Complex cognitive processes response

What seemed most crucial to me about this chapter was the role of the instructor in explicitly tying things into a bigger picture, and heading off misconceptions. This has been a theme in the last few lessons, but specifics from a cognitive perspective were given here. I was thinking about the author’s description of formal discipline, and how my study of Latin did help me, and what might be different about the way I was instructed versus the way that Greek and Latin may have been taught during the Enlightenment as well as to the author. During my study, it was always emphasized how Latin was connected linguistically with the etymologies of English words as well as those in Romance languages. It was always explicitly taught that the rules for grammar and literary devices we studied were connected to those we needed to know in English class. Because of that, I really did make those connections. I don’t think Latin was useful just as an intellectual exercise, but because of the Latin-influenced world I inhabit. On the other hand, I wonder, if the mind-as-muscle theory is totally bunk, why is it always recommended for the elderly to work on puzzles and things to prevent dementia? Is there some kind of specific content area that provides a better “intellectual workout” than others, for that population? I think that what it means is that Latin isn’t better than studying Japanese, and woodworking isn’t more stimulating than pottery, et cetera, which makes sense. But for the few kinds of things that are applicable with general transfer, what best hones those skills? The other thing that I was thinking about was, what kinds of misconceptions/examples of negative transfer have I had that I’ve just never been called out on? Like what kind of situations have I been approaching completely the wrong way because of some similar situation I remember?

Constructivism

So far out of all the theories, I think I like constructivism the best. It makes the most sense to me, and I think it combines the most important and relevant factors from each of the preceding theories.

Something I think it touches on that the other theories miss out on, although the cognitive approach touches on it, is how where exactly a student’s misunderstandings are coming from. I think constructivism offers an explanation for why peer tutoring and cooperative learning can be so powerful in a classroom, beyond the idea of creating a warm and welcoming classroom environment; students can find and correct gaps in their learning or bizarre assumptions that may have gone unchecked during the process of explaining themselves to another student.

I think aside from the social aspect of constructivism, the individual aspect gives credence to a lot of the same things as the social-cognitive model did (under the umbrella of “prior knowledge”) and challenges teachers to meet students at their level and make informal assessments all the time.

One of the things I like best about constructivism is the idea of scaffolding—how with a person more skilled than you helping you out, you can achieve things you never could on your own. We talked about scaffolding a lot in my elementary education class, and it was really amazing to experience it at work as well as think of ways to use it. One of the main focuses is giving students a taste of success with real, challenging material, and how that success will motivate them. This makes me favor constructivist theory even over social-cognitive, which was my next favorite.

Cognitive processes response

a) What are the essential skills and/or learning outcomes you want your students to know and

be able to do that relate to cognitive learning?

Cognitive skills I want my students to have (elementary-level):

·         Relate information to what they already know

·         How to organize information in a way that makes sense

·         How to visualize something in a way that helps you remember it

·         Have a variety of mnemonic techniques available to use (songs, images, keywords)

These skills will help students make more meaningful connections to the material, increasing the likelihood that they will remember what they learn. The most important one, to me, is being able to make connections to what they already know. I have noticed that elementary students can sometimes very easily memorize something or perform a task without seeing the significance of it. It is important to me to activate their background knowledge on topics, not only to draw their interest, but to deepen their understanding of material. This comes to mind especially when thinking about reading. If students are prepped to make connections and think about a topic before approaching a text, they are more likely to understand it.  What I also think is crucial is teaching kids that all these things are skills that can be learned, not just an innate process. I think that would help increase their motivation and self-efficacy, especially if we tracked progress. I’m not sure a purely cognitive view is one I want to adopt, but there are a lot of practically useful things included in the approach.