Author |
Message |
Sarah Dunlap
Semi-pro
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:43 pm Posts: 26
|
My ideas about children's level of thinking go along with Piaget's theory. I believe that from birth to two years old, children are only able to learn through physical interaction. According to Bloom's taxonomy the child would be in the knowledge phase of thinking.
I believe that it's not until around the age of 7 that children can begin to think at a higher level. According to Piaget, this stage of development is when the child is able to conceptualize, explain their physcial enviornment, and create logical structures. This can mean that they can begin to synthesize information and maybe even think at the highest level of Bloom's taxonomy which is "evaluation."
Does anybody think children younger than 7 years old could think at the level of "evaluation" according to Bloom's Taxonomy? I guess it is possible, but it doesn't seem very likely that their brains would be developed enough to do this.
|
Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:45 pm |
|
|
Clayton_Roberts
Semi-pro
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:01 pm Posts: 27
|
I believe that children who are two years old are capable of thinking at the higher levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. At two Children can predict and associate different meanings such as emotions. They know when their parents are angry and may begin to realize that they shouldn’t do certain things. They also begin to see patters. For example a two year old may being to associate darkness with sleep.
Two year olds may not be able to think at the evaluation level but they can think above the knowledge level.
|
Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:50 pm |
|
|
Alyse_Mauney
Semi-pro
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:39 pm Posts: 24
|
I think I support Piaget's theory with Sarah. I think that children's brains wouldn't be developed yet.
Shinichi Suzuki used this theory as well. In teaching very young children (ages starting at 2) how to play the violin, he did not teach them how to read music. They would learn everything by ear and by mimicking. He believed that the young children were not developed enough to grasp the concept of reading music.
_________________ Mary Alyse Mauney
|
Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:45 am |
|
|
Sarah Dunlap
Semi-pro
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:43 pm Posts: 26
|
You do have great points Clayton...I didn't even think about children being able to associate different meanings of emotions and orders given by parents. I was thinking more from an academic perspective. Even if you think about children learning to speak..they are beginning to associate different sounds with different objects and apply that knowledge. In this way, they are thinking at a higher level.
|
Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:35 pm |
|
|
jessie_carrigan
Semi-pro
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:34 pm Posts: 29
|
I do agree with Sarah about children's learning going along with Piaget's theory. I do not doubt that children cannot develop Bloom's higher level of thinking, I just do not see many children applying that until later ages. I think those that have applied Bloom's higher level at young ages must have parents and great teachers that work with them on such questions that portray higher level answers such as using the word "evaluate." I do however blame many teachers for children not reaching the higher levels because they tend to stick with "knowledge" level and I find many teachers not reaching above the "application" level. Most tests that teachers compose are of multiple choice and that most of the time does not get above the "knowledge" level. I understand that it is easier and less time consuming but in order for children and young adults to reach this higher level of learning, teachers must compose such questions that have children write a descriptive answer. Think about it - even the college teacher "evaluations" are of multiple choice! The descriptive answer space is OPTIONAL! So I do agree with Clayton in that some can reach that point at a younger level. I just think that Piaget is more of a reality thing.
_________________ Jessie Carrigan
|
Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:52 pm |
|
|
Shelley_Cabe
Semi-pro
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:13 pm Posts: 24
|
If children are exposed to thinking on a higher level, I believe they are able to at younger ages. I think children as young as 2 or 3 can think on a higher level than just the knowledge level. In past summers I volunteered a preschool that had children from ages 3 to 5. I remember having converstations with the three year olds about how they knew if they did some action they would get the response they wanted from an adult, which goes along with Clayton's response. They were able to see a pattern. The 4 and 5 year olds were the same and could even think on higher level than that. Teachers should be asking their students to think on higher levels at younger ages because many children are capable of doing so. Most teachers don't take the time to ask their students evaluation questions.
|
Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:53 pm |
|
|
Erin_Nevitt
Semi-pro
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:06 pm Posts: 24
|
I think that is it hard for us to attempt to truly dive into the minds of a two-year-old, but I have a difficult time believing that young children can think on a higher level. Yes, they are able to put an action with a response, but that is just conditioning. They learn that if I throw my toy, then I have to sit in time out, but are they able to analyze WHY throwing the toy is inappropriate? As far as conversations go, I know that it is possible to talk to a young child but I haven't had a deep conversation with one. Many young children are merely talking to use the words that they hear around them- they are like little parrots. I saw a little girl in the store the other day with her grandmother and she was repeating everything she heard. She then said, "shit gamma". She had no clue of what the word really meant, she just knew that she had heard it before. Yes, we should give children credit for being intelligent little critters. They are able to absorb an ENORMOUS amount of information in their first years. But as far as higher order thinking skills?? According to many educational theorists most of us will never reach those levels.
_________________ Erin Nevitt
|
Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:35 pm |
|
|
Matthew Pickard
Semi-pro
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:22 pm Posts: 24
|
Yes, there is a vast difference between language use and meaning. Language seems very much a tool in those early years, as it did in the early stages of civilization. You spoke to accomplish something; language was a means to an end. As comprehension and ability progress, understanding becomes greater, and the higher level thinking skills come into play.
_________________ Matthew Pickard
|
Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:05 pm |
|
|