

No.

Perhaps I overemphasized the "like" and "man"'s in that sentence, BUT, my point remains. Totally different.

Gardner's multiple intelligences is a theory that proposed that rather than a single domain of intelligence, or "smart" as exemplified by academic achievement, high IQ, quick cognition, etc. there are many different ways in which people think and learn.

Here is a shiny-colourful picture graphic (For all the non-linguistic favouring learners)

Interesting, no? It shows a variety of the different intelligences people may display, or rather, the different forms their intelligence may take! The diagram is actually missing one of the newer intelligences, Existentialist smart. These guys are the deep thinkers who see the big picture and ponder the big questions about the universe, you know, philosophy types.

Anyways, it just goes to show how many different forms information can take, and could be presented for learning. Huh...that seems like...ah, it is an application to teaching. Yes, there will be kids in your classroom with different preferences as far as learning and creating information. Yes, Gardner's Multiple Intelligences can help you to see this and make the classroom a much more conducive environment to learning for everyone. Yes, it takes a bit more effort and thought on the part of the teacher, but, in my opinion, well worth the results when every student can find something to be engaged and/or interested in from the class material.

Thats about all for now, Can YOU think of any additional Intelligences, or subcategories of the above that could perhaps be considered a separate form of intelligence?

I know I can. I know people who LOVE to write, and keep journals/storybooks/entire drives on their computer just for creative writing. This may fall under the linguistic category. Do you think these people would like to get up in front of the class and demonstrate a complex math problem? Or be tasked with creating a mystery story with math problems woven into it, which must be solved to find the end of the story? Yeah, its obvious. Think about it some more. =)

Zach

Intelligence Quotient

Hello!

I was quite interested in the discussion we had in class pertaining to IQ scores, and their relevance. There were many people arguing that it is incorrect to score people on such a narrow-minded degree of intelligence, and label them with a single number. Then there are those who say that it is NOT a single-sided label, but a useful tool in assessing and mapping individual children's academic needs and abilities. Who is right? Well, I have no place to say that (In my mind I'm right, of course!) But I WILL give my opinion.

I DO agree that students can display intelligence in a variety of diverse formats, as related to Howard Gardner's popular theory of multiple intelligences. (More on that in a later post, I like these!) I fully agree that an IQ score is NOT a sole representation of the intelligence of an individual, and that judging a particular student's wholesome capabilities of off a single score is the incorrect thing to do, and it is inaccurate.

That being said...

IQ tests have been created and altered thousands of times over the years by experts in the field of cognitive and learning psychology. These things aren't just some online poll surrounded by advertisements stating you've just one a free continent! (Cheesy Joke.) Well, okay, LEGITIMATE IQ tests are very complex and useful assessment tools, which have undergone rigorous study to make them as useful as possible. My point is, saying that IQ tests are useless, evil, terrible things that simply set out to label kids and make their lives miserable and underestimate them and be unfair and and and....*Takes breath* Yeah, it sounds pretty ridiculous to hear it put like that, doesn't it?
Look, IQ tests are a VERY ACCURATE measure of a SPECIFIC kind of intelligence, that being the Math, Science, Social, English language core subject academic-type prowess. You know, classic "Nerdy". It has been shown that IQ scores are EXCELLENT predictors of academic success in a traditional classroom. Why? Because they are testing the core skills that go into academic work in a traditional classroom environment, NOT intelligence as a whole. This means they are STILL very useful tools in gauging a child's abilities, and can be very good at predicting the early signs of a learning disability or subject specific weakness that can be addressed to HELP the child.

Amid all of that ranting and caps lock, the message I'd like you to take away from all this is that IQ tests are NOT a final measure of some sort of overarching smarts or intelligence, and should not be treated as such. IQ tests ARE, however, very useful assessment tools for rating a child in specific areas of intelligence, and should not by any means be minimalized or dismissed as without value. To do so is just care-bear and would be detrimental rather than useful in the long run.

NOTE: Care-bear - A word Zach uses to describe theories, practices, ideas, statements, policies, etc, etc that are based on people acting in a way that is completely illogical and unproductive due to a vastly over-exaggerated value invested in trying to make everything "nicer," more "pretty," and perfectly "ideal" for everyone, to the point it ends up being unrealistic and not practical for application the real world at all.

Zach

Gender

Hello!

Gender. Yup, Gender. As in Male, or Female. Or is it?

The debate about gender, and how pervasive it might be in our lives from childhood has been burning up in recent times. Who are we to say a boy should be a boy? A girl a girl? Well, I mean there IS biology. Needless to say, it IS relevant to the education system, and it IS a big deal.

I remember reading an article in ENGL 219, about raising gender neutral children. I read it, and I thought about it. I mean the point made by this couple was that as a human being, their child had the right to decide his (her?) own gender, and not be influenced by the bias of society and perceptions of others. I mean, fair enough...let the kid do what he/she wants. BUT. I mean come on now, the child has hardware, you know? I mean it's either a guy under the hood, or a girl. There ARE two sexes. I don't want to oversimplify, I know that they get this and that they re simply arguing that society shouldn't emphasize gender roles and expectations...well at all. It's all fine and dandy, when you say it...it sounds nice, doesn't it? Well...this is the real world, frankly. We have, males and females. I personally think all of this effort going into neutralizing gender is just wrong.

ANYWAYS, to tie it back into the conversation. Yeah, there are A LOT of gender stereotypes, and a lot of norms, and these things DO influence our students. I mean, yeah, some of them aren't gonna be all positive, that's unfortunate, but really, A LOT of things influence us in life, and if we hide from all influence, we might as well live in boxes. As teachers, we can be objective and do our best to let go of societies stereotypes and gender bias, and not let it into our classroom. That doesn't mean we should be for abolishing gender, or fighting to eliminate all gender influences on our students, its part of life. I strongly believe that there are just as many positive gender concepts as their are negative, and they both exist, its simple fact. Either way, as much as I agree that gender is an important issue, lets try not to kill it, and keep it in perspective, shall we?

Zach

A Digital Nation - Video

Hello!

The video shown in class titled "A Digital Nation" (I believe!) was full of interesting ideas. It is somewhat alarming, if we think about it, just how reliant we are on our technology in contemporary society. I mean, I have an 11 year old sister, and her same-age friend recently received and Iphone, on contract. Are you kidding? What does an 11 year old need an apple smart phone with calling, texting, and browsing for. I mean, REALLY? I don't even have an Iphone, I can't afford one!

BUT, I digress (That happens FAR too often). My point is, we really are obsessed with technology and digital devices in our everyday lives, and the video really shows how this might be affecting us. It really looked at our ability to multitask, not even while using the device, but just in general! What they found? We were getting much WORSE. Yup, I said worse. Many people thought that this practice of using electronics so regularly in everyday life alongside other processes would enable us to vastly grow our ability to multitask, but as it turns out it actually seems to be detrimental to our abilities. Huh. So texting, driving, eating, AND applying eyeliner is PROBABLY not a great idea.

Look, I'll admit, if my phone rings and I'm driving, Ill look at it. If I'm at a red light? Ill check a text. It's so bad even I'm doing it, but we really ARE wrapped about the digital age. In classrooms this has had an impact, what with students texting during class rather than absorbing information. Of course the benefits are there too, where kids have the capability to browse the Internet and communicate digitally right from their phones or other devices, it's amazing really. But are kids using them for this? Probably not.

The fact is, technology is great, but sometimes it isn't always going to be beneficial to our brains, especially if we don't use it correctly. In fact, the warning message (at least I saw it) in digital nation speaks to the fact that we really need to think critically about our use of, and addiction to technology.

EDIT: Leap year blog post? Awww yeah! One for the ages...well...for four years anyways.
Zach

Moral Ladder - Kohlberg

Hello!

I'd like to say a bit or two on Lawrence Kohlberg, and his fantastical ladder of moral wonders!!

Well, okay. It's not called that, but it DOES follow a ladder structure and is ideas, while decievingly simple, evoke a great deal of debate on the ideas of morality.

I see the ladder as follows, based off of a diagram I looked over back in my high school Psych course from a Myers Psychology text:

 As can be seen in the diagram, the first level of morality according to Kohlberg is the pre-conventional level. This basicly entails a level of morality that is composed of two seperate stages, which are Obedience and Punishment, followed by Hedonism. As is implied, obedience and punishment follow a reasoning that only does things due to the rewards, or avoids doing something for fear of punishment. Hedonism implies that one's actions are to seek personal pleasure or satisfaction.

The next level of the ladder is Conventional morality, which includes the stages "Good boy/girl" and Law and Order respectively. The "Good boy/girl" stage states that people act a certain way to mantain societies positive views and norms. Rather, one does something to look "good" or be viewed as right and a good person. Law and Order implies that in this stage of moral development the laws and rules placed by those with authority and percieved control are the reasons behind doing/ not doing something.

Lastly we have postconventional, which is comrpised of the "Social Contract" idea followed by the extremely rare Universal Ethical stage. In Social Contract, people are motivated by the idea of a whole community, or being a part of a community. Even the planet as a whole (humanity) can be seen this way. The action is done because the person doing it believes it is the best thing to do for humanity/ the community, and they are doing their part, or "Good deeds" to the best they can. Universal Ethical is a full belief in going to extreme lengths to bring about what is ethically right for ALL people, even at the risk personal harm to one self. Ghandi and his hunger strikes exemplify his moral standing in his willingness to starve himself to work towards making life better for millions of Indian people.

Kohlbergs theories ring true, and we can see them in everyday actions/societry, especially our own! I do believe on a final note that we must be careful not to oversimplify, in that decisions often have complex and multi-faceted reasons behind them, which can be drawn from a variety of Kohlberg's levels, each with different amounts of influence. Either way, his framework is a good one for the motivation behind human morality.

Zach

Out of Sync (Apologies)

Hello! Apologies to the reader, and the individual grading this blog assignment as my posts are coming significantly after we have discussed the class topic, this is because with how busy I've been the posts tend to be after the fact, when I look back into my notes! Sorry about this, try to follow as best as possible!

Zach

FAT City - Thoughts

Hello!

Richard Lavoie's video on the challenged to students with a learning disability was very well done, in my opinion. I almost wish I had a chance to be one of the teachers in that room, participating in his workshop. While I understand that there were challenges similar to those he put forward associated with a learning disability, his vivid and hands on examples really bring the frustation and alienation to life, which is a powerful tool for teachers to experience.

I quite enjoyed his reading excercise, In which the letters p d b and q were shuffled interchangably and the writing alternated from the top, mid, and bottom lines of a given area. It was a rather clever way to show that reading is not as easy for everyone as it is for "us", and I believe this is a powerful message to teachers that kids don't all experience learning in the same way.

Something else I found incredibly interesting was Richard's constanty badgering and negative feedback as the teachers and other participants were attempting to complete the difficult tasks. He would shout "Hurry up" or "Come on, it's easy. You can do better, lets go!" As they were attempting to read or sound things out, which created very obvious stress on the faces of those participating. Is this mockery and impatience happening in classrooms in the real world? Perhaps more subtlely, but yes! This is a major problem, as I don't see how we expect children with learning disabilities to ever believe in themselves if they recieve nothing but negativity and put downs.

The best part of this whole video? The guy is freakin hilarious. I mean, even for a teacher! He certainly makes use of his sense of humour to keep the audience watching and interested, which is great considering the quality of the message he is trying to get across.

Overall, I'm glad the video was shown as it was valuable to me, and I hope to see Lavoie's other work further along in my career!

Zach

Erik Erikson - Identity vs. Role Confusion in Adolescents

Hello!

There was a topic I wished to elaborate a bit more on from my previous post, that being Erikson's stage of Identity vs. Role Confusion that supposedly occurs alongside and through adolescence. I find this topic very relevant due to my intentions to teach in the 6-12 grade range, and also lends relevance to concepts from my Adolescent Psychology course here at the college.

Anyways!

We often see an adolescent doing something, and think..."Damn kids these days." Am I right?
Wait...what? So if we saw someone in their twenties doing the same thing, would we say "Damn younger adults these days."? No...probably not. Lets use an example. We see a 22 year old male walking with a similarly aged girl in the mall, holding hands and laughing. We might admire them, think they look like a good couple, think how happy they look. You know, normal stuff. Now, picture a pair of 16 year olds in the mall, holding hands and laughing just like the other couple. Would we think the same thing? Chances are (If you're going with societies norms) You would think "Ah, young love. It's too bad it can't last." Or "It's a shame theyll just break up anyways." We might even think something like "Ugh, They're way to young for that, theyre probably sexually active too, and look how overly affectionate they are, have some respect!"

Is this fair?

Adolescents are often pegged negatively and discriminated against like any other social group, based on generalizations that have been gleaned from pop culture, case studies that stand out, and our own biases. BUT I digress, to tie back into Erikson, adolescene is a time of finding who we are, what we stand for, and what we want to become. It is an incredibly critical period in development, and sometimes it is more difficult than others. The role confusion can sometimes lead to inconsistency in adolescents as well as experimentation and impulsive behaviours. These are all things that feed into the ideas that ALL adolescents have very little idea about the world around them, and that they are ignorant. This is far from true, since most adolescents are actually attempting to learn more about the world around them, and their place in it for those critical few years of their lives.

I believe this is again, all very relevant to education as we must keep in mind, as teachers, that our students will not alyays know exactly what they need, want, or can be. It is our job as teachers to be patient with them, and attempt to help them the best they can with this transition.

/End Ranting

Check out this National Geographic article, it's good stuff!
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text

Zach

Erik Erikson's Psycho-Social Stages

Hello!

I'd like to talk about Erik Erikson, and his psycho social stages today. God, I sound like some sort of morning show host, but a bad one.... *sips coffee*

Anyways, I digress. In Ed Psych we recently discussed Erik Erikson and his stages of psychosocial development which his proposes occur over the course of someones life. Now, these stages are framed in a way that highlights a variety of major conflicts that may be present in one's life, as they age. I will now recite all of the stages, from memory without my notes and talk a bit about them (I love Psych courses...comes in handy):

Trust vs. Mistrust
Autonomy vs. Shame
Initiative vs. Guilt
Industry vs. Inferiority
Identity vs. Role Confusion
Intimacy vs. Isolation
Generativity vs. Stagnation
Integrity vs. Despair

The first stage of Trust vs. Mistrust occurs from birth until around 18 months, and it's rather self explanatory. In this period the infant will need attention, and if he/she is not receiving attention/care when they desire/need it. If the infant is consistently given what he/she needs and cries are answered, needs met, then the infant will develop a sense of trust. This conflict could be related to attachment styles, but...thats another topic.

Moving through the next two stages through early childhood and pre-school ages, children are concerned with exploring their world and their own actions, as well as what effects they have on the world. A child needs to explore and learn to take initiative and be comfortable interacting with his/her environment.

Industry vs. Inferiority is best seen in K-6 age (elementary kids - Pre-adolescence) in competing with peers in a variety of areas. Academic marks, athletic ability, prowess at different games and hobbies are very important to kids in this stage; they need to feel as if they are capable and (Compared to their peers) they are competent and able.

Identity conflicts usually begin with the onset of adolescence, and can go on all the way through the end of grade 12, even into early twenties at times. This is an important stage in which adolescents need to discover their role in the world at large, and what they want to see themselves as, in many ways. I'll leave this for now, as I plan to elaborate in my next post.

The next three stages are loosely situated in Early, middle, and late adulthood. Where early adults are more focused on finding companionship and forming meaningful relationships with others, middle-aged adults are concerned with their contributions to society and how productive their life is in the PRESENT, rather than falling into meaningless-ness. Lastly, late-adulthood or seniors struggle with finding a sense of integrity and pride in what they have done and accomplished in life, and perhaps even what they still stand for after all of their experiences. A lack of this feeling can lead to despair and depression, which is dangerous in people of late age.

Thats about an overview of Erikson and my thoughts on his stages, until next time!

Zach

Piaget - Some Thoughts

I don't believe I ever talked much about Piaget, so I'll do a little post about him tonight. We took his theory in class, most prominently his "ages and stages" idea of the four main stages of childhood development. I remember taking this several times in Psych courses, and even have a clever little acronym (SPCF) To memorize the order, it sounds like SPCA, no connection really but it worked for me after coming up with it in Intro Psych II!

Anyways, I put a fair bit of merit into Piaget's ideas, as the stages can quite readily be observed in real life, though the lines can be blurry with the ages, the stages do have a legitmate flow and transition, which can be observed. The first sensorimotor focuses primarily on the sensory stimuli and "feel it out" way in which infants and young toddlers explore the world. They grasp, crawl, walk, and roll around, taking in as much sensory information as they can. I mean, I don't know if you've ever watched an infant or toddler, but this is pretty accurate. They seem incredibly interested in absorbing as much information about the physical, obervable world around them, and just kind've...motor along doing so. I don't know if anyone remembers being the the grocery store when you were younger, and running your hand along the ailes touching and feeling EVERYTHING. I dunno why, I just did. 'Cause I wanted to...see how it....feels. You know? ...Sensorimotor. Anyways, moving on.

As the stages progress from sensorimotor to formal operational, we really can see some important milestones in children's reasoning and cognitions. Some concepts we went over in class, such as the law of conservation, egocentrism, and the move from logical to abstract thought are all observable changes that ARE different for every child, but also seem to follow in a more organized structure, as indicated by Piaget's stages. Studies such as the one where children observe liquid poured between different shaped glasses and even (my favourite) the marshmallow study can really show us how these differences in individual kids as proposed by Piaget could be seen in a real life application. You'll notice the kids have a VERY hard time seeing the abstract future gain of NOT eating a marshallow, and see the more concrete fact that they just want to eat it and don't care about why they shouldn't. It causes them a great deal of cognitive dissonance, even when they leave it be.

I think thats all for now, but I'll leave you with this video of the marshmallow study. Watch...laugh...and.....laugh.

~Zach

Vygostsky and Social Influences on Learning

Ahh, thats a terrible gap between post one and post two. Sometimes I get so busy and strung out doing everything in life that I neglect to do things that I remind myself of constantly, like posting here. No matter, I'm going to have to make sure and keep up now, hopefully Prof. Nellis can find it in his heart to forgive my lack of organization in posting!

But anyways, there are a few class topics I have to talk about, and for today I would like to talk about Vygotsky. The main idea associated with Vygotsky's theories is that of social learning, in which the social factors surrounding a student and the learning environment are a key factors. His idea of a proximal zone of development is very evident in a real-life situation, as I've noticed in the Grade 6 classroom I often work with. Sometimes a student will raise their hand for help on a question, and state that they have "No idea how to solve it Mr. Wanner!" Of course, as soon as I crouch down and start the question for them or prompt them toward a group of correct answers, their brain which "Had no idea" suddenly starts to have a lot of ideas, and they start to jump into the question, solving it before I have to finish. This is a fantastic example of scaffolding, another of Vygotsky's ideas, in that the teacher can provide a framework or nudge in the correct direction from which the student can use to reach the answer, like scaffolding along a building,

This is even more evicent in the tutorial classroom I often work with, as these kids are not by any means not intelligent, or "stupid" as the label is sometimes given, but merely need help with motivation, or a push in the right direction. I have noted that by using the proximal zone of development theory, what these kids can accomplish with a little help from me or Mr. S is actually on par or above students not in the tutorial room, they just need that scaffolding and assistance in order to help them do so on their own.

Another merit to Vygotsky's theories is the simple idea that learning is a social activity. I find that groupwork and brainstorming with other students with unique perspectives often facilitates a great deal of benifet for all students. It is as if the students create scaffolding for eachother and then show the proximal zone of development theory in practice, except with peers rather than a teacher figure. This just goes to show how important social skills and social interaction are to the learning process, and are one variable often overlooked in schools which can cause students' needs to be neglected or not properly adressed, when all they need is a little good old Vygotsky social learning theories to be put into practice for them to succeed!

That would be the end of my Vygotsky rant, I'll be posting soon about then next class topic!

First Ed Psych Post

This a blog dedicated to my constant thoughts and feelings on Education Psychology, many of which that will be prompted by my experiences in the lectures presented by Dr. Nellis at Red Deer College. There will be many of my thoughts, however, that are much broader in origin and may not relate to the course at all, such as my proper introduction post which will, ironically, appear after this post as I have class material to discuss in this "issue" of my blog.

So, down to business then. There are two class subjects on which I wish to touch on in this post, presented to us in the first few days of classes. The first topic actually began with Dr. Nellis' warning about blindy accepting research as the "last word". What he means, I believe, is the fact that many studies, experiments, and articles are written or conducted with a certain leaning in which the author/experimenter imparts upon the reader through his findings. For example, a certain study could find that "when excessive multimedia such as movies are used in a classroom focus is scattered and 8 in 10 students recieve lower marks when viewing films in class rather than studying hard." Someone could read said experiment, and conclude "Oh my gosh! Movies are a waste of time, I'm never showing one in my class again!" Now of course, the study did measure the marks of children who watched movies more often in class than as they compare to children with a more traditional lecture routine, but the experiment said NOTHING, about the other variables. What type of movies were shown? How related were they to class material? What sorts of assessments went with the movie? Were the two groups of children very similar, or was there a distinct difference between the two groups? Even something like the screen/technology used to view the video and/or sound quality can be a factor. This is why we must all be very careful to caution ourselves against jumping to conclusions and blindy accepting outside knowledge without first validating and critically examining the information, source, and all other variables. Well, that was quite the rant...but now on to the video prompt.

Dr. Nellis presented us with a video which featured a news report on a teacher, her name I cannot recall, working with challenging students in a school setting. Many of the students were in a very difficult place, and did not have the motivation or skills they required to draw themselves up to their full potential. In short form, the teacher was exposed to the idea that physical activity, particularly cardio work, could significantly improve a students drive, focus, and motivation to work and learn in the classroom. Thrilled by the emerging idea, she brought exercise equipment into the room and had the kids run or workout in various ways that appealed to them for about 45 minutes before they were to work on their excersices or assignments. Over the school year, she found significant improvements in her students, not only academically and in their self-esteem, but in their behaviour and focus. Now, the story is a wonderfull success story, and I actually do believe there is some merit to the theory behind the physical activity in classrooms movement.

HOWEVER, my experience with other fields of psychology have imparted on me the key idea that every individual is different in many ways from his or her peers, and just because physical activity has positive effects on this children in the video, it does not necessarily mean that this is some sort of "Wonder Drug" for education, in which ALL students will benifet GREATLY. Now, I abuse my shift key for a reason, and the point I am trying to emphasize is that I do not believe that all students will have as much success as the children in the story, if the benifet is even significant at all. For example, I was a fairly successful student through my years in school, always netting academic marks in the honours range or higher. I say this not to brag, but simply to state that I do not believe physical activity would have had much of an effect, if any, on my academic abilities. Looking back, instances where physical activity was more prominent in my lifestlye did not correlate with higher marks at all, and though not an official experiment, leads me to personally believe it would have not had an effect. This is however, a case study based solely on myself, and my opinion in the matter could be biased, of course. After all, every single on of us has the underlying need to be right and see ourselves in a positive light, it is a basic social psychology principle.


My overall point is, the success of physical activity on SOME students is certainly an intruging topic, and one that should most definetly be pursued further, in hopes of finding out imformation that could improve the lives of certain student groups greatly. I would only caution people from taking the idea TOO far, and presuming that ALL students would benifet from high levels of physical activity integrated into the school day.

Well...it was an interesting topic, if anything. I mean I could keep on typing, but I've ranted enough, and my fingers are chafing. So until the next post, Keep the knowledge flowing!