Greetings,
Here's a paper I wrote on how children learn a while ago. It formed part of my teacher training, which accounts for its academic tone. Hopefully it will give interested parents an insight into what educationalists think about how children learn, and will go some way towards explaining what teachers try to do in the classroom:
An Analysis of the Contrasting Learning Experiences of Pupils
Abstract:
This paper begins with a discussion of learning theories, before moving on to consider practical implications for the classroom and personal experience, and their contribution to my professional development. All names of pupils have been changed to protect anonymity.
How do children learn?
This question has to be considered at the outset. It is not an easy question to answer, since various theories of learning have been put forward, and unanimous agreement among professionals is not to be expected. Also, part of the discussion could consider the extent to which knowledge acquisition relates to learning. The disagreement that exists over what actually constitutes knowledge has meant that it has an entire discipline to itself: epistemology.
According to most theories of knowledge, its instantiation depends on such factors as observation, intuition, memory and the processes of inductive and deductive reasoning from these. Interpretation as to how these factors and processes relate forms a discussion too wide for the purposes of this paper; therefore it is limited to discussion of three key thinkers who have had a major influence on educational thought. Their ideas are presented in a structure that moves from the general to the particular: Piaget’s general view of child development is followed by Vygotsky’s more classroom-oriented approach, which precedes consideration of Gardner’s theory of the multiple intelligences of an individual.
Jean Piaget saw learning as sequential, involving a child’s construction of meaning via the completion of operations, either in thought or in specific tasks. He saw this development as progressing through four stages:
1. Sensorimotor stage
2. Pre-operational stage
3. Concrete operational stage
4. Formal operational stage
These correspond to learning through sensory input; awareness of others’ views and object classification; mental and physical manipulations a posteriori, and finally a priori abstract reasoning. The stages represent a continually evolving series of structured existing ideas (schemata) adopted by the child in order to understand the world. This kind of stage theory has proved influential, although studies have shown that pupils are not necessarily limited in the problems they can solve according to their particular stage of development. Others, such as Flavell (1982), have argued that while thinking about development in terms of stages may be unhelpful, Piaget’s ideas about the features of development within each stage are still valid. It is possible that the National Curriculum level descriptors represent an analogous conceptualisation of learning, although on a much more specific scale. For Piaget, issues such as mood and motivation were not crucial, since he believed that every child naturally wants to learn; and that “genuine intellectual competence is a manifestation of a child’s largely unassisted activities”. Children develop their understanding of reality through an individual process of mental construction.
Lev Vygotsky, whose radical social constructivism expanded and modified Piaget’s work, outlined a more interactive view of learning. Vygotsky placed more emphasis on the construction of meaning through social interaction, with discussion as an important area for learning. For him, the culture and environment of learning are vitally important: we learn through interaction with others, and gradually internalise knowledge of the shared culture. The teacher becomes a facilitator, guiding pupils to the point when they can continue autonomously. This idea is known as “scaffolding”, and was further developed by Jerome Bruner in his related concept, “instructional scaffolding”. Vygotsky also stressed the fundamental importance of language in the development of thinking. For Piaget, language was a tool of thought; for Vygotsky, language arises because of the need to communicate, and helps to organise thought. Some say that the best way to learn something is to teach it to someone (indeed, medical students are taught many procedures with the method “see one, do one, teach one”), and Vygotsky’s view provides support for this idea.
Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) represents the difference between what a child can achieve unaided (actual development) and when given assistance by an adult or more capable peer (potential development). This suggests that children should be given tasks which are “just out of reach”; in this way the children will be given a challenge that is achievable with as little prompting as possible, and that is not so easy as to be a pointless exercise. Here is a four-stage diagram illustrating the ZPD, making use of Jerome Bruner’s concept of the “spiral curriculum” for the recursive loop.
During the first stage of understanding a particular subject area, the child is given assistance until they reach unaided competence at the second stage. Next, information and strategies are internalised. Finally, the recursive loop brings the child back to the previous stages when the subject area is revisited. If it is being studied in more detail at this stage, the child will be likely to go further back in the process; each revision of the subject area should give the child the knowledge and confidence to recur from the second stage, with less prompting from others required.
A controversial modern theory that has gained ground in recent years is
Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory. This seems to have developed from Gardner’s dissatisfaction with standard intelligence tests. He saw them as, for the most part, being limited to measuring just two areas of ability: linguistic and logico-mathematical. Modern IQ tests often include a visual element in addition to these. Gardner found this very limiting: “IQ tests predict school performance with considerable accuracy, but they are only an indifferent predictor of performance in a profession after formal schooling.” He believed that standard notions of intelligence fail to account for various impressive human abilities. To illustrate this point, he considered talented musicians, chess players and athletes – front-runners in their respective fields. “If they are [‘intelligent’], then why do our tests of ‘intelligence’ fail to identify them? If they are not ‘intelligent’, what allows them to achieve such extraordinary feats?” Gardner’s answer is that they all possess particular combinations of seven basic intelligences, which he saw as being distinct, and possessed by everyone to a greater or lesser degree. He listed them as: logico-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, musical, interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. Some of these can be traced to particular areas of the brain, due to their dysfunction in patients with damage to those areas.
One criticism that can be made of Gardner’s theory is that although the concept of multiple intelligences is a useful one for understanding learning, he has simply used the word ‘intelligence’ to mean ‘aptitude’ or ‘interest’, concepts which could perhaps explain the performance of world-class athletes, chess players and musicians by themselves. Also, the theory neglects to mention the practice that such achievements require, which relies on interest and motivation to be developed effectively.
Personal Experience
During my first weeks of training at Kingsdown School, I have observed classes from Years 7 – 11 and been attached to a Year 8 tutor group. Most of my observations have been English classes, but during two days spent following individual pupils from Years 8 and 10 I was able to see classes in other subjects; it was also possible to observe the transitions between classes, and the different atmospheres they engendered.
The practical aspect of this investigation is a comparison between two male pupils with similar levels of motivation and ability, but an age gap of two years. I observed their lessons for a day each. For the purposes of this paper they will be referred to as Robert and Andrew, in Years 8 and 10 respectively.
Although their assessed levels and predicted results are similar, in character they are quite different. On the day I saw him, Robert was quiet and relatively aloof from his peers, yet clearly motivated, and on-task for nine minutes in ten during a sample lesson (History). Andrew, by contrast, was sociable and lively, similarly keen and on-task for seven minutes in ten (Maths).
On account of their differing approaches to interaction, Robert could be seen as a Piagetian learner, Andrew a learner who responds more to an interactive classroom with negotiated tasks, in the Vygotskian approach. Having said this, when I saw him, Robert’s day featured two lessons with cover teachers (History and I.C.T.), and two with regular teachers (D & T and P.E.), so the opportunity for an interactive classroom was slightly limited. Robert needed no assistance in I.C.T., but could have benefited from some discussion during History. Generally, though, working alone seemed to suit him. Not so Andrew, who consistently chatted, but only after he had completed the required lesson tasks. He relished the interactive classroom, frequently asking sensible questions, as well as answering questions from the teacher, without being afraid of making mistakes. In my view, if this approach could be encouraged in Robert, his learning would accelerate, and he would move from the stage he is at now, where he seems to be disassociated from his learning, and instrumentally motivated. He needs to be able to see the value of certain subjects for him, rather than them being a necessity simply to pass exams.
The limitations on this research have been various. Observing each pupil for a day in this instance equated to four lessons with Robert and three with Andrew, and it is impossible to form complete judgements on the basis of such limited evidence. Also, at times it was not possible to see the work Robert and Andrew were producing due to relative positions in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, two of Robert’s lessons on the day I saw him were supervised by cover teachers, which can impede effective observation. The most important restriction, however, is my own limited teaching experience, which means that my interpretations and conclusions are necessarily of a tentative nature.
Professional Development
Conducting this research has led me to consider the implications of theories of learning for my own teaching, as well as their relation to my classroom observations. The theorists whose work I examined looked at the question from progressively more specific viewpoints; it is partly for this reason that Vygotsky’s ideas have proven easiest to relate to my classroom observations and my aims as a teacher.
I would attempt to promote a learning environment, where questions are encouraged and discussion is an important aspect. I hope this would encourage students to be curious, without being afraid of making mistakes. An interactive classroom, where students share responsibility for their progress, can only accelerate that progress. Negotiated tasks give students a feeling of empowerment, and promote ‘ownership’ of the subject at hand. Responsibility for learning can be encouraged through pupils’ awareness of their own progress (metacognition), brought about by having National Curriculum learning objectives displayed in the classroom and grades clearly explained. Peer correction is also a useful tool, if certain pupils find correction from the teacher embarrassing or a blow to their confidence. Also, following Vygotsky, it solidifies knowledge in the corrector. Finally, when planning lessons, consideration should be given to different combinations of intelligences prominent in different pupils in the class.
All of these are intentions, and I do not expect that putting them into practice will be easy. However, seeing different teachers make use of these different approaches has shown me various ways they might be incorporated into lessons, and research into the theories behind them has further convinced me of their value.
Bibliography
Bloomfield, Scott-Baumann & Roughton, Becoming a Secondary School Teacher, Hodder Arnold, 1997
Capel, Leask & Turner, Learning to Teach in the Secondary School, 4th edn., Routledge, 2005
Moon and Mayes (eds.), Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Routledge / Open University, 1994
Internet Resources
Tharp and Gallimore, Rousing minds to life, 1988:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issu...ing/lr1zpd.htm
Psychology Resources:
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/Piaget.htm
Vygotsky Resources:
http://www.kolar.org/vygotsky/
Gardner Homepage:
http://www.howardgardner.com/