A flashback to Shamu & arguments about grading
Reading the chapter in which Vygotsky details the behavior of apes from Kohler and Buhler's perspectives made me flash back to the self-efficacy class where we were discussing Shamu and operant conditioning. The arguments made within the chapter discussing how the inherent instincts of animals usually guide their behavior made me think about Shamu and the operant conditioning used to train similar animals that we had some very intense discussions about last semester. The take away from those classes basically called for the adoption of pedagogy within classrooms that heightened intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic reward. I began to relate this to the notion that complex behaviors in animals are related to things within their visual field. They are adaptive. A chicken will show a "self-efficacy" (if you may) to squeeze through a tiny hole because it is the problem posed to it at that point of time. While apes will not show hyperkinesis to solve their problems, the source of their motivation to do certain things is extrinsic. It is not based in the development of society so far. Culture does not influence the desire that an ape has for food. However, the highly developed mind of an anthropoid does allow it to sit down quietly to reflect over how to solve problems.
When we look at this template of thinking and try to contrast it to those that humans possess, the differences arise when we look at the social nature of humans, and how they assimilate things from cultural symbols around them. While apes will draw with dye made from berries, they do not see meaning in the symbols they make. The motivation that guides them to do so is to basically make use of what is available to them in some way that allows them to occupy their time, rather than invoke "happiness" or "knowledge". With humans, if we look at things like art-making, writing or any creative process, the social context guides their work. It can motivate them to have a voice. The culture and the symbols that we have created as a race propel us to move beyond mere conditioning to something based on a deeper drive that heightens our intelligence.
I'm presenting on grading this week, and I think that that has made me think a little bit deeper about that in terms of Vygotsky. Inherently, if we look at it, grading is an extrinsic reward. The whole theoretical scope of evaluation is based in behaviorism and conditioning. Grading and punishment are essentially two sides of the same behaviorist coin, and neither can buy very much. But why do we still follow these processes of evaluation even if are steeped in practices that have been discounted through the finding by decades approach that we often take towards research? The answer may lie in how the forces of economic and social production in society are tied to education. We were just discussing merit pay last week in Dr. Anderman's class, and I think that this notion is tied to the way we evaluate our students inseparably. When we are able to uncouple economic forces from the educative process to make it an "open process", I think that the hopes that Vygotsky and Dewey had for our development as a race may just have some room to manifest.
Oh whale, I guess this was called for.
When we look at this template of thinking and try to contrast it to those that humans possess, the differences arise when we look at the social nature of humans, and how they assimilate things from cultural symbols around them. While apes will draw with dye made from berries, they do not see meaning in the symbols they make. The motivation that guides them to do so is to basically make use of what is available to them in some way that allows them to occupy their time, rather than invoke "happiness" or "knowledge". With humans, if we look at things like art-making, writing or any creative process, the social context guides their work. It can motivate them to have a voice. The culture and the symbols that we have created as a race propel us to move beyond mere conditioning to something based on a deeper drive that heightens our intelligence.
The reasons that grading pervades currently is rooted in the economic modes of production within society that are tethered to education.
I'm presenting on grading this week, and I think that that has made me think a little bit deeper about that in terms of Vygotsky. Inherently, if we look at it, grading is an extrinsic reward. The whole theoretical scope of evaluation is based in behaviorism and conditioning. Grading and punishment are essentially two sides of the same behaviorist coin, and neither can buy very much. But why do we still follow these processes of evaluation even if are steeped in practices that have been discounted through the finding by decades approach that we often take towards research? The answer may lie in how the forces of economic and social production in society are tied to education. We were just discussing merit pay last week in Dr. Anderman's class, and I think that this notion is tied to the way we evaluate our students inseparably. When we are able to uncouple economic forces from the educative process to make it an "open process", I think that the hopes that Vygotsky and Dewey had for our development as a race may just have some room to manifest.
Comments
Post a Comment