"Pinker (2002) stated that "....people's ability to set aside stereotypes when judging an individual is accomplished by their conscious deliberate reasoning. When people are distracted or put under pressure to respond quickly, they more likely to judge that a member of an ethnic group has all of the stereotyped traits of the group. .............. Our network of fuzzy associations naturally reverts to a stereotype when we first encounter an individual. But our rule-based categorizer can block out those associations and make deductions based on the relevant facts about that individual. It can do so either for practical reasons, when information about a group-wide average is less diagnostic than information about the individual, or for social or moral reasons, out of respect for the imperative that one ought to ignore certain group-wide average when judging an individual" (p. 205). This quotation I feel was so true when we completed the Harvard quiz online. When we were under pressure to quickly associate people or certain things into categories. We were most likely to go with our stereotypical views because we were not given the time to use the rule-based categorizer where we would required more time to consider other things such as facts about the items or individuals. Our rule-based categorizer seems to be a sort of filter for our fuzzy associations.
Reality is in the eye of the beholder it seems. Ones reality according to Pinker (2002) seems to be based on our experience and affected very heavily by our perceptions of how we view or categorize external stimuli. Skinner (1987) in his article Whatever Happened to Psychology as the Science of Behavior? would agree with Pinker when he stated even though we are in touch with reality we have to recognize how this reality can be influenced and cause us to go against ourselves (Pinker 2002 p.217). Skinner repeated showed how all of our behavior as well as information that we selectively store are influenced by the external stimuli. As a result, the things that influence reality are things of our environment like Pinker (2002) stated i.e. the media and theory.
Pinker mentioned in this chapter that many stereotypes are statistically correct. Then would it mean that some stereotypes can be considered truth? If this is so, should we then say that it is a reality that some stereotype are truth?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Constructivism
R7
The Behaviorists believe that all of our actions are guided by some external stimuli. Constructivism on the other hand is just a theory on how a "learner comes to know" and it is based on the "interaction between their existing knowledge or beliefs and the new ideas or situations they encounter" So, can we then assume that constructivism is a subset of behaviorism?
"Since individuals make their own meaning from their beliefs and experiences, all knowledge is tentative , subjective and personal. Knowledge is viewed not as a set of universal "truths," but as a set of "working hypotheses." Thus constructivists believe that knowledge can not be justified as "true" in an absolute sense" (Airasian & Wlash 1997, p. 445)
Instruction in the classroom is guided by the standards set forh by the Local Education Associations. We are bound to follow these standards because it is widely accepted that the student should know X, Y, and Z at each grade level. I cannot see how this is possible in the constructivists approach where the teacher is guiding the student through each 'milieu' and the student is determining their own truths and thus constructing their knowledge based on what is meaningful to them. In my classroom teaching experience I have heard students say over and over again that the information that they are learning is not useful or meaningful. I have also often been asked the question, "When will I ever use this information?" I bring these examples up to point out that in the constructivist's approach the teacher has to determine how much emphasis to place on the student's truth and what is meaningful. However because these two things are subjective their is no uniformaity and therefore no way to evaluate them as the article stated (pg. 448). To this end, such an approach would be detrimental to a teacher and a student in todays schools because we would have to hope that the student's truth and that which he or she deems meaningful encompasses what the student needs in order to be successful in a standards based classroon setting. Also, the objectivity of the teacher's role in determining how much "emphasis" to place on the students truth and meaning can be lost because the teacher is held accountable for the student's performance on skills set forth in the curriculum.
It is quite a task to reconcile the constructivists view of education to the educational legislation Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This legislation and its predisessor or previous form; No Child Left Bhind (NCLB), are heavily rooted in assessment, teacher accountability and bringing each child to grade level by a predetermined date. This kind of information puts pressure on educators and in some cases schools and teachers are teaching the tests and not the skills. So looking at schools performance on state assessments may not mean that the students are at grade level. It could simply meaning that the student is a good memorizer and can only regurtitate information but has no clue what the infomation means or how to begin to apply it.The constructivists view appears to come across a bit like the Montessori schools. The only exception is the fact that the constructivists approach encourages teachers to critique the student's work. The Montessori school teacher doesn't correct a sudent's work but merely guides the students to new areas of discovery. However such an approach is so contrary to the mantra, "data driven decision making" that is hammered into our heads from the teacher preparation programs and straight into the classroom.
The Behaviorists believe that all of our actions are guided by some external stimuli. Constructivism on the other hand is just a theory on how a "learner comes to know" and it is based on the "interaction between their existing knowledge or beliefs and the new ideas or situations they encounter" So, can we then assume that constructivism is a subset of behaviorism?
"Since individuals make their own meaning from their beliefs and experiences, all knowledge is tentative , subjective and personal. Knowledge is viewed not as a set of universal "truths," but as a set of "working hypotheses." Thus constructivists believe that knowledge can not be justified as "true" in an absolute sense" (Airasian & Wlash 1997, p. 445)
Instruction in the classroom is guided by the standards set forh by the Local Education Associations. We are bound to follow these standards because it is widely accepted that the student should know X, Y, and Z at each grade level. I cannot see how this is possible in the constructivists approach where the teacher is guiding the student through each 'milieu' and the student is determining their own truths and thus constructing their knowledge based on what is meaningful to them. In my classroom teaching experience I have heard students say over and over again that the information that they are learning is not useful or meaningful. I have also often been asked the question, "When will I ever use this information?" I bring these examples up to point out that in the constructivist's approach the teacher has to determine how much emphasis to place on the student's truth and what is meaningful. However because these two things are subjective their is no uniformaity and therefore no way to evaluate them as the article stated (pg. 448). To this end, such an approach would be detrimental to a teacher and a student in todays schools because we would have to hope that the student's truth and that which he or she deems meaningful encompasses what the student needs in order to be successful in a standards based classroon setting. Also, the objectivity of the teacher's role in determining how much "emphasis" to place on the students truth and meaning can be lost because the teacher is held accountable for the student's performance on skills set forth in the curriculum.
It is quite a task to reconcile the constructivists view of education to the educational legislation Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This legislation and its predisessor or previous form; No Child Left Bhind (NCLB), are heavily rooted in assessment, teacher accountability and bringing each child to grade level by a predetermined date. This kind of information puts pressure on educators and in some cases schools and teachers are teaching the tests and not the skills. So looking at schools performance on state assessments may not mean that the students are at grade level. It could simply meaning that the student is a good memorizer and can only regurtitate information but has no clue what the infomation means or how to begin to apply it.The constructivists view appears to come across a bit like the Montessori schools. The only exception is the fact that the constructivists approach encourages teachers to critique the student's work. The Montessori school teacher doesn't correct a sudent's work but merely guides the students to new areas of discovery. However such an approach is so contrary to the mantra, "data driven decision making" that is hammered into our heads from the teacher preparation programs and straight into the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)