This is the first theory of learning that we have seen that investigates the role of language in learning. I think this is interesting because no other theory has really gone into detail with how language plays a role, and considering language is really the only way to communicate, it is obviously important in this process. To build on that, this theory also considers culture to be important in the development of language, and thus learning. The only other theory that considered culture was cognitive apprenticeship, but the difference there is the culture of the discipline was considered, not the learner. I suppose this theory sits apart from the Skinnerian view as well as a cognitive view because it doesn’t lean 100% to one side of the scale. In fact, Vygotsky wanted a “unified theory of human psychological process.”
Vygotsky also identifies a difference in signs and tools that I am still trying to figure out. Maybe typing this out will help my understanding. I think it is confusing because the paper discusses how tools and signs are very close in definition, but they are not exactly the same. They are both part of the ‘mediated activity,’ but a major difference is that tools are externally oriented, and signs are internally oriented. Earlier, Vygotsky explained an experiment where he asked participants to answer a series of questions without using certain colors as answers. In another trial, the participants could not answer with those colors, and they couldn’t repeat colors. In a third, trial, they were given the same rules, but now they had cards with colors on them to help them keep track. So, the cards were the tools to help them with the activity. The signs were the words the participants had for themselves..? This is where I am looking for help. I am not sure I fully understand the difference here, or if this is the best example to see the difference.
The podcast was also very thought-provoking. I think the idea of language being separate ‘islands’ in a young mind that eventually connect is neat. I also can’t imagine how wild it would be for you to lose your language. Not having internal thoughts would be an intense experience, although it was described as ‘bliss.’ Ildefonso also provides an interesting example that juxtaposes Skinner’s view with Vygotsky’s. Maybe this is unfair, but I think it is still worth thinking about. Ildefonso was a deaf student that could sign, but would only mimic what people were saying to him. So, “hello my name is Susan,” was answered with “hello my name is Susan.” When introduced to new signs like ‘book,’ Ildefonso thought he was to open the book. He wasn’t learning anything new, but would mimic what he sees or perform a task he thought was present. Could this be compared to Skinner’s model for learning? I mean, Ildefonso did produce a behavior, but it wasn’t until he understood that language exists to name things that he really started to learn. After typing this out, I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison, but I put a lot of work into it and am interested what people think.
Hi Kevin, I also struggled with identifying tools and signs based on the reading, I couldn’t find the clarity. The class discussion helped greatly with this. I also thought the scenario you provided to compare Skinner and Vygotsky was excellent- Skinner’s behavioralism ideas can in some situations appear to be “mimicing” but with language providing context and understanding- a Vygotskian idea- learning is evolved into a more complex art. Great analysis.
What I understood is that the cards with colors were not tools, they were signs that helped the learner to internalize the process, they were the external support. He says that the tool is externally oriented, it must lead to changes in objects, while the sign is a mean of internal activity, changes nothing in the object. I found very interesting the connection you made between Ildefonso and Skinner. It is not exactly the same because for Skinner you are given a problem and you know the answer, so it is not exactly to mimic, but I think that your thinking gives a good insight into the difference between Skinner and the other Theories.