How do we know what we know? Why do we believe? How do we know what we know? Why do we believe? Piaget to King & Kitchener.

Download How do we know what we know? Why do we believe? How do we know what we know? Why do we believe? Piaget to King & Kitchener.

Post on 27-Dec-2015

215 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>Piaget to King &amp; KitchenerHow do we know what we know?Why do we believe?</p></li><li><p>Piagets stages of DevelopmentAssimilation is what you do when you fit new information into your present knowledge and beliefs (schemas)Accommodation is the modification of existing schema in response to new knowledge or experience..Equilibration - the term for the process of maintaining balance between our environment and the mental structures we use to represent that environment.</p><p>StageMajor AccomplishmentsSensorimotor (0-2)Object permanenceBeginning of capacity to use mental images and symbolsPreoperational (2-7)Accelerated use of symbols and languageConcrete operations (7-12)Understanding of conservationUnderstanding of identityUnderstanding of serial orderingFormal operations (12-)Abstract reasoningAbility to compare and classify ideas.</p></li><li><p>Criticisms of PiagetThe changes from one stage to another are neither as clear cut nor as sweeping as Piaget implied.Children can understand far more than Piaget gave them credit for.Preschoolers are not as egocentric as Piaget thought.</p></li><li><p>Beyond PiagetPiagets theory ends at 12+ years of age. Piagets theory fails to address higher order thinking skills.King, K.M. and Kitchener, K.S. (1994) . Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults Pre-Reflective Thinking </p></li><li><p>Stages of Pre-Reflective ThinkingStage 1 Knowledge is assumed to exist absolutely and concretely; it is not understood as an abstraction. It can be obtained with certainty by direct observation. "I know what I have seen." Stage 2 Knowledge is assumed to be absolutely certain or certain but not immediately available. Knowledge can be obtained directly through the senses (as in direct observation) or via authority figures. "If it is on the news, it has to be true." Stage 3 Knowledge is assumed to be absolutely certain or temporarily uncertain. In areas of temporary uncertainty, only personal beliefs can be known until absolute knowledge is obtained. In areas of absolute certainty, knowledge is obtained from authorities. "When there is evidence that people can give to convince everybody one way or another, then it will be knowledge, until then, it's just a guess." </p></li><li><p>Quasi-Reflective ThinkingStage 4 Knowledge is uncertain and knowledge claims are idiosyncratic to the individual since situational variables (such as incorrect reporting of data, data lost over time, or disparities in access to information) dictate that knowing always involves an element of ambiguity. "I'd be more inclined to believe evolution if they had proof .It's just like the pyramids: I don't think we'll ever know. Who are you going to ask? No one was there." Stage 5 Knowledge is contextual and subjective since it is filtered through a person's perceptions and criteria for judgment. Only interpretations of evidence, events, or issues may be known. "People think differently and so they attack the problem differently. Other theories could be as true as my own, but based on different evidence." </p></li><li><p>Reflexive ThinkingStage 6 Knowledge is constructed into individual conclusions about ill-structured problems on the basis of information from a variety of sources. Interpretations that are based on evaluations of evidence across contexts and on the evaluated opinions of reputable others can be known."It's very difficult in this life to be sure. There are degrees of sureness. You come to a point at which you are sure enough for a personal stance on the issue."Stage 7 Knowledge is the outcome of a process of reasonable inquiry in which solutions to ill-structured problems are constructed. The adequacy of those solutions is evaluated in terms of what is most reasonable or probable according to the current evidence, and it is reevaluated when relevant new evidence, perspectives, or tools of inquiry become available. "One can judge an argument by how well thought-out the positions are, what kinds of reasoning and evidence are used to support it, and how consistent the way one argues on this topic is as compared with other topics." </p></li><li><p>Self-EfficacyIn order for either Piagets theory or Kings theory to apply there needs to be a level of self-efficacy.Sources of Self-Efficacy:Mastery ExperiencesVicarious experiencesSocial Persuasion (the most difficlult and least effective)</p></li><li><p>Efficacy-Activated ProcessesThere are four major psychological processes through which self-beliefs affect functioning.Cognitive Processes - thought and forethought.Motivational Processes - attribution theorycausal - attribution theoryoutcome expectancies - expectancy-value theorycognized goals - goal theory</p></li><li><p>Efficacy-Activated ProcessesAffective Processes - processes regulating emotional states and eliciting emotional reactions.</p><p>Selection Processes - the types of activities we choose are influenced by our personal sense of efficacy.</p></li><li><p>Attribution TheoryAttributions - inferences we make about the causes of behavior.</p><p>StabilityLocusControlThe causes of outcomes are stable (fixed across situations and over time) or unstable (variable over situations and over time)The causes of outcomes are internal (due to the individual) or external (due to forces outside the individual)The causes of outcomes are controllable (within the individuals control) or uncontrollable (beyond the individuals control)</p></li><li><p>Attribution TheoryAssumptions: 1. Individuals are motivated by a goal of understanding and mastering the environment and themselves.2. Individuals try to understand the causal determinants of their own behavior as well as the behavior of others.Pages 193-195 Glassman</p><p>LocusInternalExternalControllableUncontrollableControllableUncontrollableStableLong-Term Effort/Self-handicappingAbility/AptitudeTeacher bias/FavoritismDifficulty of task, activity, or courseUnstableSkills/Knowledge/Situational EffortHealth/MoodReceiving helpLuck/Chance</p></li><li><p>Typical AttributionsThese are typical academic attributions.AttributionLocus, Stability, Control</p><p>Aptitude/ AbilityI got a good grade because Im smart.I failed because Im dumb.stable, internal, uncontrollableLong Term EffortI got a good grade because I always work hard.I failed because I never try.stable, internal, controllableSituational EffortI got an A because I worked hard on the project.I failed because I didnt try this time.unstable, internal, controllableLuckI got a good grade because I was lucky.I failed because I had bad luck.unstable, external, uncontrollableMoodI got a good grade because I felt great that day.I failed because I had a bad day.unstable, internal, uncontrollableTask DifficultyI got a good grade because the exam was easy.I failed because it was hard.unstable, external, uncontrollableTeacher biasI got a good grade because the teacher likes me.I failed because Mr. Young hates me.stable, external, controllableHelp from othersI got a good grade because someone helped me.I failed because no one would help me.unstable, external, controllable</p></li><li><p>Attribution ErrorsStudies by Miller 1984, Weisz et al. 1984 indicate there is a cultural difference its not a trait common to all.</p><p>AttributionStudent PerspectiveTeacher PerspectiveFundamental Attribution Error.Attributing the behavior of others to a trait.Student perceives teacher behavior as function of disposition.Mr. Young is always mean.Mr. Jones is prejudiced.Teacher perceives student behavior as function of disposition.Petula is lazy. She never works.Susan has no aptitude for science..Self-serving biasAccepting personal responsibility for success; denying responsibility for failure.Student perceives success is due to behavior; failure is due to other factors.I am doing well in Math because I am good at it, I am failing English because Mrs. Whomever is impossible to understand. Teacher perceives their success is due to their behavior but failure is other factors.I worked hard and really put together a great unit on photosynthesis, but theres just no way to motivate most of those kids.</p></li><li><p>Expectancy-Value TheoryBehavior is a function of the expectancies a person has the value of the goal one is working toward.</p><p>When more than one behavior is possible the behavior chosen will be the one with the largest combination of expected success and value.B = f(E V)Social behaviors, achievement motivation and work motivation.</p></li><li><p>Goal TheoryGoal theory is an extension of attribution theory. Students pursue goals and those goals are associated with certain behaviors and beliefs.Mastery oriented students want to increase their knowledge and competence. They are intrinsically motivated.Performance motivated students believe ability is the cause of success. Intelligence is viewed as a fixed trait. They use fewer strategies and attribute success to uncontrollable factors.</p><p>Stage 1 - The Sensorimotor Stage - The infant learns through concrete actions: looking, touching, hearing, putting things in the mouth sucking grasping etc. The major accomplishment for this stage is object permanence</p><p>Stage 2 - The Pre-Operational Stage - the use of symbols and language increases. A 2 year old is able to pretend. According to Piaget although children can think they cannot reason and cannot understand abstract principles or cause and effect. The missing abilities are operations by which he meant reversible actions the child performs in the mind. Piaget also thought (mistakenly) that children in the pre-operational stage are unable to take another persons point of view. He felt their thinking was egocentric. Pre-operational children cannot grasp the concept of conservation. </p><p>Stage 3 - The Concrete Operations Stage (7-12) - Childrens thinking is still grounded in concrete experiences an concepts, rather then in abstractions or logical deductions. The nature and quality of their thought processes change significantly. They begin to understand conservation, reversibility and cause and effect.They learn mental operations (addition, subtractions etc) and they learn to categorize things (oaks are trees)</p><p>Stage 4 - The Formal Operations Stage (Age 12 +) Teenagers become capable of abstract reasoning. They understand that ideas can be compared and classified, just as objects can. 1. Cognitive abilities develop in overlapping waves rather then discrete steps. At any stage a child may use several strategies to solve a problem. The childs reasoning ability depends on circumstances.</p><p>2. Taking advantage of the fact that infants look longer at novel or surprising events than familiar ones,psychologists have been able to test what babies know. Babies as young as 21/2 to 31/2 months are aware that objects continue to exist even when masked by other objects. Reasoning ability advances much faster than Piaget thought. At 21/2 to 3 years children can reason out that a miniture of a room resembles the actual room.</p><p>3. Most 3 and 4-year olds can take another persons perspective. When a 4 year old plays with a 2 year old he or she adjusts behavior to accommodate the younger persons limits. This shift in perspective-taking is part of a broader change in how the child understands appearance and reality. 2 and 3 year olds have difficulty with judge by appearance - if you put a dog mask on a cat they will call the cat a dog. By 5 years of age they knowit is still a cat. They are developing a theory of mind - which is a system of beliefs about how their own and other peoples minds work and how others are affected by their beliefs.</p><p>Continuity versus Discontinuity - the argument that development occurs in specific stages or as a continual process. Piaget believed it occurred in specific stages.</p><p>Domain-general model - a theory which attempts to account for many aspects of behavior in terms of a single set of principles.</p><p>Domain-specific model - a theory which focuses on only a single aspect of behavior and believes that other aspects of cognitive behavior require other theoretical positions.</p><p>Pre-Reflective Thinking (Stages 1, 2, and 3) </p><p>Stage I </p><p>View of knowledge :Knowledge is assumed to exist absolutely and concretely; it is not understood as an abstraction. It can be obtained with certainty by direct observation. Concept of justification: Beliefs need no justification since there is assumed to be an absolute correspondence between what is believed to be true and what is true. Alternate beliefs are not perceived. </p><p>"I know what I have seen." </p><p>Stage 2 </p><p>View of knowledge: Knowledge is assumed to be absolutely certain or certain but not immediately available. Knowledge can be obtained directly through the senses (as in direct observation) or via authority figures. Concept of justification: Beliefs are unexamined and unjustified or justified by their correspondence with the beliefs of an authority figure (such as a teacher or parent). Most issues are assumed to have a right answer, so there is little or no conflict in making decisions about disputed issues. </p><p>"If it is on the news, it has to be true." </p><p>Stage 3 </p><p>View of knowledge: Knowledge is assumed to be absolutely certain or temporarily uncertain. In areas of temporary uncertainty, only personal beliefs can be known until absolute knowledge is obtained. In areas of absolute certainty, knowledge is obtained from authorities. Concept of justification: In areas in which certain answers exist, beliefs are justified by reference to authorities' views. In areas in which answers do not exist, beliefs are defended as personal opinion since the link between evidence and beliefs is unclear. </p><p>"When there is evidence that people can give to convince everybody one way or another, then it will be knowledge, until then, it's just a guess." </p><p>Quasi-Reflective Thinking (Stages 4 and 5) </p><p>Stage 4 </p><p>View of knowledge: Knowledge is uncertain and knowledge claims are idiosyncratic to the individual since situational variables (such as incorrect reporting of data, data lost over time, or disparities in access to information) dictate that knowing always involves an element of ambiguity. Concept of justification: Beliefs are justified by giving reasons and using evidence, but the arguments and choice of evidence are idiosyncratic (for example, choosing evidence that fits an established belief). </p><p>"I'd be more inclined to believe evolution if they had proof .It's just like the pyramids: I don't think we'll ever know. Who are you going to ask? No one was there." </p><p>Stage 5 </p><p>View of knowledge: Knowledge is contextual and subjective since it is filtered through a person's perceptions and criteria for judgment. Only interpretations of evidence, events, or issues may be known. Concept of Justification: Beliefs are justified within a particular context by means of the rules of inquiry for that context and by context-specific interpretations of evidence. Specific beliefs are assumed to be context specific or are balanced against other interpretations, which complicates (and sometimes delays) conclusions. </p><p>"People think differently and so they attack the problem differently. Other theories could be as true as my own, but based on different...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >