Week 7 Post Necessity versus Possibility: A Conscientious Objector's Position

Collapse

Sorry folks. Launched this through the discussion link on the left side of the page and didn't see the
instructions for this week's discussion. Decided tonight to click on the discussion link in week 7. Found the
instructions. If I want to remain status quo am I allowed to claim concientious objector status since I have
claimed a firm freedom of thought consideration that appreciates both views? Though I have been a
Piaget fan for years and have been assigned to Team Jean, I want to state that my official positiion is
right down the middle. I'll probably end up digging into the debate on the side I was appointed to, but with
lower lip stuck waaaay out.

Glassman, the author of this week's reading has another gem I dug up. I was navigating around to this
week's reading and there were some suggestions that popped up for similar articles. I noticed one that
was authored by Glassman as well. It was much shorter so I thought this would be a good starting point.
After reading the article, I had a face palm moment. The answer to the geat debate between Piaget and
Vygotsky is in two words Glassman stated: necessity and possibility (Glassman. M. 1995, p.481).
Glassman asks whether it is necessary for us to be led to a specific conclusion of one theorist over the
other. He says instead we should look at the possibilities of how the two theorists' positions can be
reconciled. Glassman goes on to say that in order to bring the two paradigms together, we must go
through the process of designing and conducting studies on isolated aspects of both theories to gain
understanding on interaction possibilities.

As teachers, we deploy a wide range of pedagogy in order to facilitate the optimal learning environment
for our students' individual needs. The more tools we have to use the better. Both Piaget and Vygotsky
present divergent theories that can be used to help out our students. Piaget concentrates on the student-
object interaction while Vygotsky concentrates on the student-societal interaction. (Glassman. M. 1994. p.
210). From our perspective, we can use whichever interaction strategy would best fit an individual
student's needs. The personal preference of the teacher is not in play here. What really matters is which
works best for the student. In all of our classes there is no doubt, unconsciously or consciously, we have
employed both of these interactive strategies many times in the same class, even at the same
time. Really, does it matter what the underpinning theoretical basis is as long as it works?

I was going to go with a different discussion theme this week: Teacher: Source or Force?, or Teacher:
Pusher or Guide?, but Glassman's Response to Duncan article rattled my chain. But, lucky you, you get
to read another ramble because I really liked his point in this week's reading as well (that Glassman, he's
one smart dude). In the argument whether a teacher is a source (guide) or force (pusher), we must
realize we are one and the same. We want the student to reach that point in their education where they
reach the "critical mass" (Glassman. M. 1994. p. 205) that carries them to that next
cognitive/developmental level. To accomplish this we use what is at our disposal. As educators we are
made aware of the various learning theories. Our application is really at the practical level, much like a
tradesman in building construction. The tradesman didn't necessarily design or specify the components
used or go through the calculations to make sure the house/bridge/mall stays standing but they know how
to put the pieces together to end up with a complete structure. Similarly for the teacher. we don't
necessarily know (or in some instances understand) all the intricacies of every theory, but as long as we
have knowledge of how to apply them effectively to help our students, that is the key take-away from all of
the theorists. I for one am a 'how does that work kinda guy' (see wash machine, pieces, mother, and
anger) and like to know what's behind the application, but this is secondary to getting it right for the
student. We will have our personal preferences, but how many times have we deviated from this because
it was in the best interest of the student?

References:
Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The Two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental
Review, 14(2), 186–214. doi:10.1006/drev.1994.1008

Glassman, M. (1995). The difference between Piaget and Vygotsky: A response to

Duncan.Developmental Review, 15(4), 473–482. doi:10.1006/drev.1995.1020