The Role of Age versus Expertise in Peer Collaboration during Joint Planning.
Ruth T. Duran Mary Gauvain (1993)
Missie Fee
10-26-10
This study looks at development of children’s planning skills during joint planning versus effects of age on expertise. The current research in social developing shows correlation between dominance and social status. Children learn by observing how other people solve problems or by getting assistance from other people with whom they work (230). The study looked at observation learning of the “novice”, guidance by the “expert”, and conflict between partners. The study predicted that learning would be affected by the age of the “expert” partner and the involvement of the “novice”. The study found that the reports supported the hypothesis.
Piaget and Vygotsky did not share the same views on the topic of peer collaboration, but shared a similar interest in the topic. Vygotsky focused on children learning though participation and interaction with more mature or skilled partners to stimulate intellectual growth. Piaget’s perspective was that children will tend to agree with the person who has the most power or knowledge, without participating in the problem solving process. Both Vygotsky and Piaget looked at children learning and developing the thinking process though interacting with objects and people, as well as, children being active participants in their environment.
Children who were 5 and 7 year old were given a pretest task, collaborative task, and posttest task. The children were from 3 elementary schools who served middle income populations. Children were assigned the rank or “novice” or “expert”. Children were identified as an “expert” when they were able to complete the pretest successfully within three or less attempts. Children who took more than three attempts were considered a “novice”. The interactional process was measured by observational learning, guidance by the expert, and conflict. Conflict was defined as disagreement about handling of the task, choice, and arrangement. The amount of time the novice spends observing the expert at the task is observational learning. Physical intervention, positive support, and directions was considered guidance by the expert. Analysis of variance or ANOVA was used to compare the results.
This study supports Vygotsky’s theory that “cognitive development may benefit from opportunities available in social context” (237). The study showed that children learning better when learning with an expert of the same age or an expert who was older. This is interesting when looking at how children will learn from peers when socially interacting across all environments. Mechanics in social interactions can promote or impede cognitive growth. Children have many opportunities for learning, such as play, and will exhibit these behaviors of observational learning and conflict resolution in their natural environments, not just in more structured environments such as school. I am hoping to catch this behavior when observing my niece and nephews naturally occurring though their interactions with other peers.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Gender and Group Process: A Developmental Perspective, Eleanor E Maccoby, (2002)
Gender and Group Process: A Developmental Perspective, Eleanor E Maccoby, (2002)
Missie Fee
10-12-10
How do gender differences in human behavior originate? Gender differences have been studied by physiologists for generations. Typically research has been focused on the individual. Recent study has been focused on children group interactions, socialization within the groups, activity, and gender make up of the group structure. The author of this article explores organization of gender related behaviors and the role of social relationships in development.
The article defines gender identify as the “core element in the developing sense of self” (Maccoby, 2002, p. 200), and the “acquisition of these sex-distinctive characteristics as sex typing” (Maccoby, 2002, p. 200). Research often focuses on why and how the process of sex typing occurs. In earlier research the emphasis on the family and social pressures to shape the child towards personality, interests and “sex-appropriate” behaviors to help strengthen gender identity.
The article discusses that research on the individual have not been successful due to social context, and the connections of these differences to presumed antecedent factors. “Only weak and inconsistent connections have been found between within- family socialization practices and children’s sex-typed behavior (Ruble & Martin, 1998).
Current research looks at interaction process, socialization functions of childhood in social groupings, and how gender is implicated in the formation. In this article the group is taken as the unit of analysis. Children elicit certain behaviors that are not normally in the repertoire of the child when alone while in social groups. The author looks at children choosing same sex playmates, when not monitored by adults, as early as the age of 3. Children’s friendships well into adolescence are also predominantly same sex relationships. Girls tend to split into smaller groupings of 2 or 3 and work towards a joint goal, where as boys tend to be in larger groups that play more organized group games. Playtime with boys tends to be rougher and more competitive. Playtime for girls tends to be reciprocal. Friendships within girls are intimate, where girls share more information about their lives. Friendship with in boys is less intimate and based more upon shared activities. The article further discuses that gender is socially constructed though the nature of the subculture each sex chooses to construct. The more time each sex spent with their own sex, the greater the increase of such behaviors such as activity level and “rough play” with boys increased, and more time with girls lead to decreasing activity level and aggression. New work points values, interests, and sex-typed behaviors being shaped by same sex peers.
Many parents have attempted to make their households gender neutral and have often been “stumped” by their child’s behaviors of still choosing “gender typical” sex-type toys and play. This may answer some of parents questions as to why their “male son who has no toy guns at home, is using his doll as a gun during make believe play”. If I had a child, I would attempt to make my children's toys more gender neutral, so that my child explores many different types of toys and play. It is interesting for me to know, that my child will most likely be drawn to more “sex-appropriate” behaviors while in a group during social interactions with others. As a child, I was often described as a “tom boy” who would prefer to play active games with boys. Was this reinforced socially by the amount of time I spent playing high level activity games with boys? As adults how does this affect us? When I look around the world, I still see predominantly boys hanging out with boys and girls hanging out with girls. Take our ABA classroom for instance; even with the few males who are in the class, most have at least one male sitting beside them in close proximity. Are we all just big kids?
Missie Fee
10-12-10
How do gender differences in human behavior originate? Gender differences have been studied by physiologists for generations. Typically research has been focused on the individual. Recent study has been focused on children group interactions, socialization within the groups, activity, and gender make up of the group structure. The author of this article explores organization of gender related behaviors and the role of social relationships in development.
The article defines gender identify as the “core element in the developing sense of self” (Maccoby, 2002, p. 200), and the “acquisition of these sex-distinctive characteristics as sex typing” (Maccoby, 2002, p. 200). Research often focuses on why and how the process of sex typing occurs. In earlier research the emphasis on the family and social pressures to shape the child towards personality, interests and “sex-appropriate” behaviors to help strengthen gender identity.
The article discusses that research on the individual have not been successful due to social context, and the connections of these differences to presumed antecedent factors. “Only weak and inconsistent connections have been found between within- family socialization practices and children’s sex-typed behavior (Ruble & Martin, 1998).
Current research looks at interaction process, socialization functions of childhood in social groupings, and how gender is implicated in the formation. In this article the group is taken as the unit of analysis. Children elicit certain behaviors that are not normally in the repertoire of the child when alone while in social groups. The author looks at children choosing same sex playmates, when not monitored by adults, as early as the age of 3. Children’s friendships well into adolescence are also predominantly same sex relationships. Girls tend to split into smaller groupings of 2 or 3 and work towards a joint goal, where as boys tend to be in larger groups that play more organized group games. Playtime with boys tends to be rougher and more competitive. Playtime for girls tends to be reciprocal. Friendships within girls are intimate, where girls share more information about their lives. Friendship with in boys is less intimate and based more upon shared activities. The article further discuses that gender is socially constructed though the nature of the subculture each sex chooses to construct. The more time each sex spent with their own sex, the greater the increase of such behaviors such as activity level and “rough play” with boys increased, and more time with girls lead to decreasing activity level and aggression. New work points values, interests, and sex-typed behaviors being shaped by same sex peers.
Many parents have attempted to make their households gender neutral and have often been “stumped” by their child’s behaviors of still choosing “gender typical” sex-type toys and play. This may answer some of parents questions as to why their “male son who has no toy guns at home, is using his doll as a gun during make believe play”. If I had a child, I would attempt to make my children's toys more gender neutral, so that my child explores many different types of toys and play. It is interesting for me to know, that my child will most likely be drawn to more “sex-appropriate” behaviors while in a group during social interactions with others. As a child, I was often described as a “tom boy” who would prefer to play active games with boys. Was this reinforced socially by the amount of time I spent playing high level activity games with boys? As adults how does this affect us? When I look around the world, I still see predominantly boys hanging out with boys and girls hanging out with girls. Take our ABA classroom for instance; even with the few males who are in the class, most have at least one male sitting beside them in close proximity. Are we all just big kids?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)