This week’s readings were very helpful in providing a brief history of how the Learning Sciences was developed, as well as highlighting differences that we have been talking about recently in class. The brief history mentions Skinner and Dewey as being influences here, which is probably obvious. Another person mentioned here is Tolman, and it is said that they are also a behaviorist like Skinner. Other unfamiliar names to me were Chomsky and Gardner. I am wondering why we read one person over the other in this class. For example, why did we read Skinner over Tolman? This may not be of the utmost importance, but I am still curious about the reason why, if there is one.
The learning sciences also mention synergy between cognitivists and socioculturalists. This was mentioned a lot in chapter 4. They mention oftentimes that “the two perspectives can come together in the same work” (p. 37) and when asking if it is possible to reconcile tensions between the ideas in order to experiment, respond with “We believe it is..” (p. 38). This is something I have been thinking about a lot. I think this is probably the best way to think about learning, to reconcile these differences and keep researching both. But, I am wondering what the outcome would be. What confuses me more is that they mention “We do not mean to suggest that we are moving, as a field, to one grand unified theory.” (p. 41) Isn’t that what would happen though? If research reconciled these two perspectives, wouldn’t that be what happens? To me it seems like they are suggesting this, so it is confusing to me that they say this directly. Does that mean that these two perspectives will always exist, and only be called upon when the time is right?
I wanted to end by thinking about a quote that Scott mentioned Situatists (?) have beef with. “The cognitive approach should not be read as denying the value of learning in group activity, and the situative approach should not be read as denying the value of learning by individuals working by themselves” To me, this quote was re-iterated in this weeks readings here: “Cognitive perspectives are critiqued for their focus on individual characteristics… Sociocultural perspectives are critiqued for their focus on
context… they often lose the individual due to focus on the collective.” (p. 37). I am trying to think about why someone in the sociocultural perspective may have beef with this type of suggestion. I think it is because they are thinking about learning in a social context as doing group activities. It is too… literal? I am not sure of the word. I don’t think socioculturalists would say that when they think about learning as being social, they think group activities. I think when they suggest learning is social, they mean that learning happens when students can talk to each other inside and outside of class, that the relationships they build with instructors and students is important in learning, and that simply being in a room with other learners are important when thinking about learning. Group activities is not what they suggest.
The synergy section was a bit heady for me- so I appreciate you highlighting that it is considered a reconciling of ideas.
That being said- I also would take issue with the same point of what’s wrong with a grand unified theory? If bringing together two ideas allows for a grand encompassing and well defined idea- what are the weaknesses of that?
Hey Kevin, I really enjoyed reading your blog post this week. I was also unfamiliar with the names Chomsky, Gardner, and Tolman as well as wondered about why we chose to read Skinner’s take on behaviorism as opposed to Tolman’s. You said you were confused when they mention “We do not mean to suggest that we are moving, as a field, to one grand unified theory.” I too was bewildered by this because I thought the objective of researching these differing perspectives was to move towards a perspective that is more all encompassing.
Kevin, I think theories can be interpreted too literal, and meaning is derived from use. So it is important to know that how a theory is viewed can be shaped by how it is used- so in some communities yes these absolutist-style views come to fruition, but for those of us who see and are trying to make these theories function together to better understand learning, we are more open.
I don’t think that the sociocultural theory’s focus is group activity. I think that the emphasis is more on the ongoing dialogue and interaction in building knowledge. I am attracted like you probably by the possibility to use the 2 theories together, because both of them look a little bit partial to me, but after our last class I am a little bit confused about how this could happen. For sure this week’s reading affirms that it is possible so I would like to understand more in detail how to correctly do it.