Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

As a brand new Year 6 teacher, I wanted to have my students act out a story so I read out a legend. Never before had I paused to watch how individual students carried out an activity. Most children were sitting on their desk. Sarah and Joe were kicking their feet. The children had great difficulty acting out the story. The children kept saying that they did not know how to do it. They were self-conscious and there was no spontaneity. For the first time I had to reflect on how to organize and what is a “classroom task”. They seemed so uncomfortable with this type of activity and without worksheets. I usually gave them these to record the one right answer in the blank spaces or textbooks exercises. I also had been using the white-board frequently to teach the children while they were at their desk. It was me doing all the talking and they listened. I found that only three students had been in a play and that more than half of the children had never seen a play. None of the students could remember ever being asked to act out anything in this school. They saw dramatization as something they did in the playground outside. They could not understand why I was asking them to be “playful” in class. Their responses began to inform me about how they perceived a school task, and how a background of learners’ experience determined personal meaning. I wanted to successfully engage them through social interaction. I needed them to learn, to precede their development and so I decided to explore the potential of dramatization by using it to respond to a different genre. This time I selected a non-fiction text. My students would now dramatize the “Water Cycle” while I read aloud a rich description of the how a water cycle is a generating, continuous system. Each part of the system was selected by a student to act out. Students took roles as:- an ocean, ice, rain, types of clouds, the sun, a desert and a river. Using a diagram of a water cycle, the students connected their bodies to form the system. Through the white board I also directly instructed the more complex terms of “condensation”, “evaporation”, “precipitation” et cetera. Everyone was a participant. I was delighted with the outcome. One boy, a “river”, told me that I had not read anything about his part. We did the dramatization again. When it was over, the children begged to wear their water cycle labels home. Donna’s mum telephoned the principal the next morning to find out why her daughter came home from school wearing a label saying “sun”. In the afternoon the children transferred their knowledge of the system onto individual posters. They used texts, the Internet and copies of the water cycle diagrams to help them. We had spent the entire day working on the water cycle! The students kept telling me that the day seemed so short. “It can’t be lunchtime already? Boy, this was fun. School can’t be over!” (Adapted from McGonigal. J. A. (1999). How learning to become a teacher-researcher prepared an educator to do science inquiry with elementary grade students. Research in Science Education: Victoria) Based on your reading of Chapter 2 in the textbook on Piaget and Vygotsky (and associated research literature), use the scenario above to describe how Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s principles are involved. Use specific examples from the scenario to illustrate your argument. (Remember to back up your answer with references to theory and practice. Use analysis in your argument e.g. direct comparison/criticism of theories.) Look at the Essay Feedback sheet at the end of this Unit Outline to see how you will be graded. Successful completion of this assignment will allow you to demonstrate: – The ability to explore educational ideas and issues through research and critical analysis – Literacy skills in implementing a sustained and written argument Readings for Major essay The following references have been placed on Reserve and E-reserve in the Library. However, there are plenty of other sources on this topic and these are simply suggestions to help you to start on your reading. You are NOT expected to consult all these references. You are expected to refer to a minimum of FOUR references one of which must be the Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching textbook.There is no upper limit to the number of references. However, the more references beyond four, used well, will likely increase your standard of essay and thus grade. Journal articles should be included. You could select from the following list or browse along the library shelves among similar call numbers. Most of the following are general texts; others provide more specialized information. – Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. – Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational Psychology windows into classrooms. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. – Krause, K. L., Bochner, S. & Duchesne, S. (2006). Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. South Melbourne: Thomson. – Long, M., Wood,C., Littleton, K., Passenger, T,& Sheehy, K . (2011). The Psychology of Education, NY. Routledge, – McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall. – Santrock, J. W. (2004). Child Development. Boston: Mc Graw Hill. – Slavin, R. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. – Woolfolk, A. & Margetts, K. (2010) . Educational Psychology. New Jersey Pearson Journal articles
These articles can be found on E-reserve. – Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, vol. 7, issue 4. p 200-203. – Hansen, C. C., & Zambo, D. (2005). Piaget, meet Lilly: Understanding child development through picture book characters. Early Childhood Education Journal. Vol.33 (1 ). pp. 39-45. – Lourenco, O., and Machado, A. (1996). In defence of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, Vol. 103, issue 1, pp. 143-164. – Labinowisc, E., (1980). The Piaget primer. Thinking, learning, teaching.(pp.19-21, 73, 83, 93). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. – Piaget, J., (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In Inhelder, B., & Chipman, H.H. (Eds).Piaget and his School: a reader in developmental psychology. (pp. 11-23). New York: Springer-Verlag. – Shayer, M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and Instruction. Vol.13 (5), pp. 465-485. – Tabak, I.; Baumgartner, E. (2004). The Teacher as Partner: Exploring Participant Structures, Symmetry,and Identity Work in Scaffolding. By:Cognition & Instruction, Vol. 22, Issue 4, p. 393. – Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. – Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. Foundations of Constructivism. (5th ed). (Pp. 111-117.) New York: Longman

As a brand new Year 6 teacher, I wanted to have my students act out a story so I read out a legend. Never before had I paused to watch how individual students carried out an activity. Most children were sitting on their desk. Sarah and Joe were kicking their feet. The children had great difficulty acting out the story. The children kept saying that they did not know how to do it. They were self-conscious and there was no spontaneity. For the first time I had to reflect on how to organize and what is a “classroom task”. They seemed so uncomfortable with this type of activity and without worksheets. I usually gave them these to record the one right answer in the blank spaces or textbooks exercises. I also had been using the white-board frequently to teach the children while they were at their desk. It was me doing all the talking and they listened.

I found that only three students had been in a play and that more than half of the children had never seen a play. None of the students could remember ever being asked to act out anything in this school. They saw dramatization as something they did in the playground outside. They could not understand why I was asking them to be “playful” in class.

Their responses began to inform me about how they perceived a school task, and how a background of learners’ experience determined personal meaning. I wanted to successfully engage them through social interaction. I needed them to learn, to precede their development and so I decided to explore the potential of dramatization by using it to respond to a different genre.
This time I selected a non-fiction text. My students would now dramatize the “Water Cycle” while I read aloud a rich description of the how a water cycle is a generating, continuous system.

Each part of the system was selected by a student to act out. Students took roles as:- an ocean, ice, rain, types of clouds, the sun, a desert and a river. Using a diagram of a water cycle, the students connected their bodies to form the system. Through the white board I also directly instructed the more complex terms of “condensation”, “evaporation”, “precipitation” et cetera.

Everyone was a participant. I was delighted with the outcome. One boy, a “river”, told me that I had not read anything about his part. We did the dramatization again. When it was over, the children begged to wear their water cycle labels home. Donna’s mum telephoned the principal the next morning to find out why her daughter came home from school wearing a label saying “sun”.

In the afternoon the children transferred their knowledge of the system onto individual posters. They used texts, the Internet and copies of the water cycle diagrams to help them. We had spent the entire day working on the water cycle! The students kept telling me that the day seemed so short. “It can’t be lunchtime already? Boy, this was fun. School can’t be over!”

(Adapted from McGonigal. J. A. (1999). How learning to become a teacher-researcher prepared an educator to do science inquiry with elementary grade students. Research in Science Education: Victoria)

Based on your reading of Chapter 2 in the textbook on Piaget and Vygotsky (and associated research literature), use the scenario above to describe how Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s principles are involved. Use specific examples from the scenario to illustrate your argument.
(Remember to back up your answer with references to theory and practice. Use analysis in your argument e.g. direct comparison/criticism of theories.)

Look at the Essay Feedback sheet at the end of this Unit Outline to see how you will be graded.

Successful completion of this assignment will allow you to demonstrate:
– The ability to explore educational ideas and issues through research and critical analysis
– Literacy skills in implementing a sustained and written argument
Readings for Major essay
The following references have been placed on Reserve and E-reserve in the Library. However, there are plenty of other sources on this topic and these are simply suggestions to help you to start on your reading. You are NOT expected to consult all these references.

You are expected to refer to a minimum of FOUR references one of which must be the Educational Psychology for Learning and Teaching textbook.There is no upper limit to the number of references. However, the more references beyond four, used well, will likely increase your standard of essay and thus grade. Journal articles should be included.
You could select from the following list or browse along the library shelves among similar call numbers. Most of the following are general texts; others provide more specialized information.
– Berk, L. (2003). Child Development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
– Eggen, P. and Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational Psychology windows into classrooms. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
– Krause, K. L., Bochner, S. & Duchesne, S. (2006). Educational Psychology for learning and teaching. South Melbourne: Thomson.
– Long, M., Wood,C., Littleton, K., Passenger, T,& Sheehy, K . (2011). The Psychology of Education, NY. Routledge,
– McInerney, D. M., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
– Santrock, J. W. (2004). Child Development. Boston: Mc Graw Hill.
– Slavin, R. (2000). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
– Woolfolk, A. & Margetts, K. (2010) . Educational Psychology. New Jersey Pearson
Journal articles
These articles can be found on E-reserve.
– Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget’s legacy. Psychological Science, vol. 7, issue 4. p 200-203.
– Hansen, C. C., & Zambo, D. (2005). Piaget, meet Lilly: Understanding child development through picture book characters. Early Childhood Education Journal. Vol.33 (1 ). pp. 39-45.
– Lourenco, O., and Machado, A. (1996). In defence of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, Vol. 103, issue 1, pp. 143-164.
– Labinowisc, E., (1980). The Piaget primer. Thinking, learning, teaching.(pp.19-21, 73, 83, 93). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
– Piaget, J., (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In Inhelder, B., & Chipman, H.H. (Eds).Piaget and his School: a reader in developmental psychology. (pp. 11-23). New York: Springer-Verlag.
– Shayer, M. (2003). Not just Piaget; not just Vygotsky, and certainly not Vygotsky as alternative to Piaget. Learning and Instruction. Vol.13 (5), pp. 465-485.
– Tabak, I.; Baumgartner, E. (2004). The Teacher as Partner: Exploring Participant Structures, Symmetry,and Identity Work in Scaffolding. By:Cognition & Instruction, Vol. 22, Issue 4, p. 393.
– Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 155-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
– Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. Foundations of Constructivism. (5th ed). (Pp. 111-117.) New York: Longman

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now