When I was
first presented with the concepts of preoperational, concrete operational and
formal operational of development I was fascinated by the concept of intuitive
thought. I tested my 5-year-old with two different shaped containers, one
taller and narrower than the other. I then poured water from the first
container into a shorter and wider glass. When I asked him which container had
more water, he completely focused on the water-level line and said the more
narrow glass had more water. How could he not see that I poured the exact same
amount from one glass to the other? My kid is smart, he should have got this.
Piaget felt
that development leads to learning. My experiment proved his theory right -- my
son wasn’t developmentally able to grasp an abstract idea like conservation.
But I don’t completely agree with Piaget, as soon as I talked my son though
what had happened, he understood that the volume of the water never changed.
Vygotsky
believed that learning leads to development and I would tend to agree with his
theory to a greater extent. Although my son did not intuitively know that the
volume was equal, he clearly had the capability to learn it. I think if we
limit teaching students to what they are supposed to learn according to their
grade or developmental level, we do them a great disservice. When students are
allowed to brainstorm, debate, construct and evaluate concepts they have come
up with, their development grows beyond the learning.
Perhaps taking
both theories into account, when creating a lesson plan, teachers can reach the diverse
range of students that are in everyone’s classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment