This is something that is often a misconception as it relates to the common core standards. Folks often say that there is not automatic retrieval of mathematical facts. However, this is not the case as the standards, when implemented properly, builds on conceptual proficiency to build this kind of automaticity--rather than just starting from automaticity.

When defending these kinds of shifts in mathematics, I often use the example of being able to cook what's in your fridge (and how it is a very practical thing to be able to do). However, if I taught you have to follow recipes, you would be no good at this. However, if you were a trained chef and knew how different flavors went together and how they might complement or incite intrigue, you would likely be more successful. The way we learn mathematics (as in this example) is the same.

This piece of evidence is an explanatory root for many of the common shifts in education we see today. Notably, the common core standards and the theory of growth mindset are supported by this claim that deep, rigorous concepts, not rules and procedures are what truly makes one college and career ready.

Already this article seems to draw some interesting parallels to the book "Age of Opportunity". http://www.laurencesteinberg.com/books/age-of-opportunity

In this book, it is argued that the brain is more malleable for certain types of learning depending on the age of the subject. That is, young children's brain malleability, what the book calls plasticity, is highest for mostly very sensory learnings (i.e. sight, sound, language, etc.), whereas adolescents' brains are most malleable/plastic for developing higher order thinking skills. I would love to know how people think this fits this third theoretical postion Vygotsky presents.

I know this text is a bit old, but does this form the foundation of special education assessments? It seems like a principle that would assign educational disabilities?

Does this mean that simple solutions result in lower "actual developmental levels"? If so, this represents a flaw as sometimes simple solutions require the most complex pathways of thought to arrive at.

My earlier question has been answered!

Does the author mean "the time before formal schooling" or the modern system of early childhood education? I ask this because the next sentence then discusses the absence of "systematicness" in the preschool. I have never taught preschool, but one does not need to in order to know that preschool is anything but non-systematic. In fact, I would say they have systems figured out better than almost anyone in education.

Is this what we call the "zone of proximal development"? I seem to remember that from an old psychology course!

It's difficult to try to shift my paradigms when reading this article.

What I mean is that the article was written in 1996 and it's ideas obviously built prior to 1996. The world and the economy that our educational systems serve are dramatically different than those conceptualized in this article. How do we consider the claims in these in light of current circumstances, notably that we actually have a much harder time providing preparation for jobs now because many students will be hired tomorrow for jobs that don't exist today!

In a way, this kind of represents the shift to the Common Core Standards doesn't it?

It's interesting how this may show up in modern research related to social emotional learning. That is, when learning different social emotional skills--such as coping, anger management, or knowing when to employ mindfulness practices--how do kids equilibriate to build these skills? And is self regulation a fundamental factor in development or is it THE factor in development?

Based on Piaget's concepts, the correct route would likely be to go from a basic concrete example and then gradually develop the concept up to a more abstract concept.

Transfer is built upon students being able to learn more than procedures and facts. When done so, this ignores context and essentially eliminates the chance for transfer altogether.

I think this small story also shows the danger of a segregated education system as well. It shows that the longer a child/person goes in what is called the pre-encounter phase of racial awareness, the greater the longer and deeper their misconceptions about those not like them grow. This naturally heightens the chances of deeper and longer racial biases to be formed as well.

Perhaps I need to give this article another read, but the overall purpose of this article feels unproductive and immature. It seems like a very cerebral way for a group of colleagues to essentially disagree with one another? Have I read this incorrectly?

So, we can either start with one and work toward the other or vice versa?

How does one differentiate between divided and distributed here?

In way situativity theory is an evolved version of the computational theory?

In other words, you can put whatever you want in the files, but the files and filing cabinets must stay as they are?

A bit of a "black box" idea, initially, I am sure!

As I started to read this article, I reflected on all of the gains made in the study of the human brain. Specifically, scientists have now started to map the human brain. As a result of this mapping, scientists are constantly uncovering new parts and functions, in similar ways to when Europeans and others were exploring the "new world". What I mean by this, is that we often look back at some of the conclusions of less education periods of time (like the belief that the "world is flat") and think, "how could they ever believe that to be true?". In reality, we forget that without proper information, theories are built upon the best information we have. My wonder here is if the brain is similar to this. Without proper information contemporarily, are we building theories that we will look back on in 20-30 years regarding learning science that we think are just crazy?

I see that the start date is listed off to the left with most due dates off to the right. What do we assume for due dates that aren't explicitly stated. For example, the Cycle one reading reflection is due 8/27, but there is no due date on "more hypothesis" for Cycle 2.