Teaching Trè Learning Project for Dr. McClendon's Human Learning Course

by Lathardus Goggins II

Introduction

For Christmas Lathardus Goggins III (Trè) received an electric train. This was an electric train on which Trè could ride or operate remotely. Once the train was set up, we sat Trè on the train and coached him to press the go button. When the train jerked, Trè was frighten and wanted nothing more to do with the train. Various family members tried to reassure Trè and coax him back on the train. However, nothing seemed to work. Eventually, the train was given to Trè's "little" cousin, who is eight months his junior. To replace the train I bought Trè an electric four wheel riding cycle. This proved to problematic. Soon as Trè heard the electric motor, he responded much in the same way as he did with the train. He was simply afraid. He had transferred his fear of the train to the cycle.

Literature Review

There are many theories on how humans learn. However, I will briefly discuss conditioning, Piaget, Vygotsky, and social learning.

The operant learning theory put forth by Skinner (1953) argues that humans will repeat responses that lead to favorable/pleasurable outcomes and suppress or avoid responses that lead to unfavorable/unpleasurable outcomes. Thus, by controlling the consequence of an act one can control the probability of a given response. In this theory, learning is a passive reactive response to perceived positive and negative consequences. These positive and negative consequences Skinner define as reinforcers and punishment, respectively.

According to O'leary and Drabman (1981), the basic ingredients of a token reinforcement program are:

1. A set of instructions to the class about the behaviors that will be rewarded [defining what is valued].

2. A means of making potentially reinforcing stimulus [defining how to perpetuate what is valued].

3. A set of rules governing the exchange of tokens for back-up reinforcers, such as prizes and/or opportunities to engage in special activities [defining and managing the value of the token].

O'Leary and Drabman found that token reinforcement programs can produce a variety of responses- some desirable and others not. Token programs foster complex interactions between a myriad of values and interpretations. Also that desirable behaviors manifested in a token program were often generalized to other situations.

In order to achieve generalization, O'Leary and Drabman make ten suggestions:

1. Provide a good academic program

2. Give children the expectation that they are capable of doing well by exaggerating excitement when they succeed and pointing out that if they work hard they can succeed.

3. Have the children aid in the selection of the behaviors to be reinforced.

4. Teach the children to evaluate their own behavior.

5. Teach the children that academic achievement will "pay off."

6. Involve the parents.

7. Withdraw the token and backup reinforcers gradually and other natural reinforcers existing within the classroom setting, such as privileges.

8. Reinforce the children in a variety of situations and reduce the discrimination between reinforced and nonreinforced situations.

9. Prepare teachers in the regular class to praise and shape the children's behavior.

10. To view the school system as a large-scale token system with the distribution of token and backup reinforcers extending from the school board to the superintendent, to the principal, to the teacher, and to the children.

Token reinforcement programs are definitely powerful tools to encourage motivation.

Piaget's cognitive development theory contends that learning is an active process of building cognitive schemes. The learner starts with simple schemes and constructs more complex schemes as he or she encounters their environment through various experiences. Schemes are the cognitive structures consisting of organized patterns of thought and action, which explain or cope with an experience. Piaget contends that schemes are constructed and maintained by

"our" experiences with the environment. This theory assumes that the learner is an active builder of "meaning." Each experience will be interpreted with the existing scheme, assimilation or prompt the need to modify the existing scheme to accommodate the new interpretations.

Piaget also believes that learning is an age relate developmental process, which he organized into four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. Piaget argues that humans progress sequentially through each stage from sensorimotor to formal operational. Piaget acknowledges that progression through each stage is not mutually exclusive. However, it is highly unlikely that a child in the sensorimotor stage will exhibit formal operational schemes. Therefore, when working with a child Trè's age (18 months) one would not expect formal reasoning or operative schemes. It is more

probable Trè would use figurative schemes, which attempt to symbolize physical properties of "reality."

Vygotsky's theory of learning also maintains that the learner is an active participant the constructing of knowledge/meaning. Vygotsky also believes that meaning was best constructed in cohort with another (peer teacher, parent). Vygotsky maintains that a student can learn a certain amount of information of their own, and there is an amount of information that can be learned with the assistance of a teacher. What the student learns without help represents the lower and of the low of proximal development. the ZPD is the gap between what the student can learn on their own and what the student can learn with help. To Vygotsky it is the only method to reach high level thinking. According to Vygotsky, the social context has an influence on how and what we think. Culture provides or at least shapes many of the lenses by which we view the world. Therefore, learning can not be separate from its social/cultural context. Not only does Vygotsky suggest that learning is socio-cultural specific, but learning can be domain specific.

Vygotsky divides cognitive functioning into two basic groups; lower and higher. Lower cognitive functions include reactive attention associate memory, and sensory motor thought. Vygotsky believes these are innate biological function. Higher cognitive functioning consist of the maintain and development of cultural tools/heritage or collective cultural wisdom. Though their forms very from culture to culture these tools generally fit into categories: the ability to focus attention, deliberate memory, purpose and symbolic thought.

Central to Vygotsky's theory is the role of language. According to Vygotsky, language is most important of the cultural tools, because language is the mechanism for thinking and the means by which cultural heritage is passed

from one generation to the next. Speech then becomes the expression of ideas and thoughts. Therefore, it is used when working with others. Thus, allowing ZPD. According to Vygotsky, language is also used to organized one's own thoughts. Because of the use of language to organize, recall, reconstruct, and listen to others before the actual development occurs, Vygotsky believes that learning can lead to development.

According to Bandura's social learning theory the capacity to use symbols and engage in firm and intentional actions is one of cognitive factors which influence learning. It is through symbols one will translate observations into internal models that can guide future actions and can be used to formulate possible course of action before actual performance (P540 Bandura Group, 1996). Like Vygotsky, Bandura suggests that learning can precede development. Bandura divides learning and performance into separate events. Learning is the formation of internal symbolic representation in the form of verbal and/or visual codes. Performance is the act that was guided by such codes.

Social learning theory views human as cognitive beings, actively constructing meaning, who's behavior is affected by what they believe will happen (Shaffer, 1993). Where behaviorist see a direct relationship between environment and behavior and individual cognitive theorist recognize focus on the relationship between learner and behavior, Bandura suggests there is a triadic reciprocal relationships formed between the perceptions of the learner, environment, and the behavior itself. Social learning theory acknowledges the influence the environment (stimuli and responses) has on learning, but also recognizes that internal interpretation (symbolic codes and models) intervene between stimuli and responses.

Bandura contends that through observation the learner forms meaning which will: 1. serve as a social prompt to initiate similar behavior in others; 2. strengthen or weaken internal models used for performance of particular behaviors; and 3. construct new symbolic representations. Bandura suggests there are three stimuli that trigger this process: 1. live models, 2. symbolic models, and verbal descriptions or instructions. However, the success of the models to stimulate to "making meaning" hinges upon the learner's perceived relevance and credibility of the model. Also, the learner's perception of the satisfaction gained by the modeled behavior. Bandura has identified three reinforcers of performance. These are direct, vicarious, and self reinforcement. Direct reinforcement would be consequences for engaging in modeled behavior that are experienced directly by the learner. Vicarious reinforcement would be the observed consequences to behavior of a model. Self reinforcement would be the interpretations generated by one's self about one's own behavior.

The literature on learning theories does not provide a clear "best" approach. However, one theme that seems to be consistent through the various theories is the need to have language, an agreed upon symbols with understood meaning (Sebeok, 1994). Literature on learning implicitly or explicitly suggest that agreed meaning must be established. Without the use of language obviously one has trouble communicating. Particularly as it is often suggested/implied, language is equivalent to speech. Though many theories assume common language between teacher and learner, establishing language is fundamental to the learning process. With language central to arguably all theories, it is safe to assume that higher learning (meaning making) is a social process.

Methodology

The methodology I will use to teach Trè is theoretically grounded in the social learning theory. I will first assess where Trè is as a learner, i.e. is he physical and mentally capable of learning how to ride the bike. To do this I would do observations as with other related activities. Also I must assess my validity as a model for Trè. Then we must establish language, something that both Trè and I can use to communicate with one another, in terms of instructions and help. This language will be based upon past shared experience. I will model how to ride a bike, and use Vygotsky's zone proximal development to coach Trè through his development zone. Also, I will use positive direct reinforcement to encourage Trè with "that-a-boy's," pats on the back, and those kind of encouragement.

I speculate that he will build upon the information so that he can ride a bike.

Results

Through observation I assessed that Trè was capable of learning how to ride the bike. Trè learned to ride other similar vehicles. Though these vehicles were not electric, they share many of the basic concepts that would need to be applied to riding an electric vehicle.

I assessed that I was a relevant and creditable model for Trè. He has mimicked other behavior I have displayed. In one situation, Trè would not touch three masks. Trè acted as if he was scared of the masks. Though his grandmother tried to reassure him and touch the mask to show "there was nothing to be afraid of," Trè behavior did not change. However, when I touched the mask, Trè stopped crying and touch the mask and has not displayed any fear of them since.

Once we (Trè and I) sat down to learn how to ride the bike, we had to established language. This started by pushing buttons on a toy cars. We established the concept of "push the button." Next after pushing the button, I would push car across the room and say "go." Eventually, Trè would mimic me and shortly thereafter we establish the concept of "go." He said "go" for the first time. I also used gestures for "want" and "come here" that mimic what Trè uses when reaching for something. Intermittently I would sit on the bike and push the button and go. After while, Trè sat on the bike I said "push the button and go." He did so shortly then stop, got off, and pushed the bike. When I tried to put Trè on the bike he did not want to continue. However, after about 30 minutes of playing with the cars. I thought we tried long enough, three hours, and decided to ended for the day. When I got up and went into the other room, Trè got on the bike and rode.

Discussion

Trè clearly exhibited what Bandura had argued. Trè learned to ride the bike through observation and then without coaxing performed that act of riding at a later time. Also, this process stressed the importance of establishing language. "Push the button" and "go" prove to be important concepts in process. I could not assume we spoke the same language- the same meanings for the same symbols. It was necessary to establish accepted meanings. By making language transmission a deliberate act, Trè's learning was facilitated.

Since Trè has learned to ride the bike, he has not exhibited any fear of the bike. He has even transferred what was to other domains. Two weeks after he learned to ride the bike, Trè walked up to a neighbors electric Barbie jeep,

gestured that he wanted the jeep and said "go." Trè climbed in the jeep. I pointed to the pedal and said "push," and Trè went.

Implications

Early cognitive theorist had problems with young infants, because they used speech as evidence of knowledge construction. With a child who has not yet developed speech at a level in which can be understood. The assumption was that they have not developed cognitively. For infants this very well may be a faulty assumption. Given research on brain development it appears that the brain is very active long before a child learns how to speak.

Unlike before when cognitive theorist had to depend upon speech particularly into the window of a child's brain, now with MRI's and these kinds of technologies researchers can actually see the brain think and work. This has led to a number of very interesting findings. We see that the brain in the first few years is a dynamic and highly organized, highly adaptive, well structured organism, that in the first year grows 3 fold. Also brain development research has suggested that there are particular windows of opportunity for learning, that children are without the proper environmental stimulus, certain connections would not be made. Researchers have actually looked at the brain of a child in a rich environment as compared to a child in a deprived environment. The brain of the rich environment is heavier, has more connections, and has more volume than that of a child in a deprived environment. The latest research maintains that children are naturally active, curious and shapers of their environment. Making connections between various forms of information even at biological level not just cognitively.

Biology, also addresses the notion of when a child can speak, the larynx is positioned in the throat before the age of two to allow the child to drink and breath at the same time. Thus suckle and not asphyxiate. The position of the larynx does not allow for the formation of words as we understand them. So the babbling noise that the child makes should not necessarily be interpreted as being unable to form words cognitively. Around the age of two the larynx moves down into the throat which put the larynx in a position that will allow for the formation of words and use of sounds that are more consistent with adult like speech. By expanding the definition of language to encompass more than just the concept of speech and organized speech patterns, and see the use of signs and as a means of language. We see better the cognitive schemes of children.

The question becomes just because a child does not use sounds as an adult does not necessarily mean that they are not developing cognitively? There are a number of studies which suggest that infants are much more cognitively sophisticated than many researchers have given them credit. Specifically when we expand language to represent gestures, certain sounds beyond what we are accustomed. We can begin to see that there is structure to thought there and deliberate actions on behalf of the infant or young child. As educators and parents, we must take the time to establish meanings with students/children and not assume that untaught meanings are known. This requires educators and parents to examine what is known about the student/child and how we come to know it (see appendix).

Vygotsky does touch on some of this in his work Thought and Language which is somewhat of a misnomer because the actual Russian word that he used is Thought and Speech again the emphasis on the ability to make sounds as an adult. He says in Thought and Speech that thought and speech are not

connected nor primarily bound together. They are developed independently and that there is not consistent correlation between them. Vygotsky based this on some study of apes. Vygotsky notes that before the age of 2 a development of thought and speech are separate they begin to join at 2 years and initiate a new form. The social environment is important to this development. Though Vygotsky recognizes that the separation between thought and speech he also goes to conclude that mastery of speech is necessary for logic, and moving to the higher levels of thinking. Again when we expand language beyond recognizable speech we begin to see that infants are more cognitively sophisticated then we probably give them credit for. Research on brain development also suggest / supports these concepts.

Also research on the brain has suggested that there are various parts to the brain and various functions not only just in terms of analyzing sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, but in terms of how we think and what we think. One of our first introductions to this is the concept of right brain left brain, Left brain being more analytical right brain being more imaginative. But we also know there is a difference between the center part of the brain and the outer part of the brain. The center part, the medulla, which is the area where strong emotions, fear, factors, pleasure are controlled. It is the part of the human brain that is most related to higher forms of animals particularly mammals. It has ramifications, as we understand particularly behaviorism was then based upon research done with primarily mammals (Bandura 1977, 1986). One could easily conclude since the research was done with animals, with similar brain structure with as the medulla, behavioralist strategies teach to this part of the brain. Another part of the brain that is relatively unique to humans is the cerebral cortex. This is the part of the brain that is responsible for organizing, creating meaning , synthesizing

information between various parts/sensors. It is the part which for all practical purposes meaning is constructed. It is not a far jump then to assume that cognitive theories /strategies teach to the cerebral cortex.

As new research on the brain continues it forces educators and parents to better know the child.

Appendix A

Lathardus Goggins III (Trè)

My Symbolic Son:

The Packing of a Smile

by

Lathardus Goggins II

EDPF 89095: Semiotics in Education

Dr. Linda Rogers

This paper is an attempt to examine how I know my son Trè. He is new to this world, only seven months old. However, I can't imagine my life without him. How did this happen? I struggle to make sense of jesters, babbles, coo's and cries. It is almost over whelming as soon as I make sense of one, he does something new, or a recently published study challenges the meaning I made. The focus of this paper is Trè's smile; how we (family, friends and acquaintances)

"packed" meaning into the smile and respond to the meaning we made. Thus, affecting Trè's understanding of himself- the person I am getting to know. I choose a smile because it is the one sign that we use most to gauge Trè's actions and personality.

My first knowing of Trè was Dietra's announcement of "our" being pregnant. Our being pregnant was only in concept. Baby for me was a theoretical concept. Neutral, I had no preference on boy or girl. I could not feel the baby. I only could experience the baby vicariously through Dietra. As my wife shared her experiences with the baby I was able to draw assumptions. Other people drew assumptions based on the experiences as well: if you are "really sick" at the beginning of the pregnancy means that you're going to have a boy, if baby boys are attracted to you that means that you are having a girl, how you are carrying the baby meant something. The funny thing was for every meaning for "something" we were told somebody else would provide another interpretation.

My first time "really" knowing Trè was at five months, the sonagram. We learned that: the baby was a boy; he was healthy; and he was big. Shortly there after, his movements became more noticeable. I could see that he was active. I definitely appreciated his activity more than Dietra did. Of course, people had interpretations about things she was feeling- "he's going to be a handful;"" you're having a boy, I feel sorry for you;" "you're lucky, boys are easier to raise than girls."

The first time Dietra and I had to negotiate our interpretations of "baby boy" was in the designing of "Trè's room." The room was painted bold forest green, which I thought was fine. Dietra wanted something softer (something babyish). I didn't want anything blue (of course definitely not pink). Dietra wanted powder blue. I didn't want to perpetuate girl and boy stereotypes. We chose mint green.

Trè was born October 4, 1995. By this time we had been bombarded with all kinds of interpretations and expectation about what Trè will be. At 5:00 p.m. Trè was born, eyes wide open and 8lbs.. Nurses commented that "He is so alert!" Trè seemed to recognize his parents' voices. Eight pounds meant he was healthy. When he tried to suckle, it meant he "knew" what to do. Then he went to sleep and smiled.

The Smile

There is a saying, "When a baby smiles in his sleep, means that angel is whispering in his ear." Of course we interpreted Trè's smiling as a good thing. We would wait for it to happen. At about three days old, Trè began to "half smile" while he was awake, this was even better than smiling while he was asleep. Smiling while he was awake had to mean he was expressing happiness and contentment.

Next to Trè being alert, the smile is what is commented about the most. Being alert does not necessarily require social interaction. However, a smile is typically associated with a social activity. Therefore, it has been the smile which people have responded to the most.

The smile means happy, or does it? According to a recent study the smile is linked to the amount of activity in the front right quarter of the brain. Initially a smile is primarily a biological function. Also, suggested was the potential for happiness, as indicated by the smile, is biologically influenced. It seems that the smile is an universal human sign to show nonthreatening behavior. For a baby it means that there is a certain level of comfort and safety. But how does the baby know this, and what are the affects of this sign of "nonthreatening behavior?"

The Packing of a Smile: "Trè is such a happy baby"

We have assigned values to Trè's smile. These values are assigned based on the experience of the person creating the meaning and the conditions in which Trè smiles. As we (family, friends and associates) share interpretations of the smile, each of us begins to build a multidimensional social construct of Trè. For example consider the following:

When I walk into the same room as Trè, he looks at me and smiles.

My Interpretation

· Trè recognizes me, and is happy to see me.

· He feels protected, loved and comforted.

· His happiness validates my fathering techniques.

Other's Interpretation

· Trè recognizes me, and is happy to see me.

· Trè feels good about "daddy"

· I must spend time with Trè and that time is "good"

· I am a good father

It is these layers of interpretation that govern our responses to Trè and subsequently his response to "us." To the point which "the smile" becomes much more than a chemical reaction in the front right quarter of the brain and the corresponding muscular twitch. The layers of interpretation surrounding the smile can become so dense and connected to so many other things it begs the question

"what came first the chicken or the egg?" Does Trè respond to our interpretations or do we form interpretations base on Trè's responses? A study of "baby signs" suggest that infants create signs to communicate their ideas long before they talk- a motor skill rather than a cognitive one. However, if the sign does not produce the desired results the infant will try a new one. Trè has the smile which invites others to interact with him. The interaction provides opportunities for practicing motor, cognitive and social skills. Or, does Trè practicing his cognitive, social and motor skills (the smile) invite us to interact with him. Has Trè molded me into the father I am or have I molded Trè into the son I expected. The truth is both. These interactions also foster the need for expression and self discovery on both our parts.

One of the basic principles of the African centered rites of passage process is that every child has the build in capacity to succeed; that every child has innate characteristics to fulfill his/her life's purpose. Thus, a baby is not an empty concept waiting to be shaped into whatever the environment dictates. However, another principle state that when the village has not provided appropriate content, the child will be "wrecked." Suggesting that youth can not effectively teach themselves to be adults. There an interplay between what child and adults bring to each situation to foster "proper" development. So we depend on signs to read each other. However, we should be cautious in our reading of each other. I have

interpreted Trè's smile as a validation of my fathering techniques. If I allow Trè's smile to be an over determined sign of my "fathering," what kind of father would I be? Are there not times in which being a "good" father requires me to do things that may not bring a smile? Of course.

Trè is multidimensional ever developing person dense with meanings, potential and expectations. I have gotten to know Trè through a dialogue of signs that started with a smile.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. V. Beyond the individual-social antimony in discussion of Piaget and Vygotsky. Available: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/virtual/colevyg.htm

Hamilton, R. & Ghatala, E. (1994). Learning and instruction. New York: McGraw Hill

O'leary and Drabman (1971), Token reinforcement programs in the classroom. Psychological Bulletin, 75, pp 379-398.

P540 Bandura Group (1996). Overview of Bandura's theory: Social learning theory. Available: http://education.indiana.edu/cep/courses/p540/bandsc.html

Sebeok, T. (1993). Signs: An introduction to semiotics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Shaffer, D. (1993). Developmental psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: McMillian.

Tharpe, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Young, M. E. (1996). Early child development: Investing in the future. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.