Showing papers by "Jerome S. Bruner published in 2003"
01 Jan 2003
TL;DR: Vygotsky's theory was an attempt to explain consciousness as the end product of socialization, and is complementary to the work of Bandura on social learning and a key component of situated learning theory.
Abstract: Overview: The major theme of Vygotsky's theoretical framework is that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition. Vygotsky (1978) states: "Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals." (p57). A second aspect of Vygotsky's theory is the idea that the potential for cognitive development depends upon the "zone of proximal development" (ZPD): a level of development attained when children engage in social behavior. Full development of the ZPD depends upon full social interaction. The range of skill that can be developed with adult guidance or peer collaboration exceeds what can be attained alone. Vygotsky's theory was an attempt to explain consciousness as the end product of socialization. For example, in the learning of language, our first utterances with peers or adults are for the purpose of communication but once mastered they become internalized and allow "inner speech". Vygotsky's theory is complementary to the work of Bandura on social learning and a key component of situated learning theory. Because Vygotsky's focus was on cognitive development, it is interesting to compare his views with those of Bruner and Piaget. This is a general theory of cognitive development. Most of the original work was done in the context of language learning in children (Vygotsky, 1962), although later applications of the framework have been broader (see Wertsch, 1985).
168 citations
14 May 2003
TL;DR: Self-Telling as discussed by the authors argues that if our self-truths were transparent to us, we would have no need to tell ourselves about them and yet we spend a good deal of time doing just that, either alone, or vicariously at the psychiatrist's, or at confession if we are believers.
Abstract: Is it that there is some essential self inside us that we need to put into
words? If that were so, why would we ever need to tell ourselves about ourselves-or why would there be such injunctions as “Know thyself” or “To
thine own self be true.” Surely, if our selves were transparent to us, we would
have no need to tell ourselves about them. Yet we spend a good deal of time
doing just that, either alone, or vicariously at the psychiatrist’s, or at confession if we are believers. So what function does such self-telling serve?
61 citations
1 citations