We use frequently schemas in our lives. Almost all work, we use them such as taking car key from home, opening the car with it, putting it to the circuit and running the car. When we are going to workplace, we use same roads. During traffic jam, sometimes we must change our road and in this case if you have another road’s schema in your mind, you will easily reach to workplace by using this road. Nevertheless, if you don’t know how another road take you to the workplace, you will be confused and have difficulties in arriving it on time because you have no schema about this new road and you don’t know where to go.
Let me give another example. I was an introvert person at the beginning of the university years and I was afraid of talking with teachers. I remember that before I was entering to the room of Finlay Mcquade, I had denoted my schema about my questions. After I asked my first question, if he answered yes, then I would ask second one but if he answered no to first question, I would ask different question. If he answered me in a different way which I didn’t expect, I would not have said anything since I had constructed my schema before the interview and I had no schema about this interview previously.
So, what about learning without having schemas? I think it is hard to learn and hold knowledge in brain without schemas. In order to provide learning, we use behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism etc. and it seems to me that schema theory is not interested in how learning occurs. Its only aim is having schemas by making connections and it doesn’t deal with how we construct schemas.
Now, I believe that firstly learning occurs, then we try to make it meaningful by constructing schemas and hold them in our minds. Holding knowledge with schemas facilitates retention of knowledge. Instead of remembering many knowledge separately without schemas, remembering the schema related with the topic is much more easier (of course, some branches of schema can be forgetten because of not using them in long time but with the help of schemas, we remember more knowledge and easier).
If we connect some knowledge in a schema to each other meaningfully (not randomly connection of knowledge, otherwise it can cause misconceptions), then it is easy to remember and hold this schema in long-term memory. If we memorize the knowledge (schema) rather than connecting it to each other meaningfully, then we will have problems with remembering and making inferences. For example, if you memorize the statements “All swans are white” and “This is a swan”, then you will probably have difficulties in connecting these statements and making an inference. However, if you meaningfully construct them in your schema, then you will infer that “This swan is white.” Therefore, constructing schemas in a meaningful way is crucial in providing permanent learning.
Finally, I believe that first learning occurs by behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism etc. and then we hold this learning in our minds as schemas. If we construct these schemas meaningfully, then learning is permanent but if we construct them randomly, then learning is temporary and strongly possible to be forgetten.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Moving From Stage to Another in Piaget's Stages
In this entry, I will emphasize the contribution of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium in passing from one stage to another. Firstly, I think that child’s assimilating new information to the existing schema cannot take him to the next stage if assimilating process does not promote thinking and creating relationships between topics. Additionally, if it promotes thinking, then it is called accommodation. I learned that accommodation requires change in existing schema or creating a new schema. Therefore, a child can learn with assimilation but he can’t move to the next stage with only assimilation (definition of assimilation considers fitting existing schema but does this schema necessary? If so, what about child’s first knowledge related with a topic? Or don’t we define learning first knowledge as assimilation?).
Secondly, a child can learn with accommodation and it can take him/her to the next stage. In accommodation, there must be existing schema and since he/she has to modify this schema with new information, he/she will need to think about this new information (how he/she organizes it in mind and why it happened as it did). That is, he/she will put new information to the new schema by reasoning so that this reasoning may provide essential development in order to come to the next stage.
Moreover, accommodation and discrepant event concepts are highly connected with each other even though we haven’t discussed in the last lesson. Discrepant event is defined as a stimulating approach that puzzles the child. It causes the child to wonder why the event happened as it did. Hence, this thinking will direct the child to accommodate new information to the schema and to the next stage. For example, in primary school, we were taught that world is turning around the sun and we assimilated this information without reasoning and thinking. Nevertheless, when we came to secondary school, some of us started to think and reason why world is turning around the sun, and these students probably skipped to the formal operational stage with the help of accommodation and discrepant event.
Finally, a child can move to the next stage by utilizing equilibrium. For equilibrium, there must be disequilibrium in existing schema. After handling disequilibrium, the child will be in the position of equilibrium. It seems to me that disequilibrium has same meaning with cognitive conflict and having cognitive conflict creates inconsistencies in mind of child and it directs him/her to think and cope with these inconsistencies to be able to stabilize his/her internal world (the state of equilibrium). Furthermore, in creating equilibration, accommodation is always used. If the child has previous knowledge and modifies it, then it means that he/she creates disequilibrium (accommodation). However, in assimilation, disequilibrium is not possible because to have the state of disequilibrium, previous knowledge is obligatory and in assimilation, there is no previous knowledge.
In conclusion, it can be said that while assimilation doesn’t take a child to the next stage, accommodation and equilibrium give him/her opportunity to move to the next stage.
Secondly, a child can learn with accommodation and it can take him/her to the next stage. In accommodation, there must be existing schema and since he/she has to modify this schema with new information, he/she will need to think about this new information (how he/she organizes it in mind and why it happened as it did). That is, he/she will put new information to the new schema by reasoning so that this reasoning may provide essential development in order to come to the next stage.
Moreover, accommodation and discrepant event concepts are highly connected with each other even though we haven’t discussed in the last lesson. Discrepant event is defined as a stimulating approach that puzzles the child. It causes the child to wonder why the event happened as it did. Hence, this thinking will direct the child to accommodate new information to the schema and to the next stage. For example, in primary school, we were taught that world is turning around the sun and we assimilated this information without reasoning and thinking. Nevertheless, when we came to secondary school, some of us started to think and reason why world is turning around the sun, and these students probably skipped to the formal operational stage with the help of accommodation and discrepant event.
Finally, a child can move to the next stage by utilizing equilibrium. For equilibrium, there must be disequilibrium in existing schema. After handling disequilibrium, the child will be in the position of equilibrium. It seems to me that disequilibrium has same meaning with cognitive conflict and having cognitive conflict creates inconsistencies in mind of child and it directs him/her to think and cope with these inconsistencies to be able to stabilize his/her internal world (the state of equilibrium). Furthermore, in creating equilibration, accommodation is always used. If the child has previous knowledge and modifies it, then it means that he/she creates disequilibrium (accommodation). However, in assimilation, disequilibrium is not possible because to have the state of disequilibrium, previous knowledge is obligatory and in assimilation, there is no previous knowledge.
In conclusion, it can be said that while assimilation doesn’t take a child to the next stage, accommodation and equilibrium give him/her opportunity to move to the next stage.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Risk Taking in Adolescence
After analyzing three articles related with risk taking in adolescence, I realized that there are no exact answer whether adolescent take risks more than adults or not. According to the one’s point of view, the preference of two conflicting views can change. If we look at the latest statistics, it is clear that adults have more risky behavior than adolescents. However, if we focus on the neuroscience, it explains that the temporal gap between puberty and the slow maturation of the cognitive-control system makes adolescence heightened vulnerability for risky behavior. Both views seem reasonable to me but I think that there should be studies controlling some variables such as socioeconomic and neurological and the structure of brain should be learned in a much more detailed way.
Although I don’t ignore biological results stating that adolescents are more prone to risk taking than adults because of their structure of brain, I think that these results are exaggerated by biodeterminists. There must be other factors influencing risk taking such as socioeconomic status and without knowing contributions of each factor to risk taking, we should not judge adolescents publicly. the reason for two conflicting views’ being logical within its own context is due to lack of controlling factors in a study. For example, adolescents were found as having less risky behavior than adults with respect to the statistical results. Nevertheless, we don’t know the socioeconomic status of these adults and adolescents. If these adults have low socioeconomic status than the adolescents, then the claim that adolescents have less risky behavior will be wrong. Since these adults had low income, they might show risk taking behavior. As parallel to Delisi (2010), I suggest to conduct studies including socioeconomic and neurological variables in the same models so that exact decision about risk taking in adolescence can be given easily.
Another hot debate in solving the conflict is related with brain. How much do we know about the brain? The answer to this question also will affect our decision of risk taking in adolescence. While some argue that we know very much about the brain, some argue that we know too little to have a decision. Fischer, as cited in Males (2009), assert that “We do not know very much!...Most of the recent advances in brain science have involved knowledge of the biology of single neurons and synapses, not knowledge of patterns of connection and other aspects of the brain as a system.”
Furthermore, neuroscience claims that there are two networks in brain; socioemotional and cognitive-control networks. Steinberg (2004) cites that while socioemotional network is sensitive to social and emotional stimuli and is remodeled in early adolescence by the hormonal changes of puberty, cognitive-control network subserves executive functions such as planning, thinking ahead, and self-regulation and matures gradually over the course of adolescence and young adulthood largely independently of puberty. Then, risk taking in adolescence occurs with the result of interaction between two networks. In adolescence, first network is dominant over second network since emotional stimuli are activated frequently and generally risk taking occurs due to lack of thinking logically.
In conclusion, there is lack of clarity between two conflicting views. It can unequivocally be said that there is no correct answer to the question of “Do adolescents have more risky behavior than adults or not? In order to arrive at exact decision in these views, we should know more about the biology of brain, specifically the impacts of brain networks and their contributions to the behavior of people. Moreover, in a study, researchers should control socioeconomic and neurological variables. I believe that if we control these variables in studies, two conflicting views will vanish since these views overlap. Even in the future if it is found that adolescents show more risky behavior than adults, we should not label adolescents as limited in a biodeterministic way. Rather, we should investigate new ways for adolescents in order to make them show less risky behavior.
Although I don’t ignore biological results stating that adolescents are more prone to risk taking than adults because of their structure of brain, I think that these results are exaggerated by biodeterminists. There must be other factors influencing risk taking such as socioeconomic status and without knowing contributions of each factor to risk taking, we should not judge adolescents publicly. the reason for two conflicting views’ being logical within its own context is due to lack of controlling factors in a study. For example, adolescents were found as having less risky behavior than adults with respect to the statistical results. Nevertheless, we don’t know the socioeconomic status of these adults and adolescents. If these adults have low socioeconomic status than the adolescents, then the claim that adolescents have less risky behavior will be wrong. Since these adults had low income, they might show risk taking behavior. As parallel to Delisi (2010), I suggest to conduct studies including socioeconomic and neurological variables in the same models so that exact decision about risk taking in adolescence can be given easily.
Another hot debate in solving the conflict is related with brain. How much do we know about the brain? The answer to this question also will affect our decision of risk taking in adolescence. While some argue that we know very much about the brain, some argue that we know too little to have a decision. Fischer, as cited in Males (2009), assert that “We do not know very much!...Most of the recent advances in brain science have involved knowledge of the biology of single neurons and synapses, not knowledge of patterns of connection and other aspects of the brain as a system.”
Furthermore, neuroscience claims that there are two networks in brain; socioemotional and cognitive-control networks. Steinberg (2004) cites that while socioemotional network is sensitive to social and emotional stimuli and is remodeled in early adolescence by the hormonal changes of puberty, cognitive-control network subserves executive functions such as planning, thinking ahead, and self-regulation and matures gradually over the course of adolescence and young adulthood largely independently of puberty. Then, risk taking in adolescence occurs with the result of interaction between two networks. In adolescence, first network is dominant over second network since emotional stimuli are activated frequently and generally risk taking occurs due to lack of thinking logically.
In conclusion, there is lack of clarity between two conflicting views. It can unequivocally be said that there is no correct answer to the question of “Do adolescents have more risky behavior than adults or not? In order to arrive at exact decision in these views, we should know more about the biology of brain, specifically the impacts of brain networks and their contributions to the behavior of people. Moreover, in a study, researchers should control socioeconomic and neurological variables. I believe that if we control these variables in studies, two conflicting views will vanish since these views overlap. Even in the future if it is found that adolescents show more risky behavior than adults, we should not label adolescents as limited in a biodeterministic way. Rather, we should investigate new ways for adolescents in order to make them show less risky behavior.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Falsifiability
Before child development theories, I want to deal with falsifiability standard of a theory to be able to decide a good or bad theory.
The idea of falsificationism belongs to Popper believing that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability and scientific theories are falsifiable. According to him, after applying tests, if theories fail to stand up, then they are replaced by other theories standing up to these tests. If they stand up, then they continue to survive until another test’s application to them. He (2003) claims that every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation; than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. That is, science progresses by trial and error, conjectures and refutations and only the fittest theories survive.
To me, falsificationism is the possibility of a theory’s being false. If there is a possibility of its being wrong, then it is falsifiable and scientific. There is a widely known example about human behaviors, as Popper (2003) cited: “that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. According to Freud, the first man suffered from repression, while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler, the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority and so did the second man. I could not think of any human behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory.” In this example, there is no other possibilities except saving the child or not saving him. Therefore, theories of Adler and Freud are not falsifiable and so they are not scientific theories, according to Popper. On the contrary, we can say that Einstein’s theory of gravitation was falsifiable because there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.Chalmers (1999) states that the more falsifiable a theory, it is the better. For example, Newton’s theory about solar system is superior to Kepler’s theory because there are more opportunities to be able to falsify Newton’s theory than Kepler’s theory. Moreover, according to Chalmers, theories should be clearly stated and precise. If a theory is so vaguely stated that it is not clear exactly what it is claiming, then it can always be evaluated as consistent with the results of experiments and observations. This situation causes theory to be non-scientific because of lack of falsifiability condition.
The idea of falsificationism belongs to Popper believing that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability and scientific theories are falsifiable. According to him, after applying tests, if theories fail to stand up, then they are replaced by other theories standing up to these tests. If they stand up, then they continue to survive until another test’s application to them. He (2003) claims that every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation; than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. That is, science progresses by trial and error, conjectures and refutations and only the fittest theories survive.
To me, falsificationism is the possibility of a theory’s being false. If there is a possibility of its being wrong, then it is falsifiable and scientific. There is a widely known example about human behaviors, as Popper (2003) cited: “that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. According to Freud, the first man suffered from repression, while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler, the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority and so did the second man. I could not think of any human behavior which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory.” In this example, there is no other possibilities except saving the child or not saving him. Therefore, theories of Adler and Freud are not falsifiable and so they are not scientific theories, according to Popper. On the contrary, we can say that Einstein’s theory of gravitation was falsifiable because there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.Chalmers (1999) states that the more falsifiable a theory, it is the better. For example, Newton’s theory about solar system is superior to Kepler’s theory because there are more opportunities to be able to falsify Newton’s theory than Kepler’s theory. Moreover, according to Chalmers, theories should be clearly stated and precise. If a theory is so vaguely stated that it is not clear exactly what it is claiming, then it can always be evaluated as consistent with the results of experiments and observations. This situation causes theory to be non-scientific because of lack of falsifiability condition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)