In reading through chapter 10 of our book, and studying how children develop problem solving skills, I’ve been reflecting on how my own experiences relate. As depicted in the examples in the book, not all learning occurs on its own, developing over time; much of learning takes place through explicit teaching and learning from parents and teachers, not just general familiarization with the world around us. One glaring example for myself is that of the balance scales experiments – I would solve these problems following the Rule III model, even though I am (partially) college educated. I got a D- in high school physics, and have never been very good at any sort of physical reasoning; the mathematics surrounding such problems still just goes over my head. In the more complex questions, I find myself relying on semi-educated guesses. On the other hand, I think I got around a 500 on the English section of the SAT test back in the 8th grade (my mom made me take it), largely from a boost from the (now-obsolete) analogy questions. I understand language-related problems much more competently than mathematic ones. Where along my schooling did such a divergence in talents occur, or was this pre-determined? Nature vs. nurture rears her ugly head again.
On a side note, I’m somewhat bothered by the well-educated authors’ repeated misuse of the word “metaphor”. I understand that these are most likely psychology instructors, and may have not taken an English class since high school, but an editor should have noticed. “A camera is like a tape recorder” is a simile, not a metaphor, as is the “child as scientist” comparison. As many may remember from back in middle school, the presence of “like” or “as” makes these phrases similes, not metaphors. This demonstrates my own inability to efficiently encode information, as inconsequential things like this catch my attention, not always the relevant content of the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment