Bruner’s Theory (about 15 min)

Jerome Bruner Goal of education is to make learner “as autonomous and self-propelled a thinker” as possible Education occurs via cultural integration Contrasts with ideas of: Transmission of knowledge “Culture-free” knowledge Before addressing specific elements of the video, let’s talk about Bruner and some of his ideas: He argued that the goal of education is to make each learner “as autonomous and self-propelled a thinker as possible” in his own culture Culture is increasingly important, such that it becomes a vehicle for how knowledge is created and used and imparted to others. Education no longer is viewed as a transmission of knowledge, nor is knowledge viewed as something that can be separated from an individual’s culture. Instead, individuals learn information through the filter of their culture and then adapt it for their own purposes. More interested in how individuals understanding meanings rather than retain information. This idea is central to folk psychology, in that how people make and use meanings is wrapped up in the culture beliefs and practices. Thus, similar to situated cognition, he argued that understanding how an individual participates in a culture is important to understanding how that person perceives and understands information related to that culture. Bruner is also the first theorist that we’ve discussed to really talk about motivation. He argued that there is a “golden mean” for motivation, in that you want students to be engaged and invested in a task, but not so much that they can’t step outside of it and reflect on it. Although we are representing his views as a theory of cognitive development, his ideas about education, policy, cognition, and development were all very tightly integrated Folk psychology Focus on creating and understanding meaning “Contextual Revolution” as opposed to the cognitive revolution “Golden mean” in student motivation

Bruner’s Instrumental Conceptualism: Some Basic Assumptions Social and cultural interaction and influences are very important Theory of instruction doesn’t “evolve” out of theory of development – two should go hand in hand Development of thought follows development of semiosis Bruner is best known for his ideas about the steps involved in learning, which he described in terms of how learning was represented – 3 modes of representation. Assumptions underlying this view are: 1. Like Piaget, he believed that social and cultural interaction and influences are very important. He argued that culture shapes the mind, the way individuals think about themselves, and the way individuals think about the environment. linguistic relativity is sort of related to this – Whorf argued that language shapes thought (Eskimos have more words for snow than English, and they tend to think about snow differently) – although the ideas behind linguistic relativity have been disputed, you can see what Bruner meant – how we interact with a culture and a people on a day to day basis shape how we think about it. 2. A theory of instruction doesn’t just evolve out of a theory of cognition or development. Bruner argued that the two should actually go hand in hand. 3. Bruner was not just interested in the development of cognitive abilities, but he was also interested in the development of thought in general. The idea of semiosis comes back here, in that Bruner’s theory follows the sequence of the development of the representational systems for knowledge that children acquire and use to understand their worlds. He argued that this is an active process.

Bruner’s Instrumental Conceptualism: More Assumptions We construct knowledge by relating it to a previously acquired frame of reference Acquisition of knowledge Transformation of knowledge Check for relevance and accuracy of knowledge Cognitive development can be viewed as trajectory from individuals’ need for interaction with stimuli to their interaction with more abstract ideas Understanding or insight occur via perceptual leaps from the incoming stimuli to the underlying ideas or concepts 4. Like schema theory and situated cognition, Bruner argued that it is important to understand an individuals’ frame of reference. That is, he argued that we construct knowledge (note construct – not acquire) by relating it to our previuosly acquired frame of reference. We do this via three almost simultaneous processes: acquisition, transformation, and checks of knowledge 5. Similar to other theorists, Bruner viewed cognitive development as a change in thinking. Instead of viewing it as a qualitative change in thought processes like Piaget, though, he viewed it as a trajectory from an individual needing active manipulation of a stimulus to being able to think more abstractly about a stimulus. Again, this is where semiosis comes in. 6. We talked in the debate about how theories can explain the kind of insight that Kohler observed with his chimps. According to Bruner, insight is a perceptual leap from the incoming stimuli to the underlying ideas of concepts. We tend to think of learning as a continuous trajectory, and within this view, you can think of insight as taking bigger leaps instead of the usual smaller steps involved in learning  

Bruner’s 3 Modes of Representation Enactive Representation = information is represented through action “I can’t tell you, but I can show you.” Iconic Representation = information is represented through images and perceptions E.g., maps, flow-charts, diagrams Symbolic Representation = information is represented in more abstract form Language, mathematics, symbols Bruner’s Theory of Cognitive Development is in terms of 3 Modes of Representation: 1. Enactive Representation = information is represented via actions. Think about the child who can’t really tell you about something without acting it out. Adults do this even with hand gestures, often unconsciously. My advisor in graduate school used to always ask me questions about a particular software program we used – at first I was never able to answer his question without going through the motions in the program myself. 2. Iconic Representation = actions aren’t necessary to represent events (but they can still be useful); individuals in this stage can also represent events through images and perceptions. Individuals at this stage might be able to understand a process by looking at a diagram or a flow-chart. 3. Symbolic Representation = although they may still use actions and images, individuals in this stage may also use more remote abstract features to represent knowledge. We use language, symbols, mathematics, etc. to represent knowledge.

What would represent a shift from using pictures to using symbolism? Were children able to solve the problems at first just by thinking about them? Why or why not? What did physically manipulating the tiles and the balance beam do for learning? Why was this important? At what point were children able to move from the physical act of putting tiles on the balance beam to using pictures of balance beams on their worksheets? What would represent a shift from using pictures to using symbolism? Before specifically stating how the children in the video mapped onto the three stages, let’s first consider some questions with respect to the video: 1. Were children able to solve the problems at first just by thinking about them? Why or why not? 2. What did physically manipulating the tiles and the balance beam do for learning? Why was this important? (Think about Tad, whose “light went on” while he was counting up and thinking about the tiles on the balance beam) 3. At what point were children able to move from the physical act of putting tiles on the balance beam to using the pictures? Was it a clean transition, or did they go back and forth between the balance beam and their worksheets? 4. What would represent a shift from using pictures to using sybolism?

Bruner’s 3 Modes of Representation: Solving Balance Beam Problems Enactive – students actually placed tiles on the balance beams Iconic – students solved problems by drawing pictures of balance beams Symbolic – students could solve the problems mathematically; props were no longer needed As said previously, Bruner believed that a theory of development has to be tightly integrated with a theory of education. As you can see in the some of the answers you just gave to my questions, the children in the video moved through the stages of Bruner’s 3 modes of representation: 1. Enactive Representation = children actively moved tiles around on the balance beam to solve the problems 2. Iconic Representation = children solved balance beam problems on their worksheets and on the blackboard by drawing pictures of the balance beam 3. Symbolic Representation = kept hearing the children and the teacher talk about number sentences – this is the idea that they can solve problems that involve combinations of multiplication and addition problems.

Bruner’s “Bogus Stage Theory” Although development usually proceeds in order, it isn’t necessary Stage sequences are invariant, but are not age dependent Child’s “readiness” determined not by what he knows but by how he thinks Instruction needs to be ready for learners, just as learners need to be ready for instruction Process holds for anyone acquiring new knowledge   Although his theory is technically a stage theory, Bruner called it a “bogus stage theory.” That is, although development usually proceeds in this order, it isn’t always necessary: 1. Individuals need to go through the stages in the learning process, but in contrast with Piaget’s theory, the stages aren’t innate and age-dependent 2. A child’s readiness for a given stage is not so much dependent on what he knows (or the content of his cognitive structures) but by how he thinks – in the video, Suzanne wasn’t really ready to solve the problem on the board by just looking at the picture – she had to keep looking back at the balance beam itself – this also relates to how we should tailor our instruction; we shouldn’t plan lessons that aren’t ready for the children (too far above or below), nor should we put children who don’t have the right knowledge or skills through a certain instructional lesson 3. This process holds for anyone acquiring new knowledge – children or adults -

Back to the video… Did everyone in the group progress at the same rate? Why or why not? Were there clear qualitative shifts from stage to stage? What stage of development in Piaget’s theory do you believe these children were in? Why? How do these assumptions apply to what you saw in the video? 1. Did everyone in the group progress at the same rate? Why or why not? 2. What stage of Piaget’s theory do you believe these children were in? Why? 3. Did you see clear qualitative shifts from one stage (enactive, iconic, symbolic) to another, or did children go back and forth between stages?