SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

            Reading this argument between these theorists caused me to reexamine my understanding of each the theories. For the first time, I was finally able to see some of the more subtle differences between these two frameworks. It was this argument regarding the four claims of situated learning that made me recognize the variations in word choice between the two theories. Greeno’s article broke down each of the claims presented by Anderson into a different question for each of the two theoretical approaches. It was through Greeno’s explanations that I finally began thinking about the different mechanisms of learning for each of these theories. Greeno drew on some of the empirical information provided by Anderson as well as some other situational examples to illustrate the true situative approach to each of Anderson’s claims. I’m looking forward to having a class discussion that really dives into the meat of each of the claims presented because at the moment, I am still struggling to grasp a solid understanding of the uniqueness of these theoretical approaches.  

Throughout our previous class discussions and readings, I have taken each week as its own entity. Although I have attempted to continuously compare the differences between the theoretical approaches we have discussed, I only realize this week that I have failed. I have viewed cognitive approaches as strictly within the mind, and I have viewed the situated approach as solely through social interaction. What have I been missing? Have I truly been missing anything, or have we just been reading approaches that can be found on totally different sides of the learning theory spectrum? At this point, I’m not sure; what I do know is that situated learning and the cognitive approach to learning do have some similarities (not necessarily in the mechanism of learning, but in terms of things that impact learning). This became increasingly clear throughout this week’s reading, especially when Anderson (in his response) stated: “The cognitive approach in no way denies the importance of the social. From birth we are social creatures; much of what we learn is social and many of the circumstance of our learning are social” (p.20).

The final article, written by all four authors, solidified my initial belief that some combination of these two theories may be able to explain the mechanism of learning. Although the authors did not provide any concrete unified idea, they did discuss the four key points on which they agreed. It was through this article that I realized that there are situations in which one theory or the other may best explain the mechanism of learning. Some situations may elicit a more social mechanism to learning, while others may focus more on the individual. As someone who enjoys concreteness, I was slightly disappointed in the conclusion that more research needs to be done in order to determine the “correct” mechanism that can explain how learning occurs. I will be interested to see if one mechanism is ever identified as being that “right” one!

Just a side note on language:

            Over the past few weeks, I’ve spent large quantities of time discussing the significance of language. I’ve taken simple situations and thought about how they would be different if a participant in this social setting did not have the same culture as the other participants. With this week’s readings, I felt like the participant that didn’t have a clue what was going on at some points. The terminology selected by Anderson et al. and Greeno allowed me to witness firsthand the abstract nature of words. There were several instances throughout Anderson’s initial piece in which he selected words to describe situated learning that are typically used in reference to the cognitive approach. Greeno appeared to have recognized this point, and throughout his response, he focused on defining words in terms of the theoretical approach. For example, Greeno discussed the different definitions of generality, and it was interesting to see the variations in the definitions depending on whether it was being examined in cognitivity or situativity. Based on these readings, it appears that any misunderstandings or misconceptions in the definitions of these words can cause drastic communication problems amongst theorists, as well as the individuals that study these theories.

This week’s readings seemed to re-hash the previous readings on conceptual change at first glance, but provided some interesting insights that went beyond Posner’s works.  I was happy to see the introduction of both student motivation and social interactions within the classroom as factors that affect the degree with which concepts are developed and changed.  The articles reinforced for me that conceptual change is not simple an empirical or “cold calculation”, but involves both internal and external motivators.

Starting with Driver et al., a couple things jumped out to me.  Our group debated whether conceptual change was a key component or need for society, which Driver seemed to echo on page 8 when stating that “As far as people’s everyday experiences are concerned, the informal ideas are often perfectly adequate to interpret and guide action.”  However, Driver seemed to posit that people use different ways of thinking based upon the social domain they are participating in at the time.  I found this notion interesting.  The example given that even scientist understand, and may even say phrases such as “feed the plants” or “shut the door and keep the cold out” despite understanding the inherent scientific misconceptions with these statements shows that everyone will use specific discourse tailored to each social context.  I started to think about these statements.  At what age can we begin jumping back and forth appropriately, keeping our understanding of science straight in the classroom, but reverting back to common-sense statements in outside situations, without confusing the two within our knowledge network?  Or maybe better would be at what age should we be careful to not confuse children with differing explanations of scientific principles, regardless of the social setting?

I thought the Pintrich et al article had a lot useful considerations for instruction in the classroom.  The recognition that the classroom operates with different social influences and motivations than does the scientific community set-up the balance of the conceptual change talk, and in my opinion gave their opinion much more credibility than Posner.  Their discussion of mastery vs. performance goals was straight forward, and their explicit call for modification of assessment to reflect the type of learning desired makes sense.  The only question I had about this would be why couldn’t a student want to be motivated by both mastery and performance?  As I read through the article I was happy to see this was answered, stating that it is very possible to have both mastery and performance interact to influence engagement.  This would lead me to believe that these are on a sort of continuum and not binary attributes. 

Not providing closure in lessons was an interesting point raised by Pintrich.  I wondered how often I should do this and to what degree when teaching lessons.  Pintrich seemed to intimate that we need to keep kids thinking and wanting to pursue answers that aren’t given, but we must keep these within the realm of possibility to be answered, otherwise many students may give up seeking the answer and resort to the ignorance is bliss angle.  This seems straightforward, but I tend to want be someone who wants to blow people away with the really “science heavy” brain-teasers.  I guess I need to realize these may do more harm than good in some instances.  The other section I found interesting in this article was the student’s self-efficacy in relation to conceptual change.  Pintrich first states that higher levels of self-efficacy can lead to resistance to conceptual change, due to one’s perceived confidence in their own ideas.  While I was trying to wrap my thinking around why this may be true, a few sentences later Pintrich states that higher self-efficacy may actually lead to more conceptual change because students have higher confidence in using cognitive tools necessary to integrate and synthesize divergent ideas.  While both of these statements seem to make some sense, do we really know which one is the dominant trend for self-efficacy and conceptual change?  How can we accurately measure a student’s self-efficacy? 

I will save the Brown article for class on Wednesday.  The ideas presented relating to the teaching students how to be learners, rather than the idealistic view of immersing every student in real-world situations with practitioners fits the classroom model of learning better (we can still debate if classroom learning is best, but this is what we do).  Understanding that social interactions with other students will influence our learning by bringing into contact with their zones of proximal development made me look at our classroom structure as an example of this in action.  Instructing students in how to learn as the key to classroom activity brought up notions I entertained while a practicing engineer:  is it better to be someone who knows what to look for and understands how to learn properly (in this case, are better managers people who have a base knowledge of how processes work and can jump into any situation because they know how to learn)?  Something to get deeper into on Wednesday. 

            The question has been raised many times throughout the semester of what authentic learning actually entails.  I agree with Brown et al. that the theory of having students situated in the learning environment of the practitioners of a specific trade in order to achieve authentic learning is an extremely idealistic belief. Rather than to focus on having students who may not want to be encultured by certain learning subjects, it is the responsibility of teachers to provide a learning environment where students can learn how to learn, understand the processes discussed, and work together in a microcosm of how learning takes place in any real life situation.  Going along the same line, on page 183 Pintrich et al. pointed out that interest in the subject material has a large influence over the cognitive functioning that is achieved for the students.   This raises the question of what exactly is the main goal of science teachers? Is it possible to create a classroom of scientists, or would we rather create “universal literacy” and the ability to learn how to learn about science (Brown et al., 1993)?  How can we allow for conceptual change to occur in students who are not personally interested in the subject matter we teach?

 It is a sensible belief that nobody can master everything, and to have a distributed expertise within the classroom is a microcosm of the working world around us.  To have students rely on each other as a resource for one another is something that I don’t think is terrible to have in the classroom, but it does have a gray area in the theory that does raise some concern. If students always rely on each other to be the expert of a particular aspect within the classroom, will it lower their motivation to learn about particular entities? If the student who is deemed an “expert” has one belief that everyone seems to accept, will this allow the “freezing of cognition” which would decrease the motivation of another student to learn (Pintrich et al, 1993)?

Brown et al. on page 202, discussed the recognition of expertise.  During times of discussion, students who were deemed experts by their social peers received both verbal and nonverbal attention.  I wonder if these social interactions could potentially affect the level of cognition of the students?   According to Pintrich et al. on  page 177, competition, social comparison, and external reward will have students just learn to be better than others, but will not necessarily gain the conceptual knowledge that shows real understanding of the material.  I found myself getting caught up on this example from Brown et al. and if it could potentially have affect cognitive learning as Pintrich et al. discussed.

Brown et al. wrote about the zone of proximal development.  This idea is a notion that a level readiness of a student to understand a concept is actively changing by interactions and collaborations with others.  Through interactions in different contexts, the competence of the learner will increase and transform their own zone of proximal development.  I believe that this idea is what makes learning an interactive and dynamic process.  Learning from the help of peers, teachers, and through the use of technology all aid to change levels of understanding, and thus the competence to understand a concept.  This theory made a good point that through proper practice of inquiry and setting clear goals, the teacher can be a resource for the students to become specific masters in subjects.  It is not only though the interactions with the teacher (who is viewed as a co-equal), but also through the use of peer interactions, that a richer learning experience is found. I believe that the mutual negotiation of a meaning that is constantly negotiated and renegotiated is the type of thought process that will have students take ownership of what they learn. As Brown et al. pointed out on the very first page, 188, “A main tenet of this philosophy is that knowledge does not consist of static “furniture of the mind” (Hall, 1881); knowledge is situated in activity.”

Driver et al. pushed me further to think about the how science can be important and meaningful at the individual level, when it is based off of beliefs from a common culture that the students may not be involved in yet.  Driver et al. stated on page 11, “The role of the authority figure has two important components.  The first is to introduce new ideas or cultural tools where necessary and to provide the support and guidance for students to make sense of these for themselves.”  The socially constructed meaning of science that needs to be understood at the individual level was something that was interesting to see actual examples of teacher lead discourse in the Driver et al. article.

            After reading this collection of articles, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that research is showing that learning has progressed from once being suspected as a process solely occurring internally to a process that combines both internal thought and social interactions. These social processes allow students to learn from each other and to engage more actively in the information itself.

One point that resonated with me was when Brown et al. mentioned the significance of dialogue in the development of a common knowledge base. We spent a lot of time discussing the significance of word choice and language last week in class, but this concept still fascinates me; it is something that I never spent much time thinking about until recently. It is only through language that we are truly able to convey our unique interpretations of different objects and ideas to others. It becomes problematic when individuals do not share a common interpretation of the various words that can be used to describe something abstract – such as thought. According to Brown, teachers need to create environments for students that allow for discourse; through this dialogue the students will be able to learn from each other and develop a common (yet non-identical) understanding of the information. Creating an environment in which there is a common knowledge base can be essential for students to actively engage in learning in social contexts.

            The idea of using dynamic assessments presented by Brown was intriguing to me. When I think of assessment, I instantly think about tests, quizzes, papers, reports, etc. I think about needing to get the right answer because my previous schooling has taught me that there is a correct and an incorrect answer to almost everything (although I know now that this is not the case). Providing students with the opportunity to think through their own ideas and understandings – with the assistance of an expert when needed – is something that would be very interesting to see employed in a classroom environment. The teacher would be able to assess the learning of the student beyond the concrete factual information provided within the text. These dynamic assessments would also provide the students with insight into their own learning processes, potentially providing them with information that could be useful in future learning experiences.

            In many of our recent discussions, we have spent time asking what impact motivation has on student achievement and the learning process. Although the Pintrich article did not explicitly address the exact nature of how motivation impacts conceptual change, it did provide insight into the idea that different motivational factors can promote or inhibit conceptual change. After reading about accommodation earlier this semester, I felt that Posner had failed to consider the influence of internal/external factors in the accommodation process. It was nice to see Pintrich et al. comment on this point and provide some insight into the impacts that motivational factors may have on a student’s willingness to alter his/her conceptual understanding. I don’t think that the school system today encourages students to utilize motivation throughout the learning process. Schools appear to emphasize test scores and passing students from one grade to the next, potentially decreasing the intrinsic motivation that students bring to the classroom. The students may memorize the required information, but this loss of motivation may inhibit them from developing a genuine understanding of the content (loss of individual conceptual change). What can teachers do today to allow their students to develop into motivated learners? Does the school system need to be restructured as Pintrich suggests in order to allow for individual conceptual change to take place?

                The theory concerning legitimate peripheral participation was presented in a thought provoking manner that was carefully defined by Lave and Wenger.  From my understanding, Lave and Wenger suggest that the sociocultural practices that take place in a community foster the mastery of skills and knowledge for new learners.  The learner becomes part of a community, and through different connections the skills necessary for learning to occur are brought forth.  In our past reading by Brown et al, we discussed how an apprenticeship is an integral part of situated learning.  After that reading I was not truly satisfied with how apprenticeship and situated learning came into play together, except that apprenticeship usually took place in a certain context.  In this reading, Lave and Wenger made note that the term apprenticeship has not previously been properly defined, and rather it had the potential to become meaningless.  I believe that after reading Lave and Wenger’s work, the term has been much more thoroughly described. Lave and Wenger also have defined the term situated in a very comprehensible manner. Lave and Wenger allude to an explanation of situated by stating, “learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice”(p.31).  I found it very interesting that Lave and Wenger made reference to the fact that situated learning can be a bridge which connects together the ideas of cognitive learning and social learning in both aiding to a primary learning style.

            Lave and Wenger make it clear that the theory that is presented is not meant for direct application into the classroom setting.  They also noted that schools themselves are places with a context to cultural learning.  In class two weeks ago we made reference to the fact that when reading about these theories, it is important not to only think about them in relation to how learning takes place in a classroom.  Learning happens all the time, whether it is consciously or subconsciously derived.  I find myself struggling not to try to relate everything I read in this class to classroom learning, and I always seem to be looking for a direct application.  After I read this, it reminded me to take this theory for how it is offered, rather than trying to apply it to a future classroom activity.  However, it makes me wonder, what makes a theory effective and appropriate for teachers to think about?  Is it just that it can be explained and argued for, or that it has real world application?

            Lave and Wenger do suggest that the teacher/student relationship does not exist, rather other relationships allow for the learning to take place.  The relationship that is created between peers help to derive more meaningful learning.  The dynamics of the cultural context continuously changes, and learners who were once new-comers become old-timers. Although old-timers may have more experience, it is not only their knowledge that makes the new-comer learn in this scenario. An example that came into my mind when I was reading this was the medical residency program that doctors must complete after they are done with medical school.  The first year consists of an internship, and then numerous years of a residency, and finally a fellowship.  All of these types of work environments allow for these doctors to learn from their peers, themselves, older doctors, and their patients.  Over time the doctors develop their own knowledge by practice.  Most doctors will learn similar methods no matter what program they are placed in, yet the quality of the doctor is largely determined by the environment that they are placed into.  Medical programs are all very different, and therefore they are based off of different contextual cultures.  The vigor that correlates to one medical program, may not translate in the same way to a different program because it contains a different culture.  This example also demonstrates Lave and Wenger’s suggestion that there is a division of labor within each community. When you first become a intern, you are not going to be performing the surgeries that are granted to the doctors who have more experience.  The medical example also demonstrates that the manner of how this practice is learned does not allow for the loss of the heritage (for example: what can cure what types of diseases).  The interactions between practitioners allows for everyone to keep learning, based off a common centralized community culture.

Overall, I think that this theory of legitimate peripheral participation has a lot of insightful concepts to take away from it.  I agree that the social world and interactions around us play huge parts in the learning that develops, no matter what type of learning it actually is.

The learning theory proposed by Lave and Wenger most certainly seems to mirror many of the thoughts behind the learning theory we are taught in our science education classroom: learning occurs in a social setting through interactions with others in practice.  As the authors state, and I agree, these interactions are most effective when they are combined interactions of student to student and student to master; other apprentices provide the legitimacy for the interactions, and perhaps maintain motivation in accomplishing the task at hand.  While the master is integral in representing the refined form of practice and developing the proper scaffolding for progression, interactions with other apprentices are kind of like the mortar that fills in the gaps between each chunk of learning. 

One point that made me think about its relation to schooling is the context that much learning takes place in schools.  The meaningfulness of the activities we present in school must align with the meaningfulness in their lives and community.  The authors stated quite clearly that the term community doesn’t “imply necessarily co-presence, a well-defined, identifiable group, or socially visible boundaries.  It does imply participation in an activity system about which participants share understandings concerning what they are doing and what that means in their lives and for their communities.”(pg.98)  This statement really drives home the point of making activities that have relevance to students lives, bringing things from the abstract to the concrete.  Just grouping students together for activities isn’t enough to produce legitimate situated learning.  I think this notion is what makes effective teaching difficult in some instances; teachers must keep in mind the relevance in conjunction with the social structure of the activity. 

So what does this say about students who don’t do well in school?  Are the activities and learning situations we are creating not effective in motivating the student to learn?  Even if we can set-up experiments that properly demonstrate the community of practice, some students just won’t get it, or don’t want to get it.  So how then do we find ways to motivate students to maintain some type of social interaction and production in our classrooms?  To me, student motivation is one of the most pivotal roles in all that we are learning; they have to want to participate, whatever the driving motivating factor may be, in order to be useful members of the classroom community.  Finding ways to motivate those who truly don’t care is probably the one thing I am most concerned about, and look forward to future discussions on the subject. 

            One point that I found interesting was the authors’ discussion of internalization and its role in learning. Throughout much of my schooling thus far, I have always viewed learning as more of an internal process. I don’t think that I’ve had too many real-world experiences at this early stage of my life that would have led me to view learning as much more than that. According to Lave and Wenger, learning is neither internal nor external. Instead, “participation is always based on situated negotiation and renegotiation of meaning in the world” (p. 51). Learning then becomes the result of the interactions between understanding and experience. With this information in hand, I have begun thinking about some of my own learning experiences both inside and outside the classroom (thinking of learning as this relationship between the internal and external). When I think back in time, I see that many of my experiences involve learning in the sense described within this piece. I learn through my interactions with others in combination with my own internal thought processes. It is this unique combination that enables me to undergo a more complex learning process – as discussed in this learning theory.

            I thought the discussion of the progression from newcomer to old-timer was very interesting. Through the discussion of the apprentice-master relationship, Lave and Wenger pointed out that the apprentice (newcomer) often learns more from other apprentices than from the master (old-timer). It is the master’s job to provide information to the apprentice when he/she feels like the apprentice is at the proper stage. These newcomers are able to share their own unique ideas and to engage in practice as opposed to being told strictly what to do. In this discussion, it appears that the authors are trying to show the significance of social interactions in the learning process. It’s not the knowledge itself, but the process of learning from each other that enables newcomers to develop a more prominent role in society. Is this the reason why so many companies group interns together and provide them with little information regarding the task at hand? Are they supposed to be learning through experience and their interactions with each other? Does this allow for them to learn how to succeed at their future jobs?

            The authors also make a point about the distinction between talking about and talking within practice that I find extremely relevant. They state, “for newcomers then the purpose is not to learn from talk as a substitute for legitimate peripheral participation; it is to learn to talk as a key to legitimate peripheral participation” (p109). When I think about this idea, this class comes instantly to mind. We are all essentially newcomers looking to gain information and advance our level of understanding. Essentially, we are undergoing a learning process (as defined in this piece) through the discussion of what it means to learn. It is through our conversations that I find I learn the most about my own thought processes. It is the unique perspectives and intellectual challenges of my fellow peers that enable me to talk about my own learning. This again reflects the combination of personal understanding and engagement and interactions with others that Wenger and Lave state is a crucial aspect of learning.

            At this point, I find that legitimate peripheral participation is one of the theories with which I agree most. The authors provide a wide range of examples to provide a compelling argument about the significance of social interactions within the learning process. Through the discussion of apprenticeship, I am no longer thinking about how this could apply in its entirety to the classroom. Instead, I see it as a more metaphorical perspective that attempts to include how people learn in various aspects of their lives. Learning takes place everywhere and is not just limited to the classroom; I think that this is one key point that I am finally beginning to consider when I think about learning. 

Lave’s interpretation of the process of learning is very valid in that it explains why apprenticeships have been successful in conferring knowledge and skills over many years in many disciplines.  It makes sense, and it can also provide explanations for why many skills and trades utilize this model of working (and learning).

Lave brought up a point that resonated with me, that schools are not decontextualized; they are social institutes with specific contexts.  I found myself dwelling on this point and think that because of this point, the learning theory fails to provide explanation for a few points.  Do students failing to achieve in school settings have some sort of social “disorder” that prevents them from participate in the social structure of a classroom?  Is this legitimate peripheral participation in the school setting relevant?  We frequently hear stories about people who feel they were not great students but perform (at least in self-assessment) much better in the workforce.  Is this an exception or the rule?  What about the high correlation between successful students that go on to become successful practitioners? 

Lave further makes the point that the relationship of master and apprentice, conferring legitimacy is more important that providing teaching.  Is that the missing link in the disconnect for some between classroom learning and “the real world?”  Is there a missing component of motivation or the ability to place value in the process of school?  In almost all cases, the apprenticeship process has real consequences: perform or be fired.  There is no such motivation in school, aside from grades.  Students cannot be “fired” and since public education is mandated by law, students are often present against their will, while apprenticeships are generally voluntary.  I have not made up my mind about the relevance of this yet, but it seems possible that motivation plays the key role in this difference observed between classroom learning and “authentic” practice.

I also found myself really considering the authenticity of this class.  There are so many students participating, with a variety of motives.  Will this class help me be a better practitioner of science teaching?  Maybe.  If not, why do I choose to participate?  I am motivated to participate in the social convention of pursuing a masters degree that puts me in a position of being “more qualified” than some people in some fields.  If it does, it will likely be because of the social interactions we have through this blog and through our class discussions that cause me to be introspective and question my practices.  After all, “learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice.” 

            Vygostsky’s theory on psychology attempts to relate culture with human history in terms of learning, or “memorizing” in his terms. In order to make an attempt at understanding Vygostsky’s perspective, I needed to be sure that I started with a concrete definition of the word ‘sign’; this definition being “artificial, or self generated, stimuli” (p. 39). I could only continue reading after grasping and understanding this definition myself. In his discussions of signs, Vygotsky provided a study to illustrate his point that an individual understanding of signs was the result of higher cognitive functions. However, his experiment seemed like it overlooked a few too many variables for me. As a child, I don’t believe that I would have performed entirely well on the test provided; however, I don’t think that this would be due to solely my inability to relate external stimuli to recall. I find myself questioning whether or not these young children performed poorly because they were incapable of this higher level of thought, or if young children just don’t focus enough on the task because they don’t want to. Is it a combination of these two items? Is the inability to focus a result of trying to hide an ability to truly think? I don’t know if there is an answer to any of these questions, but Vygotsky seemed to believe that there was a drastic difference in the ability of a child and an adolescent to utilize signs and tools.

            Another point that I found interesting was Vygotsky’s statement that development proceeds in a spiral, “passing through the same point at each new revolution while advancing to a higher level” (p. 56). I guess I have never really thought about learning in these terms. When I think about cognitive development, I don’t really take into consideration the means by which my learning takes place. After reading this section, I stopped to really try to understand this point. It does seem logical that one would learn easy concepts and more challenging ones in a similar manner. The way I learn today may be very different in terms of complexity than the way I learned when I was in elementary school, however, the process of learning for me has not necessarily changed. I still read something, try to relate it to my life in some way, and then make an attempt at understanding it – a process I continue to cycle through as my cognitive abilities grow.

            After reading Vygotsky, I am left in an internal debate with myself regarding how successful this theory could be incorporated into the education system of today. The limited research provided by Vygotsky in this article only examined a task of color labeling for people of different ages. Vygotsky made some very insightful points within the context of his theory, yet he did not provide enough research and concrete information to enable me to develop an understanding of how this theory could be applied to a learning environment – i.e. the classroom. With a school system focusing almost solely on test scores, I don’t know if this theory could be applied effectively to the classroom. The system would have to be drastically reformed to emphasize the significance of connections and to utilize the significance of learning how to properly utilize signs to increase understanding. The question then becomes, would this system be based on grades, or would there be some other technique to determine the level of understanding? 

It is fascinating how the historical perspective offered about the time period of Vygotsky translated into his research work that he performed.  Like Michael Cole and Sylvia Scribner made note on page 9, Vygotsky used a window of opportunity for researching human cognition because the society’s Markist viewpoint assumed that science was the answer to solving social and economic problems.  In order to maximize an individual’s potential for the good of the whole, Vygotsky wanted to have an inside look of the psychological processes that occur during learning.  On page 12, Cole and Scribner referenced that Vygotsky used experimentation methods that allowed for the changes that cause the higher psychological processes to be detected.  It was very interesting that Vygotsky even said, “telescope the actual course of development of a given function.”  When thinking about a successful researcher, it is vital that they are able to see the progression of the function they are studying rather than only the beginning and end result. 

The idea that certain types of memory exist depending on someone’s literacy was something that came across as shocking to me.  On page 38, Vygotsky alludes to the idea that illiterate people possess more “natural memory” than literate people.  The other type of memory that all people possess is based off a condition of social development.  After reading these ideas, I was left asking myself that even though the biological process of memory and the idea of self-generated memory is a theory that could define a difference in social structure, could it be applied in the classroom?  The way people interpret signs to be able to facilitate their learning is an aspect of cognition that could have potential benefits when applied in the classroom.  The case study looking at the early sign operations in children was an experiment that I found to be remarkable, because it shows how external signals become internalized as people age.  In the beginning students did not perform the task by gaining any help from the auxiliary source.  It was only until the people got older that using the auxiliary stimuli allowed for the outside stimulus to trigger a correct response. 

On page 49, there was another part of the reading that sparked my interest because it made me think of how the teacher’s role in a classroom is important in building the cognitive skills of a student.  Vygotsky points out that when there is a change in developmental level, it does not mean that there is a change in the structure of memory but rather the “interfunctional relations” of memory to connect with other functions.  A young child thinks by only using their memory.  I believe that problem solving and critical thinking are skills that need to be developed from a young age, and I wonder how this fits in with Vygotskys theory of how the memory affects cognitive thinking. 

The people that Vygotsky studied were put into situations where they could not just solve the problem with an existing skill, but rather had to make a neutral stimulus into a sign for their cognitive functioning.   Vygotsky’s reference to the “functional method of double stimulation,” was another method in testing that gives credibility to Vygotsky’s explanations.  Some of the past readings did not provide the concrete examples that I felt were strong enough to make me see their reasoning for their theory, but once again Vygotsky shows thoughtfulness in how his experiments are executed.