In this blog post I will address Goswami’s (2015) conclusions around children’s cognitive development and learning. Goswami (2015) believes that social interaction plays an important role in the development of children’s language and memory. She believes that children use their imagination to enhance ‘Thinking, reasoning and understanding’ (Goswami, 2015, p25). Vygotsky’s ideas around teachers facilitating learning and development through scaffolding can be associated with Goswami (Daniels, 2005; Ferreira Alves, 2014; McLeod, 2014). These approaches to learning influenced my planning and teaching of lessons to ensure all children could achieve the learning outcomes. This approach can also be linked to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Daniels, 2005; Kozulin et al, 2014; McLeod, 2014) stating that all children are individuals and therefore learn at different rates. However, it is not possible to plan for each individual child’s ZPD due to large class sizes. Therefore, the resources and strategies used within teaching are generalised and aimed to support the majority of children within the classroom.

(McLeod, 2014)

Goswami’s (2015) conclusions suggest that the language children are exposed to can influence their ability to learn within a school environment. Bernstein’s (1990; 1996) theories, suggesting that children who are linguistically deprived are more likely to be culturally deprived, can be associated with Goswami (2015). He believed that within education an elaborated code is used, comprising extensive detailed vocabulary (Bernstein, 1990; Bernstein, 1996). Children who may be culturally deprived, meaning they are exposed to a restricted code, may not be able to access or understand the language that is used within a school environment (Bernstein, 1990; Bernstein, 1996). Additionally, Bernstein assumes that all middle-class children will speak in the elaborated code (Morais, 2002). However, assumptions cannot be made about the level of language and learning children can access. Throughout my practice I used a variety of techniques, such as gestures and visual aids, to support children’s learning and make learning accessible to all children. This aspect of my practice was reinforced through a class visual timetable and individual bespoke resources, such as a now and next board.

Goswami (2015) also believes that a child’s memory is impacted by the quality of the learning environment.  For example, if there is high visual stimulus within a classroom environment some children can become overwhelmed causing their learning to be negatively impacted. Goswami (2015) specifically focuses on episodic, long term memory, and working or short-term memory. If a child does not have a developed episodic memory, they could struggle to follow instructions and recall information (ibid). This can be a particular issue for SEND or EAL children who may struggle to process instructions due to language barriers or lack of cognitive development. Therefore, it is important to provide children with visual stimulus to refer to. Through teaching children should also be provided with a contextual understanding to develop their working memory (Goswami, 2015). From experience it is particularly important within Mathematics to relate learning to a context. When teaching about division I used the idea of a teddy bears picnic with my lower attaining pupils. They were acting as the bears sharing out sweets (multilink). The children were engaged in this activity and could then apply this contextual understanding to solve word problems, using the picnic as a specific context.

In conclusion, I believe the development of children’s language and memory skills are important for their development within education. As a teacher I am mindful of children’s prior knowledge and misconceptions when planning and delivering lessons. This ensures that my teaching is at the correct level and that I can provide children with differentiated activities where appropriate. I also consider how the learning environment may impact the children within my classroom and whether it helps or hinders their development. For example, within SBT1 there was a lack of visual stimulus that children could refer to throughout lessons. Therefore, I created a working wall for History which children could refer to throughout cross curricular lessons. Encouragement of children’s social interaction within lessons is also an approach that I will continue to develop. For example, I found that mixed attainment peer-assessment enabled children to develop a broader knowledge of language and reasoning, and supported children’s acknowledgement of their next steps.

References:

Bernstein, B. (1990) Class, Codes and Control, London: Routledge.

Bernstein, B. (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity, USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Clarke, S. (2005) Defining Formative Assessment, London: Hodder Education.

Daniels, H. (2005) “Social Constructivist Perspectives on Teaching and Learning” Palincsar, A. S. (Ed) An Introduction to Vygotsky, (2^nd Edition), London: Routledge.

Goswami, U. (2015) Children’s cognitive development and learning, Cambridge: Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S. and Miller, S. N. (2003) “The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction” Chaiklin, S. (Ed) Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McLeod, S. (2014) Lev Vygotsky, [online], Simply Psychology, Available: <https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html> [Accessed: 21/12/2018].

Morais, A.M. (2002) “Basil Bernstein at the Micro Level of the Classroom”, in British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol 23 (4), p559-569.

The Audiopedia, (2017) What is cultural deprivation? What does cultural deprivation mean? [online] Youtube, Available: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPTPV-JxS7Y> [Accessed: 21/12/18].