Sansavini, et al. (2007) investigated the impact of very early preterm birth on phonological working memory abilities and on grammatical development. They considered biological and social factors in order to determine whether or not socio-economic status and level of education had an effect on the development of linguistic and cognitive development in children of preterm births. The results of this study show that all preterms have more and persisting difficulties in linguistic, cognitive, and phonological working memory development up to 3.5 years old when compared to fullterm children. After 3.5 years, however, the social factor of the mother’s level of education impacts linguistic and cognitive development in preterms. These babies may then (after 3.5) begin to reach full learning potential and may experience no repercussions of their preterm birth learning deficits in early age. This study also showed that once all children reach 3.5 years old and beyond, the mother’s level of education begins to impact language and cognitive development regardless of fullterm or preterm birth. Meanwhile, the father’s level of education had no impact on the child’s development in this study. Sansavini, et al. (2007) also found that screenings of all preterm children need to be done before 4 years old to begin an intervention to help the children recover from and prevent the development of more critical difficulties in cognitive development as they get older.
This study connects to Jean Piaget's Cognitive Constructivism. From the ages 2-7, children are in the preoperational stage of development. They begin to have a grasp of language and problem solving skills, asking "why" about everything. It makes sense that the study would conclude in this way. If babies' mothers are educated, then, they most likely are aware of the importance of reading with, talking with, and playing games with their children, etc. On the other hand the study raises a stereotypical point that the father's educational level has no bearing on the child's cognitive development. It seems that the schema of the mother as the child-rearing parent and the father as the bread-winner tests out in this study.
Conclusion and Reflection
Working memory investigation provides us with more specific reasons why we learn the way we do. In understanding the way our mind encodes, stores, and processes information, we may enhance our own learning experiences, and most importantly as teachers, whether parents, nurses, or classroom educators, we may develop strategies to exercise the minds of our “students.”
Regardless the intellectual level of the individual, working memory strategies may benefit everyone. People with MIDs, CDC, MDs, symptoms of preterm birth, etc. require educators to adapt their methods to accommodate their specific learning needs. However, since the brain is so efficient (and eager to cut corners), we must continue to exercise all parts of the working memory in all students to keep the brain at its top working capacity. Therefore, each of these studies that focus on children with learning difficulties, mentally or physiologically, not only benefit us in regards to providing strategies to help certain needy students, but also provide eye-opening techniques to create more dynamic learning environments for all students.
My research on working memory has allowed me to understand students whom I might consider lazy or attention-craving. They may not possess the schema for proper classroom behavior or the script for how to study or take notes or read. When children act out, they are attention-seeking, but now, I understand the kinds of attention they may be seeking. They may have working memory overload and be unable to encode, process, store or retrieve anymore information. Also, students and I need to be aware of their metacognitive processes. Once they and I figure out how they learn, we can work on individual problem areas.
Another section of the textbook that really opened my eyes is the section on semantic memory. Mixing up teaching strategies, not just in providing a variety of activities and in using a variety of visual media, requires varying methods from the prototype approach to the exemplar approach. Also, the idea of bilingual education that Doug brought up in his and Amy's workshop on semantic memory really caught my attention. I hope that in the very near future the results of the studies that prove the importance early bilingual education catch on in the grade schools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In the article you present the conclusions stated are: "This study also showed that once all children reach 3.5 years old and beyond, the mother’s level of education begins to impact language and cognitive development regardless of fullterm or preterm birth."
Why do you think is that?
(Hint: link it to semantic memory, and Piaget's developmental stages. The age is approximately when they children have full handle of the language, so, they start developing semantic memory, by asking "Why?" questions). Why is so important the mother and not as much the father. (Hint2: something the team who presented the schema workshop touched).
I would like to see in your reflection how you relate the topic you present with other topics you learned about, and how in the end you consider it important from educational point of view. What and how could have your topic application to educational setting.
In conclusion, the reflection needs a little more work.
Post a Comment