Month: February 2017

In class we learned four models of development from Piaget, Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner and Erikson. According to Woolfolk, (2014) one develops and constructs knowledge through “physical,” “personal,” “social” and “cognitive development” (p. 46). Woolfolk (2014) continues with that these areas of development entail “changes in the body,” alterations in “an individual’s personality,” modifications “in the way an individual relates to others” and “changes in thinking” (p. 46).

From our class, according to Piaget there are four stages of development: sensorimotor stage, preoperational stage, concrete-operational stage and formal-operational stage. For Piaget’s model, the strengths that we learned in class are that the stages of learning are inexact and not concrete, but they are consistent in development. The limitations are that the stages are very broad and not detailed or specific.

According to Woolfolk (2014) Vygotsky’s key factors in cognitive development are language and “interactions with others” and an emphasis on culture (p. 68). The strengths to Vygotsky’s theory according to Woolfolk (2014) are “highlighting the role of culture and social processes” (p.68). According to Woolfolk (2014) the prominent weakness to Vygotsky’s theory is the lack of detail and specifics to the theory; it is generalized notions (p.68).   Vygotsky’s theory impacts my future teaching by the possibility of having students work in groups to communicate as well as having in-class discussions/critiques of artwork. I will also give student art projects possibly just out of their reach using Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development in order to grow and expand their skills for creating different types of art.

Woolfolk (2014) describes the significance of “context,” “the total situation that surrounds and interacts with an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and actions to shape development and learning” that pertains to Bronfenbrenner’s “Bioecological model” (p. 86). The model shows how relationships and areas of someone’s life interact and affect one another. I will think about this model as a teacher because I believe it is important to realize there are many factors in a student’s life that is beyond their control such as family life and poverty.

Poverty negatively affects a student’s development and learning in many ways. According to Votruba-Drzal, Miller & Coley (2016) “Poverty is associated with children’s early skills” in America “poverty-related disparities in cognitive skill emerge in infancy” (p. 4.) Votruba-Drzal et al. (2016) furthers with “poverty affects key proximal contexts and processes experienced by children and families which in turn affect children” (p. 4). An example Votruba-Drzal et al. (2016) writes is less “language stimulation” happens from “parents, books and toys” (p. 4). According to Kulkarni (2012) poverty can limit the attention a parent is able to give their child due to outside factors such as state of mind, unable to afford a residence or healthy foods, and working multiple jobs. This can affect cognitive development in the adolescent because they need the relationship with the parent (Kulkarni 2016).

According to Woolfolk, Erikson’s theory “emphasizes the emergence of the self, the search for identity, the individual’s relationships with others and the role of culture throughout life” (p. 99).  Erikson’s model has multiple steps in development in age groups. This will impact my future teaching. Ideally I would like to teach high school students who will likely be in the stage of Identity vs. Role Confusion. High school is a time where students are figuring out who they are and I think art class is a great way to express themselves through conceptual art and subjects that are important to them as well has creating enigmatic artworks that pertain to their ideas about themselves and the world around them.

 

References

Kulkarni, Chaya (2012, October 19). Poverty and brain development        [Video            file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i105vkXVok

Votruba-Drzal, E., Miller, P., & Coley, R. L. (2016). Poverty, urbanicity,        and                 children’s  development of early academic skills. Child Development                           Perspectives, 10(1),  3-9. doi:10.1111/cdep.12152

Woolfolk, A. E. (2014). Educational psychology: active learning edition (12^th ed.).        Boston: Pearson.

The relationship between research and teaching in education is collaboration. Pete (2008) states, “research informs practice and policy in the teaching and learning” (para 4). As we discussed in class, researchers can interview teachers. Teachers can read research and can implement the information into their classes. Teachers can also study their own classrooms and use their findings to improve learning. Pete (2008) wrote, “Research should and does influence teaching (and vice versa)” (para. 1).

I can use information literacy by finding research and examining what is important to help in the classroom. In my future career as an educator I will use research to help improve my teaching and find the best ways for learning. I will use information literacy to best distinguish the way to improve my classroom.

I will be certified in teaching art K-12.   I plan on teaching at the high school level. I think homework can be beneficial, but should be limited. I don’t think assigning daily homework is necessary for art because most classes will be workdays for projects with demonstrations throughout the corresponding units. I rarely ever received homework in my high school art classes and most likely will follow a similar plan.

Homework can be beneficial. Xu (2005) found in a survey that roughly “three quarters of the students agreed or strongly agreed that doing homework helped them” (p. 50). Xu (2005) also found that homework was beneficial as a strengthening tool for what they learned in class, “study skills” and “responsibility” (p. 50).  Shumow, Schmidt, & Kackar (2008) found that “motivational aspects of homework experiences such as interest control, and enjoyment were positively related to self esteem” (p. 20). However, Shumow et al. (2008) found that while students see homework as bad they still learn the material (p. 23).

While homework can be beneficial there are consequences from it as well.   According to Galloway, Conner, & Pope (2013) when students completed their homework they “experienced greater behavioral engagement in school but also more academic stress, physical health problems, and lack of balance in their lives” (p. 490). Ohanian (2007) states that teachers might be assigning too much “when the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) finds it necessary to issue guidelines on recommended weights of book bags” (p. 41). Galloway et al. (2013) found that “many students in these upper middle class schools describe schoolwork as dominating their day” (p. 491). Galloway, K., & Pope (2007) found that students with more than a few hours of homework each day led them to “drop out of an activity because of the stress” (p. 28). Galloway et al. (2007) stated “when students spend 6 or 7 hours in school and another 3 or more hours on homework, they face a longer workday than most adults” (p. 29). Galloway et. al. (2007) conclude that there needs to be “a more balance workload” (p. 30).

As a future art teacher I want to make sure my students are learning the concepts, content, and skills in the curriculum. I do value the importance of having a well-rounded life. From the research I know homework can be beneficial to supporting the material learned in class, but too much homework can be unfortunate for student health. I plan to keep in mind the best interests of my students when it comes to learning and making sure that when I do assign homework it is beneficial, a small amount and relevant.

                                                            References

Galloway, M., Conner, J., & Pope, D. (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in              privileged, high-performing high schools. Journal Of Experimental                              Education, 81(4), 490-510. doi:10.1080/00220973.2012.745469

Galloway, M. K., & Pope, D. (2007). Hazardous homework?. Encounter, 20(4), 25               31.

Ohanian, S. (2007). The homework revolution. Encounter, 20(4), 40-43.

Pete. (2008). “Understanding the relationship between research and teaching.”                 Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cee/positions/researchandteaching

Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A., & Kackar, H. (2008). Adolescents’ experience doing                   homework: associations among context, quality of experience, and                           outcomes. School Community Journal, 18(2), 9-27.

Xu, J. (2005). Purposes for doing homework reported by middle and high school               students. Journal Of Educational Research, 99(1), 46-55.                                                 doi:10.3200/JOER.99.1.46-55.