The one aspect of Cognitive Theory Basic Assumptions that I am most conflicted over is the assumption that meaning/understanding is not derived directly from our environment but constructed.
I agree with it in the sense that meanings and understand are very dependent on the individual. A nature lover might look at a tree, in the spring, and understand it to be helpful to our atmosphere, but as an individual with a large number of outdoor allergies, I understand a tree to be threat to my sinuses. That sense is something that is constructed by taking separate pieces of information. We both see a living thing, with green leaves and a trunk and maybe flowers. But the nature lover has a piece of information that tells he/she that the tree is helpful to her, because it produces Oxygen and absorbs Carbon Dioxide. However, I have a different piece that tells me that the tree is harmful, because it produces pollen to which I am allergic.
I disagree because I think a lot of the pieces of information we use to construct that knowledge is directly from our environment. For example, child in a low s.e.s. environment may not have the opportunity to go to a beach or see the ocean and the tide. If that child is then asked to construct an understanding of a high tide vs a low tide, it is unlikely that their understanding will be correct if developed at all. Another (probably better) example might be a toddler who has only been exposed to one kind of animal: a cat. Their environment is just cats. So when they see another four legged animal, like a dog, they are likely to understand the dog, not as a dog, but as a cat. However, a toddler who has been exposed to both animals will understand how to distinguish between the two.
So, I have a hard time justifying that basic assumption: "Meanings and understandings are not derived directly from the environment; instead, they are constructed by the learner."
The basic assumption that I agree with most is the one that states "People are selective about what they mentally process and learn." I think this is so true. In one of my classes last semester, we talked about how our brains choose to ignore so much of the stimuli we are presented with on a daily basis. Like, the cars driving by or the fan whirring on the ceiling, or what have you. Even as I sit here, I'm choosing to block out the conversation the girls are having across the room, and the phone that keeps ringing (although I'm not doing a very good job of that one). We only become attuned to novel or distinct stimuli like a fire alarm or our own phone ringing. Additionally, I liked that they distinguished between sensation and perception. That was another class I took last semester. Sensation is the ability to detect a stimuli but perception is the way we interpret that stimuli. (We have a threshold for the former which I think is pretty cool) How many times did we take a class, make an A on the test, but then when asked, at the end of the semester, what did we learn, can't utter a paragraph summary about the content? Probably too many times to count. And as awful as this sounds, how cool is it, that we can control (to an extent) what we can remember and learn? We know next to nothing about how our brain works, but we can tell it to only remember something for long enough to earn us that A and then essentially discard it. I think that's mesmerzing. But I'm off topic.
The other basic assumption, I basically agree with. I'm not particularly engaged by any of them like I was those two.
No comments:
Post a Comment