ICT Learning Theory Statement

The four lessons that make up the unit of work presented, revolve around ideas of growth.
Growth is explored in the first two lessons through discussion of physical, social and
emotional changes that occur with age. In the second two lessons, processes that aid in
healthy growth are explored (i.e. healthy eating and exercise). While differing in content, the
construction of these lessons is based on the same core principle- Vygotskys social
constructivism. Emphasising the role of collaborative learning, the zone of proximal
development, and the teacher as a guide and collaborator rather than as an instructor, the four
lessons devised are an attempt at integrating Vygotskys principles into curriculum-based
learning. While this is the case, elements of De Bonos lateral thinking have also been
slightly integrated into given lesson plans.

Prior to understanding the relationship between lessons posed and Vygotskys principles, a
rudimentary understanding of Vygotskys social constructivism is required. Simplifying his
work, Vygotsky focused on three key elements linked with learning. Firstly, he posited that
learning occurred in a social context and was therefore a social process (Kim, 2001).
Valuable learning is, under Vygotskys model, attained when students discuss, collaborate
and share their versions of reality with one and other (Kim, 2001). Vygotskys second key
principle revolved around the idea of reality. Suggesting that children had preconceived ideas
of the world, Vygotsky theorised that no learning occurs in isolation (Kim, 2001). Children
have ideas that influence what they learn. In this way, rather than poring information into
childrens heads educators need to focus on structuring and then restructuring childrens
knowledge bases (Walker & Stone, 2006). Under Vygotskys principle, children also cannot
take in knowledge unless it fits, or can be used to edit, their pre-existing conceptions of
reality (Walker & Stone, 2006). Teachers should act not as lecturers, but as guides to aid in
this structuring-restructuring process (Walker & Stone, 2006). Finally, Vygotsky posited that
optimal learning occurred in a zone of proximal development. This zone was the space
between tasks that were too difficult to complete alone (actual level of development), but
were able to be completed in groups (potential level of development) (Palincsar, 1998;
Vygotsky, 1978). Furthermore, with these three principles in mind, our lessons were
constructed.

Given an understanding of the above, it is evident that Vygotskys principles are present in all
lesson plans within this unit. Specifically, the large emphasis on social learning evident in
Vygotskys writings, is further reiterated in the lessons we constructed. All lessons within
this unit have a social component. In lesson 1 and 2 this social component is evident through
the construction of group posts (whether they be on stormboard or padlet), and in lesson 3
and 4 social learning is evident through group movie making making. Group and class
discussions also form a substantial part of all 4 lessons in this unit. Both forms of discussion
are implemented as Vygotskys intersubjectivity (or rather optimal learning through
discussion with likeminded individuals) occurs primarily in small peer group discussions
(Kim, 2001). This is the case as the teacher is seen as a more knowledgeable other rather
than as a likeminded individual (Vygotsky, 1978). Naturally this can be intimidating for
some children. Conversely, class discussion has also been implemented readily as it enables
the teacher to fulfil their role as collaborator and guide, rather than instructor (Vygotsky,
1978). This once again allows the teacher to aid in the modification and editing of students
pre-existing schemas or realities as aforementioned. In this way, through incorporating
both peer group and class discussions into lessons we have implemented Vygotskys teacher
as a guide concept as well as encouraging intersubjectivity between students. Through doing
this we have further optimised childrens ability to both learn socially and think elaborately.

Vygotskys principles have further underlined the construction of lesson plans in this unit as
the zone of proximal development has been focused on in lesson construction. In attempts to
encourage elaborate thought in students, lessons have been constructed in ways in which the
potential level, rather than the actual level, of development is strived for. This is primarily
evident in lessons 1 and 2 in which students are given elaborate questions, however are also
put into groups so they can answer such questions. One example of a question utilised in
these lessons is what social and emotional challenges occur with age? While this question
is too challenging for a year three child to answer alone, the group environment fosters the
proximal zone of development, thus allowing optimal learning to occur. This proximal zone
of development is further stimulated in lesson 4 in which students are asked to make an
imovie of exercises that can be done at home. While this task is overwhelming to a single
year three student, when students are put into groups it is achievable. Once again this creates
the zone of proximal development teachers strive for, further allowing optimal learning to
ensue.

While Vygotskys principles were at the forefront in developing the four lesson plans that
make up this unit, Vygotsky was not the only theorist we considered when creating student
task and lessons. In further attempts to stretch the way children think, we also drew on De
Bonos concept of lateral thinking in lesson construction. Involving the changing of
preconceptions and challenging of vertical thinking Lateral thinking put simply, is thinking
elaborately and deeply in order to solve complex problems (Burgh, 2014). De Bono posed
that in order to encourage this thinking teachers need to use attention-directing tools to focus
students on particular issues (Burgh, 2014). While no physical tools are actively integrated
(except for ICT tools) during class discussions, attention directing questions are asked often.
This is primarily evident in lesson 2 in which students are asked how do you think this
change will make you feel? during class discussion. Various other attention directing
questions are also posed throughout the four lessons ranging from Why do you think its
important that our emotions change as we get older? to how will you cope with this kind of
change when it happens?. While these questions appear overly simplistic they are purposeful
in that they provoke lateral thought that De Bono discussed. They encourage students to think
beyond the task requirements and contemplate issues surrounding the topic area. In this way,
the simplistic process of asking questions during class discussion encourages students to
contemplate areas of thought they may or may not have previously considered. De Bono
implied that engaging in this kind of thought encouraged deeper learning of concepts and
increased critical and analytical thinking (Burgh, 2014). If we can teach year threes to
contemplate such elaborate thinking skills through simple questioning, then integrating De
Bonos model into lesson plans is well worth the time.

Conclusively, our lessons are largely based on the principles of Vygotsky and his social
constructivism. Our choice to focus primarily on Vygotsky came from the recent education
movement pushing for social, interactive learning in contemporary classrooms. While
Vygotsky was our point of focus in terms of theory, integration of De Bonos principles also
proved pivotal in increasing the scope and adding theoretical value to our lessons. Basing
lessons on theory provided direction in terms of lesson construction and enabled social
learning to remain a consistent and valuable factor throughout the unit of lessons constructed.
 References

Burgh, G. (2014). Creative and lateral thinking: Edward de bono. Encyclopedia of

educational theory and philosophy. Thousand Oaks: CA, USA.

Kim, B. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.) Emerging perspectives on learning,

teaching, and technology. Retrieved from
http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Social_Constructivism

Palincsar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual

review psychol., 49, 345-375.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the

development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

Walker, C., Shore, B. (2015). Understanding classroom roles in inquiry education: linking
role theory and social constructivism to the concept of role diversification. SAGE open, 5(4),
1-13. doi: 10.1177/2158244015607584