Scaffolding Vs. Shaping (What's the difference?)

          I noticed a fellow group member was presenting separate posts on certain websites, videos, or thoughts she had outside of the specified assignments for class. I found myself drawn towards these posts and wanting to reply on whatever it was she was presenting. Now that the model has been presented I'd like to mimic these particular posts and present one of my own.

          In reviewing the terms of scaffolding and shaping, because I had questioned whether they were really that different from one another, I found that they are actually quite similar. If I were asked what the difference was between the two I don’t feel confident in my ability to do so. They both have behavior as being a baseline for what is  being acquired, modified, or changing,. They both present stages as to how the individual learns said behavior, and both identify these stages as having some level of succession.

          Here’s the question that I’m pondering, and feel free to reply with your own thoughts and examples to help me more fully understand. Are these two terms as similar as I perceive them to be? If so, how could I best explain it to let’s say, one of my general psychology students (as I’m sure one will ask at some point)? Where is the cross over line between behavior and cognition, specifically with this example?

Activity 3.3 (Vygotsky's Social Constructivism)

              The main focus or theme of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development has to do with the importance of social, cultural, and historical influence on learning. He believed that learning was contingent upon the assistance of others as well as the important role that language plays within that process. While discussing his concept of the zone of proximal development (zpd) in chapter 6 of his book Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, he states that “learning should be matched in some manner with the child’s developmental level” (p. 85). Once this level of actual development is identified instruction can then take place to assist the individual with reaching his or her own potential level.

                I found a similar indication of this same premise when James talks about the acquisition of ideas. He believed that a certain order of nativity or instinct is followed when acquiring new conceptions (p. 72). There is an inborn or innate tendency to assimilate things at certain stages of life, our chronological age. He then goes on the give an excellent example of a child brought up alone at home, with no one to teach him or nothing to connect with (stimuli) except for books. This individual will feel a sense of disconnect from the world around them, which will harbor insecurities within him (p. 72). This is reinforcing the essence of Vygotsky’s theory, the importance of social influence.

Activity 3.2 (Cognitive Development)

          Piaget presents four stages of cognitive development that an individual experiences at various points in the earlier stages of their lifespan (the final one some may not experience). Within these stages exists a unique process that involves assimilating the world around us to already existing schema and if necessary accommodating it to fit in with reality. There are several connections one can make between Piaget’s and James’s perspectives on cognitive development. One that stood out for me is related to the interest or active element of the learning process. Piaget believed that learners need to be actively involved and James also believed that some level of interest was necessary for associations to occur. James says, “From all these facts there emerges a very simple abstract programme for the teacher to follow in keeping the attention of the child: Begin with the line of his native interests, and offer him objects that have some immediate connection with these” (p. 48). In order for a child, or individual, to be actively involved there needs to be interest. When we assimilate we essentially are attempting to connect it with something we already know. This is where teachers can discuss relevant connections, get the student to identify one on their own, or maybe have them share examples within a group. Either way the native interest is being caught by the bait that’s being thrown out. The process of learning can then move on to accommodation by presenting challenges to the preexisting schemata.

          On a side note, while reading selected chapters from Wadsworth's book titled Piaget’s theory on cognitive development, I happened upon a footnote which captured the essence of what should be, in my opinion, a teacher’s (and individual’s) approach to psychological theories. In summary he mentions that theories are rejected and supported for various reasons, be it emotional or logical. That it’s, “Not evidence for the correctness or incorrectness of assertions or adequate logical grounds for the acceptance of a theory. No doubt, it is important for teachers to like and feel comfortable with whatever they use”(p. 4, #7).  For me there are snippets of information within each theory that I believe come together to create a unified whole. I’d rather not say that I lean towards, or support, one theory or theorist over another, mainly because I think it closes off a person’s mind (calling oneself an expert for example). If I want to be an effective teacher, partner, parent, and friend, then I need to be open to whatever I think fits into that puzzle.

Activity 3.1 (Piagets' Cognitive Constructivism)

     It is an active, constructive process. The learner takes on a more active role with regard to the interpretation of both the stimulus and reinforcer. The response is contingent upon what is concluded from that interpretation. We are uncomfortable with cognitive imbalance (or cognitive dissonance) which in turn motivates us to resolve it.

     In our attempts to adapt to our environment we organize our knowledge through this balancing act which is either done by assimilation (inserting new information into what already exists) “Oh I’ve experienced something similar to that before”, or accommodation (modifying what’s already there to fit with reality).

Both assimilation and accommodation involve some element of categorization, to fit in with specific knowledge structures (schema). I think the key for teachers or anyone trying to teach or learn something new (even refreshing on), is to incorporate categorization into the learning process. Since it’s about making meaning or sense out of our environment (and essentially what we are attempting to learn) then connecting it with what we are already know and/or modifying it so that it does make sense, to me this is a major key. Creating a situation where students become intrigued or have some level of interest is also important, yet challenging to them at the same time. This allows them to be actively involved in the learning process rather than information being spewed at them.

     Here are some questions I have. If we are born as a clean slate, what role does personality play is this creation of mind? If the majority of what we are attempting to learn is based off of modifying or creating knowledge structures, where or how do we acquire the original schema? Is this where nature or instincts come in to play?