Cognitive And Social Constructivism Concepts

Constructivism is a unique learning theory, which clarifies how people may gain knowledge and learn in different ways. Constructivism is used as a teaching methodology and therefore, is related to education as it has a direct connection. Constructivism theory proposes that individuals construct and gain knowledge through their own experiences.

Many authors have different philosophies when it comes to learning about constructivism. Dewey (1929), Bruner (1961), Vygotsky (1962) and Piaget (1980), have all proposed several different ideas of the constructivist theory within their research. Though during this task, Bruner’s theory of instrumental constructivism will be focused on. Bruner’s theory of instrumental constructivism has a major influence on learning theories and different types of teaching methods. Bruner states “Our pedagogical objective… is to accustom teachers to thinking in more general terms about the intellectual life of children.” (Bruner, 1966, p. 100). The theory is a key element in the improvement of education.

Jerome Seymour Bruner (October 1, 1915 – June 5, 2016) was an American psychologist who developed theories on perception, learning, memory and other aspects of cognition in young children. Bruner had two critical ideas going through his mind. One was that the straightforward cognitive process involved ‘hypothesis testing’ and the other idea was that these hypotheses were produced from a mental model.

Hypothesis testing is something that scientists would do, though Bruner’s idea was radical. He suggested that everyone, including young children did not just react to the stimuli presented to them, but were already trying to make sense of the world and to bring it under control. In Bruner’s perspective, the mind was not seen as receptacle for impressions but was seen as an active agent. Locke’s ‘tabula rasa’, (the mind as a blank state) added on that, rather the mind had some form of ‘structure’, this was seen to others as a cognitive map though, Bruner originated to think the contents of the mind as a ‘mental model’. Bruner quoted “I was becoming much more attracted to studies of the ‘models’ we use for sorting out the world perceptually and conceptually” (Bruner, 1980, p.110).

Bruner did not see knowledge as a list of facts, instead he saw knowledge as an organised network of concepts with casual links to other concepts which then led to a structure of ‘coding schemes’ that allowed one to go beyond the information provided (Bruner, 1957). Bruner contrasted coding with assumptions about learning and overlearning. Memory and transfer were accomplished, though not by remembering, but through rearranging structures.

The result of cognitive development is thinking and is both structural and social. The intellectual mind is created from experience 'generic coding systems that permit one to go beyond the data to new and possibly fruitful predictions' (Bruner, 1957, p. 234). Therefore, when children are in the process of growing they must obtain a way of representing the regular occurrence of things in their environment. This was important to Bruner, as the outcomes of learning did not just include problem-solving methods invented in the past through culture, but one must have the ability to invent these things.

The increase in intellectual growth in humans is now increasing at a rapid rate due to the emergence of new technologies. Growth of the mind is not monotonic, rather it moves forward rapidly as innovations are implemented. (Bruner, 1954, p. 13).

Bruner was influenced by Piaget’s work. He agreed that biological grouping triggers cognitive development, and that children are constantly exploring their surroundings to make sense of it. In Bruner’s research on ‘the cognitive development of children’ (1966), Bruner proposed three modes of representation and those were; enactive representation, (action-based) Iconic representation, (image-based) and Symbolic representation (language-based).

The ‘enactive’ mode of representation (0-18 months), corresponds with the sensorimotor stage of Piaget, representing an object or interpreting the actions of adults using the same or similar ability. This mode uses the same actions involved with the object. For example, throwing a ball or tasting an apple. This stage is where the five senses are mostly used. Consequently, enactive was seen as a mode of representation that allowed expectations of what is likely to happen in the environment and to anticipate the problems of their own actions.

At a later stage, the ‘iconic’ mode of representation (from 18 months), starts to take place. This stage is where knowledge becomes a composite construction of past experiences. Piaget called this stage ‘pre-operational concepts.’ Piaget ran a series of tests on school children and they were shown a beaker which was half-filled with water and then observed as water was poured into a taller beaker. Then the children were asked: ‘is there the same amount of water or is there now more or less water?’ until children are around the age of six years, they tend to respond by saying there is more water in the taller beaker ‘because it is higher.’ Though, later on when they become conservers they say, ‘it is the same as you just poured the same amount in a different beaker.’ Bruner described pre-operational children as being bound by iconic representations, meaning that representing an object by means of picture-like appearances shows the use of sensory images being associated with the real situation they exemplify. According to Donald, (1991) such representational systems are seen as ‘mimetic’ and show imitation and a hands-on approach, therefore are not seen as linguistic neither logical. They are articulated through social play and gestures for example, children tend to use their hands a lot to indicate the height of the water when they say that the taller beaker has more water.

The ‘symbolic’ mode of representation (6-7 years) is where, children in early years schools begin to represent the world and each other. Piaget called this ‘concrete operational thought’. Bruner realised that at the symbolic stage of development, children succeed on tasks such as, recognising the conversation of quantity and they realise that actions may be alterable. A perfect example is where, Bruner and Kenny (1966) conducted a test to see what age children start to use symbolic mode of representation. The method was that, children aged 3-7 shown a board divided into 9 squares. On each square was a plastic beaker. Beakers of different sizes and widths, tallest at back and widest on left, each child had to look at the beakers. The reproduction test was that the beakers were mixed up and they were asked to put them back to how they were. The transposition/manipulation of the test was that the beakers were mixed up and they were asked to put them back in a mirror image of the original arrangement.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The overall outcome of the test was that most of the five-year olds correctly completed the reproduction test though, a few under seven could only complete the transposition task. The reproduction task was designed to use iconic mode of representation, as the child forms a mental image and duplicates it, however the transportation task could not be completed due to not looking like the original arrangement.

On average children begin to acquire the symbolic mode around the age of 6-7. The task required the ability to transmute the visual information cognitively. Children were using verbal language (symbolic mode) to guide their thinking and were dependant on rules such as ‘the thin one goes on the right’ etc.

In order for cognitive development, one must interact with another person through the use of verbal language. Bruner agrees with Vygotsky that, language serves to mediate between environmental stimuli and the individual’s response. Bruner (1971) suggested that the change from iconic to symbolic mode of representation may be cultural rather than progressive. Bruner suggested that modern cultured societies might train children to forsake iconic modes of representation and use more of a symbolic mode. The theory was encouraged by Levy-Bruhl (1923). His theory suggested that in certain traditional societies, the idea of primitive thought was seen as ‘magical’. Bruner (1971) had a similar perspective. He reported that most young children are misled by the appearance of display for example, ‘taller means more’ though, some uneducated children will tend to say, it’s not similar because ‘you poured it’. In Senegalese societies, pouring was seen as a magical change in the water.

Bruner’s thoughts on curriculum development started to increase attention in what actually happens in the instructional process of education (Bruner, 1966, p. 182). He also looked for pedagogical moves available towards the teacher. This type of model was known as ‘scaffolding’. Scaffolding was the application of an engineering model towards pedagogical training. Scaffolding relates to Vygotsky’s model of ZPD (Zone of proximal development). ZPD is a measured space, whereas scaffolding is the process through, which the measured space is moved. So, in this case, what a mother does to help the child across the ZPD is known as the scaffolding part.

Bruner (1978) believed that in order for learning to occur, social interactional frameworks must be provided. For example, parental involvement and engagement with the child, will allow the child to develop linguistic learning and cultural learning skills. Routines such as, reading books together or conversations at meal times, can suggest that a structure is given to the parent and child, which leads to the parent raising his/her expectations of the child’s performance. Bruner argued, it is within these formats that children learn how to use language and this was through linguistic performance.

One of the key issues being raised in education today is whether language influences the development of thought or whether thought influences the development of language. The argument between thought and language relates to Piaget’s and Bruner’s ideas. Piaget mentions that it is the operative structural characteristic which triggers the development of language and not the other way around. However, Bruner argues that the child becomes ‘operational’ due to knowledge which promotes the development of cognitive structure, though are bought under control by organisational ideologies, which relates to the rules of language; allowing the child to use language to change his/her experience.

Bruner raised a point about teachers and when It comes to providing feedback to children. Teachers should provide feedback that is focused towards intrinsic motivation. Bruner states that the learner must “experience success and failure not as reward and punishment, but as information (Bruner 1961, p.26).

Bruner’s theory of cognitive development of children in early school years had been criticised by Piaget. Bruner’s view was that children construct their own understandings and that the growth of the understandings is stage-like. whereas, Piaget’s view was that, knowledge grows in distinguishable stages. Piaget saw growth as a biological and led him to distinguish four stages of development – sensory-motor intelligence, pre-concrete operational intelligence, concrete operational intelligence and formal operational intelligence. These stages were used to describe cognition, for infancy, pre-school, elementary and high school years. Bruner was influenced by Piaget’s ideas and then came along, Bruner’s modes of representation which, he labelled as enactive, iconic, and symbolic modes of representation. Both theorists had very similar ideas in the stages of cognitive growth, however, a critical issue was that ‘what advanced children from one stage to the next’. This is where Bruner disagrees with Piaget; this was due to Piaget seeing cognitive change as natural, internal reforms in the effort to uphold equilibrium, Bruner saw them as the importance of learning to deal with cultural forms and cultural modes of representation. Bruner expressed his disagreement on Piaget. He wrote:

“The world is a quiet place for Piaget’s growing child. He is virtually alone in it… He begins his journey egocentrically… others give him a little help. The social reciprocity of infant and mother plays a very small role in Piaget’s account of development” (1983a, p. 138).

Lev Vygotsky’s theories link very closely with Piaget and Bruner. Vygotsky theory was that cognitive development is limited to a certain amount at any age. According to Vygotsky, children observe actions in a social environment and then determine whether these actions are appropriate; then stores the knowledge for future use. The link between Bruner and Vygotsky is that there is no separation between the cognitive and social aspects of development. Bruner agrees that learning is active and requires learners to develop using their current knowledge. The only difference between Bruner and Vygotsky is that, Bruner believed that students learn better if they gain the information themselves; this is through active participation and the teacher giving support at the correct time. Whereas, Vygotsky believed that problems happen when teachers give too much to the student to do independently. Vygotsky believed that students learned better through the interactions with people.

Jerome Seymore Bruner is an interesting theorist as he uses both cognitive and social constructivism throughout his work of intellectual constructivism; agreeing and disagreeing with both Vygotsky and Piaget in some respect. Both Bruner and Vygotsky follow Piaget’s cognitive approach in some form though all three theorists have varying perspectives. Mostly focusing on Bruner, he believes that students learn better if they go through self-directed learning and only getting support from the teacher at the right time, provides a better and positive learning environment.