Reforming, Transforming and Conforming Essay

In this essay I volition discuss the comparisons and differences of the three homunculuss of speculation and discip contrast as identified by MacNaughton, Conforming, Reforming and Transforming (MacNaughton, 2003). This essay ordain look at how these theories be explained and can be applied individu solelyy or unitedly inwardly the canvassing pedagogy. My discussion provide be of a musing nature and include how I perk up understood these three fabrics in relation to the early minorhood erudition environment and how I whitethorn relate them to my own germinateing procreation philosophy.Each conjecture forget be discussed with a nidus on wholeness or two particular theorizer. For Conforming I willing look at theorists from both(prenominal) the nature and nurture perspective, Gesell and Skinner. The Reforming comp unrivalednt of the paper will reflect on constructivist theorist Vygotsky and Psychodynamic theorist Erikson. Conforming I perk up got defined the conformist place of knowledge as nipperren skill in a tradition entirelyy accepted way where they will progress done tiers of development agree to either their biology or their environment.The methods of the educator be non questioned by the kidren who are be instructed as passive assimilators on their journey finished and done childishness to become adults who fit in comfort satisfactory to the mould that ball club expect. An some other definition is complying with the existing practices, rules, traditions and understandings (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 121) There are two briny developmental theories associated with the conformist model, they are Maturationism (Nature) and Behaviourism (Environment). Conforming theorists ready investigated the opinion of children learning due to their genetic makeup or their environment.A theorist who conferred with the nature debate was Arnold Gesell (1880-1961) who fited the childs development from a biological perspective as pr e-programmed according to how Mother Nature has determined subsequently many years of evolution. Development will unfold in line with the childs maturation and learning will be vanquish achieved with little interference from adults. I comparable what Thelen, Adolph and Karen had to say regarding Gesells surmisal in relation to learning, Society and the family must provide children with an environment that allows the inbred maturement potential of individually child to be fully and bestly realized.The whole purpose of developmental norms was to identify the individual status of each child so as to guide children more suitably to optimal growth. The environment must be precisely tailored to fit the childs capabilities (Thelen & Adolph, 1992, p. 368). What I have taken from the nature debate is that it is a theory that tacit cares actually much for how children are naturalised. It is motivated by giving children enough stick up within their environment that is appropriate f or the childs current capabilities.They take a child will develop in a sequence of stages that will not be impacted by their environment. I see this salute worthy a stronger counselling in education today done Naplan testing and the movement in Australia towards a National political platform. What scope does this give a teacher to educate children outside this conformist approach? My daughters teacher made a mark to me recently closely what a busy term they have had and give tongue to they truly need to get down to business so they have done something concrete as its nearly report write beat.Upon thoughtfulness I was precise happy with what my child had done this term, with excursions to interpret other students at bigger schools to experience and participate in dramatic play, a wondrous opportunity to visit a shelter for treat animals, speak with one of the handed-down land owners where her school was built, participate in a cross coun look for running event wit h another small school providing further genial experiences with advanced volume. Yet all these wonderful experiences do not allow her teacher to tick all the boxes of need learning as it seems she is required to do.I wonder what Gesell would entail of where education has come today. I find a discrepancy in what Gesell suggested that all children will develop otherwise depending on their maturation which will in turn impact our culture in different ways, and that culture will need to adapt to these variants in childrens development (MacNaughton, 2003). Yet so many years latter it doesnt seem ilk that has happened at all. It seems to me that our culture (pre par mensurationly politically as far as Im concerned) is demanding through Naplan testing that all students should be measurable at the equal age according to their academic performance.In contrast to Maturation theory, a Behaviourists approach calculates the childs environment as imperative and forthwith related to th eir development which as well as occurs in stages. Behaviourists conceive that children are natural as a blank slate, meaning their bear in headland has no entire structure and can be filled by their society (or environment). encyclopedism commences from birth onwards, for example from your parents, television, friends and many other direct environmental influences. completely behaviour is observable and measurable and is universal.In stark contrast to a Psychodynamic view, Behaviourist believes the mind is not the key to acquiring knowledge their foreign environment in which they live is (Faryadi, 2007). With this understanding it becomes clear why curriculum goal setting under a Behaviourist conforming pen is recommended to occur at the commencement of planning, prior to the educator even coming together the children (MacNaughton, 2003). There is no need for individualised programming based on what knowledge the children may be bringing along with them. They will learn according to what is provided under the direction of the teacher.There have been a enactment of theorists that have had an influence on this approach, some that have created a learning environment for animals in their field of operations such as Pavlov (1849 1936) and Skinner (1904 1990). Pavlov contri preciselyes to the behavioristic approach with his theory on tell apartical learn and BF Skinner with operant condition. Classical conditioning is when people learn by association, and operant conditioning is when we learn to behave in a certain way because of either supreme or negative reinforcement (McDevitt, 2002). again the psychodynamic approach would resist with the behaviourists approach as it does not take into account the unconscious mind and rightful(prenominal) focuses on external observable behaviour. Now that I have a firmer understanding of both Maturationism and Behaviourism I can hypothesise these philosophies used in an early childhood environment. In fact I feel quite sure the conforming profile was very dominant in my own Pre-school and Primary school years. I remember being taught by rote and the feelings of inadequacies? pressure and assault on my self esteem.These feelings were all generated when it was time for tables and I thought, what if I get it wrong, please let it be a sum I know. It took all my efforts to stop myself from crying just because I had to stand up in front of the class, I had no energy left to remember my tables. Is there an easier way to for children to learn their tables? I believe there is a place for rote learning and tables is one of them. However, the culture of the setting could adopt pedagogies that are going to reform the learning from a teacher directed one way dialogue to two way with interaction on a more own(prenominal) take with the learner.My experience of rote learning was eternally indoors with tables and chairs set up in pairs. The pairs were the same for the term (of course unless(prenom inal) you were a naughty child and would then be moved to the front row directly in front of the teachers desk). I wonder would my rote learning have been compound if I had more mental and physical control of my situation. I believe the answer is yes. Some temperaments may flourish in that environment, but as a child, I was not one of them. However, put me in a small group and enable peer support I sincerely yours think my learning experience would have been different.As cited by MacNaughton Australia is one of many multicultural, multiethnic and multifaith societies (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 145) It is concerning to me that a Eurocentric approach to learning could still be used in some schools, thereby supporting the majority at the expense of marginalising the minority. As my own teaching philosophy is uphill I think there are parts of the conforming model that I would implement. I have an stake in Skinners operant conditioning but havent quite thought out how I could wear it. I do have some issues with this on what is equitable for all children.An example of this would be using rewards such as plain computer time for an anxious child who had difficulty sitting through a literacy block. If the child is able to do this he / she will be rewarded. What will the children who continuously try very hard to sit through every learning block be rewarded with? What is equitable for these children? That is my main dilemma, heretofore I will continue to ponder point as I sense it is something I could learn more virtually. I am hoping I will see some good example of this theory in use at my upcoming professional experience. ReformingA reforming model of learning includes theories such as Constructivism, Psychodynamic and Neuroscience. For the purpose of this reflective paper I will concentrate on Constructivism and Psychodynamics using theorists Vygotsky and Erikson. The initial differences I see with this model of learning from a Conforming model are how they view the learner as an active participant as opposed to a passive one. To understand it in my own mind I define a reforming learner as someone who will put what they are learning with previous information to form their own meaning.MacNaughton defines Reforming as improving something through changing it (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 40) Vygotsky was a Constructionist who cut the learning environment as immanent to learning as did the Behaviourist, however Vygotsky saw the environment as the implement for learning through sociocultural experiences. Inter individualised communication experienced through social interaction necessitated the childs thinking and behaving (Berk, 2006). Vygotsky like Gesell saw development as stage based, yet the stages may vary depending on the social environment the child is exposed to.A childs social interactions provide them with the learning needed to further develop row and stimulate their transition through stages of cognitive development for thought and beh aviour. What appeals to me to the highest degree Vygotsys theory is that it depends on children learning from more experienced members of their community (such as teachers or other students) through scaffolding (Berk, 2006). What does it imply for those children who are not given access to a high degree of social experiences and interactions? atomic number 18 the destined for a future with poor quarrel / communication skills? If Vygotsky viewed language development as the foundation for cognitive development does this make them less intelligent or give the appearance of low intelligence? Again I must raise my earlier point about my childhood fear of standing in front of the class during rote learning. If the principles of reforming and conforming learning profiles had been amalgamated I think a more positive outcome would have resulted for me.It comes quiet naturally for me to adopt a Vygotsky approach when working with young children so will certainly be incorporating it into my philosophy. I like that children can help children learn and that it has a strong focus on the interactions of play. Again we see a stage based theory this time from Erikson. Erikson formulated eight stages that span from birth to late adulthood. In each stage, Erikson described what made the condition ages so important, for example the introductory stage is called Trust vs. Mistrust (from birth 1 year) Second stage is Autonomy vs.Shame and Doubt (1-3 years) Stage three is Initiative vs. viciousness (from 3-6 years old) (McDevitt, 2002). I feel quite comfortable with Erikson (yet not so with his earlier counterpart Freud) and Skinner. Unlike Freud, Erikson placed some emphasise on societies role in the development of an individuals personality (MacNaughton, 2003). Erikson also acknowledges the individuals cultural influence will directly impact development.For example what occurs in northwest American Indian tribes will affect the development of their children differently to ot her cultures (Berk L. 2008) I can relate this theory to my own personal beliefs regarding my own childhood and upbringing and that which I am trying to hold dear for my children. As an individual and mother I have strong opinions regarding the think of and importance of my family, community and environment and how they directly impact each other and my childrens developing personalities and how they feel about themselves. A critical reflection of myself upon the completion of this subject sees me sitting within a reforming model of learning.My personal values as mentioned above influence how I relate to Eriksons psychodynamic view as I think he is a theorist who really fosters questions like, who am I, and what is my place in society? Vygotsky supports my feelings of how I can support cognitive development through childrens environment and social world. Yet, I still dont think these theories complete my philosophy. My life is lived through a complex network of structures so theref ore I see development from an ecological systems perspective (Bronfenbrenner 1917 2005) as well, so will fit in it to my philosophy too.Another theorist that I think fits under the reforming model is Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development and Education. I know as an educator I will be concerned with the issue of lesson development and will pursue further knowledge to assist my understanding. What I have initially taken from Kohlberg is that This teaching practice is based on the assumption that there are no single, correct answers to ethical dilemmas, but that there is value in holding clear views and acting accordingly.In addition, there is a value of toleration of divergent views. It follows, then, that the teachers role is one of discussion moderator, with the goal of teaching merely that people hold different values the teacher does attempt to pose her views as the right views ( (Nucci, 2008, p. http//tigger. uic. edu/lnucci/MoralEd/overview. html) Transforming My understandi ng of the Transforming model of learning would be defined as a theory that advocates for childrens rights for the future through challenging traditional practice.As a transforming educator you would be prepared to take risks and movement to shatter opposing thoughts that are not equitable to their cause. I conjecture being a transforming educator would require a tremendous amount of physical and emotional energy, and resilience. A more analytical definition skill refer to the model as interested in looking at the knowledge we have to ascertain if it is biased and critically inquisitive and assessing whose interest are being served.This may lead to changes in the fundamental sales pitch of education which results in better social justice for a specified society (MacNaughton, 2003). The Transforming model is an umbrella term that incorporates three different theories, they are kindly Constructionists and Postmodernists, Feminism (including Feminists Poststructuralists), Critical race theorists and Postcolonialists (MacNaughton, 2003). For this essay I will focus on Social Construcitionists who are concerned with how behaviourist or structuralits theorist conduct their research and how it directly impacts educators.They find criticism in the fact that these theories are dominated by male middle class men, due to the implications for marginalisation of certain aspects of society, for example women, cultural perspectives such as eastern philosophies or indigenous stories (Fenton, 2011). Of all the models looked at during my research and study in this subject I felt most confronted by Transforming. I think thats largely because I am not very good at thinking outside the square, yet when I try to get my head around this model I am compel to look beyond my own conservative and safe nature.As a student and a future educator I see myself as a person of compassion who doesnt like to see social injustice or a children being marginalised, so feel like I should have been able to connect more with this model. However, with this in mind I did feel like I could relate more to Social Construcitionists theory due to their philosophy of power with not power over, which is ludicrous to the other theories I have discussed so far. The implications of this for me as a future teacher are that I must be prepared to view myself, and show by example that I am still a learner and prepared to change as I acquire new knowledge.As a mother there have been times when I have seen children treated unfairly by an adult (and some teachers) who holds the relief of power (and Im sure have done so myself with my own children). I have questioned why the adult feels they dont have to apologise to the child for this action and conclude that it would be seen as disempowering themselves. This attitude could be explained as one where the child is viewed as becoming adult (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 5) and therefore the adults role is one of privilege and the childs is oppressed .Next time I experience this I wonder will I be courageous enough to rock the boat? As a learner teacher who is still trying to establish what my philosophy will be I feel drawn to the Social Construcitionists theory as it is the first theory that I feel has really turn to the issue of childrens development having a direct correlation to and is in fact all bound together with culture and actual present time, and is therefore never static, or all learnt.A quote from Burman explains this as how children develop differs in different places and in different historical times because how we see development is bound by where we are (our culture) and by our time (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 71). As I have already stated this was a very difficult theory for me to absorb. After spending some time researching and questioning my own beliefs and values I feel confident I have the ability to integrate some of what I have learnt into practice as a teacher (yet I dont see myself as a Social Construcitio nists trail blaser).Whilst I have discussed what I like about this theory I also concur with MacNaughton (2008) when she raises equity regarding the children who are not able to function in a Social Construcitionists. Is the incertain reserved child, whose parents traditional principles are being indoctrinated at home and within their ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner 1917 2005) going to have a voice.Previous study has taught me about the various aspect of childrens natural temperament which leads me to wonder about the slow to warm up child (Berk L. , 2008, p. 260) will manage this classroom. In effect there would be equity issues for these children who are not able to function when put in a situation of co-learner with their teacher and peers. I think throughout my discussion I have expressed what has challenged me in gaining an understanding of this subject and the 3 models we have covered.To conclude I think I would simply add that I have expanded my first knowledge on the t heorist discussed through the process of looking at them more critically and reflect on how I may apply them as a teacher. I have identified my personal growth in understanding ethical issues of theory. This was something I had not done previously, most likely due to the conforming method of learning I have experienced. I am a product of being taught the teacher is always right and it is not my role to question. That was then this is now.