One take away was the importance of play in learning. Vygotsky hypothesizes that "human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them," (p 88). Most people do not equate play with learning, however, when children play they are creating a reality. Vygotsky believes that what a child does in an imaginary situation affects the meaning of the situation. In very young children there is a fusion between what the child sees and interpretation as to what is meant during an activity. However, play provides a transitional stage which allows the child to detach from meaning or representation to what is real. Vygotsky gives the example of a stick or versus a real horse. There is a pivotal moment which allows the child to detach meaning from the stick horse to a real horse, (pg. 98).
Eventually the child playing learns to detach visual objects and actions and he/she accepts the word "horse" and begins to play with meaning. In everyday situations what the child does (action) dominates meaning. But when a child is using his/her imagination during play, this requires abstract thinking and is a crucial part of development. In a child younger than three years, there isn't a separation between reality and imagination, The child adheres to rules that govern the scenario. When a child is school age, play fulfills a role in his/her academic development and becomes reality. When school age children play there is a new relationship between meaning and visual field. These developmental phases can be attributed to the stages of play which are:
1) Play is a way to gratify his/her own desires by creating fantasy situations.
2) Play allows a child to separate actions from objects.
3) Play allows the child to practice self-regulation and other skills in the real world.
Vygotsky sees development at two levels. The first level is what the child can do independently. The second level is what the child can do with assistance. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is the distance between the "actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaborating with more capable peers," (p. 86).The gap between what the child does independently and with assistance (direct or indirect) closes as the skill is learned. In imaginary play Vygotsky sees the child as functioning at the higher level of ZPD. For example, in one of our readings the child is using the support of the teacher to create a story board about a Disney character. The activity is scaffolded as the child learns to transfer imagination to a written story that would not have been possible without teacher support.
I like your thoughts about play. One particular point you made was, "But when a child is using his/her imagination during play, this requires abstract thinking and is a crucial part of development." This made me wonder about what happens when we take away the opportunity for a learner to be creative. Obviously, we have seen the effects of this in schools where they have taken out the creativity in favor of test prep.
ReplyDeleteIn preschool the various centers, such as dramatic play are mirror images Vygotsky's idea that the role of play is an important component in children's development. As stated in the reading, children learn way before they enter into a school setting. As students rotate in and out centers they are learning social skills, such as how to communicate with each other and taking turns. They are learning the roles of mom, dad, and teachers. Also, in children's early development they are learning the roles of community helpers through play and imitate specifically in dramatic play.
ReplyDeleteThis weekend I had an interesting conversation with my daughter and son-in-law who are theater teacher. They were all about supporting the core subject teachers, but play was not part of their action plans - not enough time in the curriculum. This is noted in our various readings that teachers are about having to follow the curriculum but, not having the time to 'play'. As children play they use symbols to represent other ideas that help develop their future literacy skills for comprehension as they eventually learn to read and secondly as they write to create solid 'story' lines. Even Piaget studies his children at play as they develop new levels of cognitive development. The one thing that concerns me, is as my daughter points to the importance of following the curriculum, is there room to create time for playful literacy opportunities? Surely there must be away.....
ReplyDeleteAs I review your thoughts on Vygotsky, you bring up the importance of play and the use of imagination. In Heath's article she compares to groups of family units - one that used more natural interaction with adults talking and the older children taking notice of the littlest when they thought they were ready to play 'school' with them. Yet, as these children entered school environments they continued to struggle to keep up and be successful achieving students over time. The unfortunate issue eventually became that they would drop out as they could not keep up and the Matthew Effect would set in. This not to go against the idea of play as the other family groups also included books and games to enhance the play of the children. Both groups were able to develop a history of language literacy, they were just did it differently. Barton talks about the many social views of literacy and the literate activities that creates mental and social connections and relationships. Both of Heath's study groups were social in developing literacy but one worked in an environment of text - they were both rich in literacy development but in different ways of helping children create symbolic systems to be integrated into the academic settings eventually.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought I had was from the Berkenkotter article that emphasized the importance of organization and patterns. The interesting part I saw was that the younger PreK students were seeped in being organized with daily practices and yet when I came to the older I wondered if she was also cautiously questioning the need of organized control of the secondary students? Was the school following developmentally appropriate practices or were they meeting behavioral practices necessary for a secondary school to be successful?
In the end, it is important to see how each researcher was taking different views of literacy and the need to be open to the various skills the students bring with them. This takes one back to the importance of differentiation that is needed in classrooms to be sure that all students have opportunities to be successful in enriching literacy environments.