Blog Response # 1

Wood Summary:

     Wood (2007) compared the perspectives of learning and thinking led by Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky and examined new ideas and concepts that derived from their theoretical frameworks. Piaget viewed the process of development through a linear lens and, emphasized that the process of acting upon an object developed the main constructs of thought. Comparingly to Vygotsky, Piaget acknowledges the role of social interactions, however, they came secondary to the role of constructing knowledge through action. His standpoint on social interaction is only influential when the child is at the stage of readiness to assimilate and process the information. Vygotsky on the other hand placed more emphasis on the role of culture and social interaction throughout development. His argument is “that the capacity to learn through instruction is itself the fundamental feature of human intelligence” (Wood, 2007). His coined term “zone of proximal development” played an integral part in his theory because it highlighted one’s individualistic capability to think and placed the importance of social interaction at the forefront. Likewise, to Vygotsky, Brunner also placed emphasis on the role of social interaction, but he further explored the mental process involved in thinking. Bruner also shared similar standpoints to Piaget’s theory most specifically the biological influences on human intelligence. 

    While reading the first two chapters I made several connections to my own experience as an early childhood educator, the role of educators in the early childhood field, and the concept of learning for young children. When I first began working in the early childhood field, I only had previous experience working with older children ages 6 years and up. Initially, when I accepted my role as a toddler teacher, the idea of teaching young children was a challenge for me because in my “pre-early childhood educator’s naïve brain” I didn’t understand fully the scope of how learning occurred for young children.  Likewise, to Piaget, I too believed that young children can’t be “taught” because they were “logically incapable to see the world as adults do” (Wood, 2007). The idea of teaching a toddler the alphabet for example seemed irrelevant because I felt they wouldn’t grasp the concept of it anyways. So, there I was back at square one racking my brain on how in the world am I going to teach these toddlers and most importantly questioning if they are even learning. It wasn’t until my director at the time, shared with me the most profound words and thus shifted my perspective on the idea of “teaching” littles. She simply shared with me that young children “learn through play”. In the early childhood field, the concept of learning is distinct from the formalized learning standards that we see in primary and secondary school settings.  The primary vehicles for learning in early childhood include play, active exploration, and interaction with adults and other children, whereas in primary and secondary settings we see more standardized learning. Collectively, teachers use instructional methods influenced by Vygotsky and Piaget such as relationship-based interactions, playful learning, and differentiating instruction learning (zone of proximal development) to ensure teachers teach so children can learn. As I continue to further my knowledge about early childhood education, I understand the impact Vygotsky and Piaget both have on the field, and even though times are changing and new ideologies about learning and development are found, it’s interesting to see that the framework of Vygotsky and Piaget remains applicable. 

Pinker Summary:

    Pinker focuses on the instinctive nature of understanding language. Unlike cognitive scientists who defined language as “a psychological faculty, a mental organ, a neural system, and computational module” (Pinker, 2000), Pinker simplistically defined language as an “instinct”. He argues that the reason language is an instinct is because of the universality of complex languages and that language itself is not a cultural invention. Furthermore, he argues that complex language is universal because “children reinvent it generation after generation” (Pinker, 2000). While reading chapter two I pondered whether his idea of instinctual language and the universality of complex languages has any correlation to the evolutionary theory. (Bear with me as I take you down my rabbit hole of processing this out). From what I understand about the evolutionary theory, the instinctual drives that we currently have today are derived from the generations that became before us. Additionally, ‘according to the evolutionary theory, every species has two-long standing, biologically based drives survival and reproduction.” (Berger, 2021). As I read the example of where pidgin language derived from, it seems as though the children who invented pidgin did so as a means of survival. Pinker (2000), supports this hypothesis by stating that the development of pidgin came about “when speakers of the different language have to communicate to carry out the practical task but do not have the opportunity to learn one another language” (Pinker,2000). Consequently, their inability to communicate with one another affected their demand for survival thus they developed their own jargon to communicate. Moreover, that same jargon that was initially used as a means of survival has now transcended from generation to generation and ultimately formed into an entire complex language. So, if we support the idea that language is instinctual, was it because it was once used as a biologically based drive for survival? And if so, does the concept of language being innate have any correlation to an evolutionary phenomenon? (Questions that need answers. 😌)

     All in all, I think Pinker’s sentiment on the instinctive nature of language is beneficial to the early education field because it supports the idea that children have the innate ability to speak, however, I also believe that mere exposure isn’t enough, and social interactions are required to help foster their development. 

Gee Summary:

    In the Discourse vs discourse reading, Gee examines discourse analysis which is the study of how to use and interpret language. He explains that we use language to communicate “who” we are and “what” we are doing. The “who is based on the social role we are identifying as at the time of place and the “what” is based on the listener’s context of what we are saying. Further, Gee explains how language is not invented but inherited from others. This inheritance involves shared conventions on how to use and interpret language and the social groups from which the conventions are shared. Our social groups vary but overall, they give us a sense of identity and we each have unique “ways with words associated with distinctive identities and activities” (Gee,2012). Consequently, how we act out our distinctive identities is congruent with the Discourse we are associated with. For example, in my current role as a director for an early learning center, I want to be recognized as a professional in the field. Therefore, how I talk, act, and even dress at work reflects my discourse as a professional. Another interesting point Gee made in the reading was the interconnections between our primary discourse and secondary discourses. Our primary discourse represents our initial self and represents the way we use and interpret language. Often our primary discourse will either align or conflict with our secondary discourse which derives from larger social communities such as our church, school, work, etc.

    In the “Language as a system and situation” reading, Gee explores two ways we talk about language. The first way is to consider language as a system. Language as a system categorizes and labels experiences in certain ways. The structure of grammar, dialect, and social experiences make up this system and vary by social group. The second way is to consider language situated within the context of use. Language as situated gives meaning to the experiences in the world. Consequently, the experiences we have in the world affect how we study and develop reading and writing. Experiences such as social practices play a significant role in this matter. Within social practices, there are also various sorts of tools and technologies that influence how we read and write. Reflecting on my own personal experiences I can see how this can be true. Growing up the social tools that I used for reading and writing were textbooks, pens, and paper. Fast forward to the present day the social practices of how to read and write shifted from pen and paper to now iPad and audiobooks. Gee also speaks on the language development paradigm. In this paradigm, Gee views learning to read and write as a form of literacy development. Literacy in terms of reading and writing plays a part in the acquisition of social languages. In other words, our social languages are the styles of language that we use to “enact our specific-situated identities and activities (Gee, 2018). Thus, how we read and write is congruent to the social situations we are enacting. For example, referencing back to my experience as a director, how I write emails per se reflects the identity of a professional, so my language and the words I use to write said email are reflective of that discourse.

    Overall, Gee’s contribution to understanding how to use and interpret language from a cultural and social perspective is beneficial to the early childhood field because it produces a culturally inclusive environment. From a teacher’s perspective, understanding Discourses help support their ability to foster language and reading development in a way that is culturally responsive to each individual child. 

References: