Developing as a Learner

piaget - cog. dev.

Piaget – Theory of Cognitive Development

• believes bio. readiness (esp. dev. of relevant brain ideas) is essential part of cog. dev. → argues children learn dev. appropriate skills by interacting w/ physical/social environment when they are bio. ready (4 stages)
  
  

1. Sensorimotor Stage (0-2)

• are egocentric (inability to understand others POV) w/ no object permanence (ability to understand smth is there when it can’t be seen)

• simple/innate reflexes → dev. of reflexes → object permanence

  • 4 months: no object permanence, hidden object doesn’t exist

  • 8-12 months: hidden object exists where hidden

  • 18-24 months: hidden object exists even if moved

2. Preoperational Stage (2-7)

• remain egocentric until end of stage

• speech dev → symbolic thinking (rp, can form ideas but only focus on one aspect) → able to understand conservation of matter (smth remains the same in quantity despite change in appearance)

3. Concrete Operational Stage (7-12)

• now can apply theory of mind

• major turning point; logical thinking dev. (need concrete e.g.) → problem solving generally random → able to understand cons. at abstract level

4. Formal Stage (12-20)

• cognitive development ‘complete’

• abstract logical thinking  dev.→ symbolic thinking dev. (using hypothetical e.g.), adults engage in systematic problem solving

piaget & inhelder

• [A] investigate when children are no longer egocentric + can apply TOM particularly in transition from preoperational → concrete operational

• [P] 4-7 y.o. presented w/ 3D model of 3 mountains. child sat on one side while doll placed on another, child asked to describe what doll could see from its perspective/shown pics of possible views and asked to select right one

• [F] 4-6 y.o. consistently chose their own perspective, demonstrating egocentrism typical of the preoperational stage. ages 7+ able to describe the doll’s perspective, indicating TOM shown in the concrete operational stage.

• [C] supports Piaget’s theory that children move from egocentrism in the preoperational stage to perspective-taking in the concrete operational stage as their cognitive abilities develop with age (so they dev sequentially + move thru universal fixed stages)

• [E] provides strong evidence for stages, but is culturally limited + relies on tasks that may not fully represent real-world interactions. younger children may have misunderstood the task lacked familiarity with 3D models, weakening validity of results

piaget TEACUP

• T → can test distinct stages but it’s difficult to get clear results in younger children and certain concepts are abstract 

• E → supported by observations of children in certain studies BUT other studies suggest Piaget underestimated children’s abilities. biological support for stages

• A → applicable to education systems to understand when children are ready to learn certain things (how to structure education) BUT not always this uniform, diff. learning curves for diff. people + cultural factors

• C → somewhat – difficult to measure if children act on egocentrism or something else (abstract), but are quite clearly defined. also quite rigid, doesn’t allow for transitions between stages

• U → doesn’t take into account differences in education, which could lead to differences in stages (esp. culturally diff. education systems)

• P → can help predicate when children are generally ready to perform certain age-appropriate tasks BUT doesn’t take into account individual differences; each child different

vygotsky - cog. dev.

• argued social interaction w/ MKO led to dev., and that it precedes learning, not leads to it

• zone of proximal dev. → diff. between what learners can do alone and what they can can’t. zone helps learner reach a skill/understanding that they can’t perform alone

• more knowledgeable other → helper in ZPD; ppl w/ better understanding of req. skill/knowledge (parents/siblings/teachers/peers) help bridge the gap

• argued importance of play → allows children to take on diff. roles, which extends their cog. abilities (learn thru conflict resolution, problem solving, fantasy)

contrast piaget + vygotsky

nichols ADD

brain dev. skill-learning hypothesis (neuroplasticity)

• learning + personal experiences shape brain development

• majority of brain dev. between birth–adolescence thru myelination, neural pruning, neural growth/inc. connectivity

• human brain adapts/develops throughout lifetime

• brain is plastic = ability to create new neural pathways based on environmental stimulation (social interactions, learning opportunities, personal experiences)

  • learn new skill → neurons form new neural pathways (causing brain to change structurally)

  • stop skill → neural pruning, brain eliminates unused pathways (use it/lose it)

draganski

• [A] investigate whether learning new skill causes structural changes in brain, supporting S-L hypothesis

• [P] Adult Ps w/ no prior juggling experience randomly assigned to ½ conditions: juggling group (learned for 3 months) and control group. MRI scans taken before training, after 3 months of training, 3 months after stopping training

• [F] Ps in juggling condition  demo. inc. grey matter vol. in brain areas associated w/ visual motion processing after training. after stopping → grey matter vol. dec. but remained higher than baseline. no sig. changes in control group

• [C] adult brain ‘plastic’ and can change structurally in response to learning new skills. but are use-dependent and neural networks pruned when skill practising ceased. → supports S-L hypo.

• [E] field experiment (IV manipulated under nat. conditions) → limited internal val. as researchers couldn’t control variables when Ps in home environ.

  • exp. → causal. repeated measures to control P Vs. use of control group (baseline) helped establish the role of learning skills in dev. brain

S-L eval.

• E to support role of learning on brain dev. and explains how skills can be improved at any age (which BM does not)

• ignores biological factors on learning, as ability to form neural pathways changes with age/bio. brain dev.

  • does not explain age-related ‘periods’ of brain dev. → why learning lang is easier as child vs adult

• explains individual + cultural diff. in cog. abilities as a result of neuroplasticity

brain maturation theory (genetic mechanisms)

• children have ‘critical periods’ of dev. supported by genes at fixed times

  • continues to dev. from birth → 20s

• brain begins to dev. few weeks after conception → splits into 3 areas: hindbrain, midbrain, forebrain (by 9 wks)

  • during fetal dev. → brain becomes more wrinkled to fit inside skull (gyrification). by birth → midbrain hidden inside folds of forebrain

• newborns have functioning nervous system (can breathe, suck/move, grasp, visual system, core consciousness that reacts to sensory exp.)

• after birth, back-to-forward dev. → stem + hindbrain most active areas initially, control base instincts e.g. sucking necessary for survival

  • cerebral cortex develops last bc responsible for higher lvl cog. functioning (dev. thru exp./learning) → why babies can’t perform intricate/abstract thinking

chugani

• [A] investigate glucose metabolism patterns in dev. brain to determine whether brain maturation influences brain dev.

• [P] analysis PET scans to determine areas of brain activity by measuring glucose metabolism in diff. regions. cross-sectional design, compare scans of infants/toddlers

• [F] baby’s brain dev. neural connections back to front (frontal cortex w/ HL functioning last). glucose metabolism of newborn 30% lower than adults

  • 3-10 yrs activity/Ngrowth 2x of adults. ‘window of opportunity’, critical period of learning. metabolic rates dec. to adult lvls by 16-18

• [C] brain dev. follows maturational sched. with diff. regions dev. at fixed times. offering bio. support for brain dev.

• [E] large sample size → brain maturation more gen./universal BUT independent samples → possibility of unknown P diff. (personal history/environ.) → P variability may influence validity of findings

  • PET scans obj. → inc. validity

  • no control over P Vs

brain maturation eval.

• E with clear biological links to support (thru PET scans + MRIs)

  • not susceptible to researcher/participant biases

• explains universal developmental mechanisms across cultures/individual differences

• useful for understanding why certain behaviours arise at specific ages (e.g. inc. risk-taking during adolescence)

• HOWEVER assumes infants pre-wired, but can’t isolate role of learning + neuroplasticity bc they alr have hours of experience prior to taking brain scans

  • thus overly deterministic

  • cannot explain individual diff. in behaviour/dev. within same age groups

• neuroplasticity + maturation not exclusive → brain dev. result of interaction between the two