Concluding the results from my elicitation task and the literature, I would propose the learning theory behaviourism focuses more on motivating the children when learning. Studies of behaviourism often include positive reinforcements and oppose negative reinforcement as it can be detriment and lose the learning and focus of a child. However, when I used negative reinforcement I was concerned it would affect and loose the learning and focus of Child 2 and all the group, especially Child 1 with ASD, but it worked well in that circumstance and behaviour that was expected of them was resumed.
The dissatisfaction with behaviourisms ‘strict focus’ on observable behaviour led educational phycologists such as Jean Piaget to demand an approach to …show more content…
Furthermore, the constructivist learning theory viewed children as active agents in their own learning, forming their own understanding of the world and what is around them through independent exploration (Gallagher and Reid, 2002). Additionally, children internalise their actions through the creation of cognitive frameworks or schemas (Piaget, 1977). Schemas are mental representations, which provide a way of organising knowledge (Cooper, 2011). Schemas are subject to change as the child matures and gains new experiences through their actions in the world. (Morgan, 2010). I found this learning theory very useful as it furthered my current understanding of the learning theory. It helped me understand that Child 1 did understand the vocabulary of spine. Firstly, Child 1 did not relate the ‘spine’ to the ‘backbone’ which alerted me about their current …show more content…
Vygotsky recognised Piaget’s claim that learners respond, not to external stimuli, but to their interpretation of those stimuli (Cremlin and Arthur, 2014). However, Vygotsky argued that constructivists such as Piaget had disregarded the social nature of languages therefore, he claimed they had failed to understand that learning is a collaborative process. Bruner (1966) however, believed that anything can be taught to any child, providing it is taught in a way that is meaningful to them. Contrary, to Vygotsky’s central theory is the ‘Zone of Proximal’ Development (ZPD), the more experienced or capable learner can support and interact with less experienced or capable others (Barnes, 2011). The more knowledgeable/capable child ‘scaffolds’ the less knowledgeable/ capable other, gradually removing until he/she becomes fully competent (Morgan, 2010). I observed this several times during P.E. Firstly when the teacher aided Child 1 with their balance by holding them (scaffolding), until their confidence grew and they were fully capable on their own and therefore managed the set activity (see appendix 7, page, 25). The second time I witnessed this approach was when Child 4 used their dancing knowledge to help their partner balance on their own; “I helped my friend with tips, I helped them balance by saying look at me as I will stand still”. (see appendix 7-notes page, 28). In both observations, a more capable other
The dissatisfaction with behaviourisms ‘strict focus’ on observable behaviour led educational phycologists such as Jean Piaget to demand an approach to …show more content…
Furthermore, the constructivist learning theory viewed children as active agents in their own learning, forming their own understanding of the world and what is around them through independent exploration (Gallagher and Reid, 2002). Additionally, children internalise their actions through the creation of cognitive frameworks or schemas (Piaget, 1977). Schemas are mental representations, which provide a way of organising knowledge (Cooper, 2011). Schemas are subject to change as the child matures and gains new experiences through their actions in the world. (Morgan, 2010). I found this learning theory very useful as it furthered my current understanding of the learning theory. It helped me understand that Child 1 did understand the vocabulary of spine. Firstly, Child 1 did not relate the ‘spine’ to the ‘backbone’ which alerted me about their current …show more content…
Vygotsky recognised Piaget’s claim that learners respond, not to external stimuli, but to their interpretation of those stimuli (Cremlin and Arthur, 2014). However, Vygotsky argued that constructivists such as Piaget had disregarded the social nature of languages therefore, he claimed they had failed to understand that learning is a collaborative process. Bruner (1966) however, believed that anything can be taught to any child, providing it is taught in a way that is meaningful to them. Contrary, to Vygotsky’s central theory is the ‘Zone of Proximal’ Development (ZPD), the more experienced or capable learner can support and interact with less experienced or capable others (Barnes, 2011). The more knowledgeable/capable child ‘scaffolds’ the less knowledgeable/ capable other, gradually removing until he/she becomes fully competent (Morgan, 2010). I observed this several times during P.E. Firstly when the teacher aided Child 1 with their balance by holding them (scaffolding), until their confidence grew and they were fully capable on their own and therefore managed the set activity (see appendix 7, page, 25). The second time I witnessed this approach was when Child 4 used their dancing knowledge to help their partner balance on their own; “I helped my friend with tips, I helped them balance by saying look at me as I will stand still”. (see appendix 7-notes page, 28). In both observations, a more capable other