I believe one of the biggest differences between the two frameworks is the focus on the individual (cognitive) versus the individual plus the environment (activity setting). The cognitive framework is more of an individual process that focuses on the how, what and why certain individual factors serve as determinants of individual successes and/or failures in the classroom. The cognitive framework does not completely include "outside" factors such as how a particular developmental level was achieved, the context in which learning takes place (activity setting), or the cultural and historical backgrounds of each student. As the sociocultural framework illustrates, all these factors play a role in learning, as well as how motivation to learn is developed. Viewing individuals through the cognitive framework, one could say that a few pieces of the entire puzzle are missing. Those missing pieces are included in the sociocultural framework. So together, both frameworks complete the puzzle.
As we have been learning all term, the motivational component to learning greatly influences and affects the learning process. This emotional component, as it relates to learning, is heavily influenced by environmental factors. These factors are not part of the "development" of the cognitive framework. Under the description of the cognitive framework, if a child were perceived to have a lack of motivation, then the teacher would have to change the individual’s beliefs and/or values towards learning. Under the sociocultural framework, the teacher would look at the child within the specific environment or activity setting, to see what needs to be changed in order to motivate the student. Also, part of the change process would include an examination of the child’s cultural and historical background, since these factors play a role in the type of motivation that each student possess. So the mental view of both of these frameworks is also significantly different.
The cognitive framework also believes that learning is a teacher to student activity, while the sociocultural view is a joint collaborative activity where learning includes the teacher, student, peers and activity setting. This has significant implications, and possible restrictions, on how a classroom is constructed and how learning is presented. As one example, I would think that a cognitive minded teacher would use primarily individual tasks in the classroom whereas a sociocultural minded teacher wold use more group or partner related activities.
With society in general becoming more ethnically diverse, I believe it is very important to include the sociocultural framework in the education of our students. It will not be long until the "white" society is no longer the dominate one, so it makes good sense that the sociocultural perspective is being studied and used in the classroom.
What I like about the sociocultural framework is that it not only focuses on the cultural background of the student, but the historical background as well. Historically, prior learning experiences can play a role in present learning. At my level, it is even helpful to know the high school a student came from, their grade point average, their ACT or SAT scores and some of their familial background as well. These factors can collectively give me a better picture of the type of leaner I may be teaching. This information helps to give me a better picture of the complete student. Having as much information about a student can influence how I teach, which can hopefully help the students be better learners. So I believe that the sociocultural framework adds a more complete picture of each student as they enter the classroom. This in turn can help teachers construct their lessons around a complete person versus some of what the cognitive framework tries to illustrate. An example that I have spoke of in class, concerns the older student I have who has a military background. If I had not known about her background, or tried to understand her background better, I may have had an even more difficult time teaching her, than I already have. With one class group activity, I decided to change her partners since she did not get along with the original partners at all. I knew she would not change her opinion of the original partners (even though the students were ok to work with her), since that was her personality and upbringing. So to make the situation a better learning opportunity, I switched her partners to ones that I knew she could work with.. Thankfully that all worked out well
I was happy to see that the article referred to Vygotsky;s theory, since as I was reading the first few pages, his theory came to mind very quickly. Vygotsky’s theory is very similar to the sociocultural theory. I think in some ways, the sociocultural theorists just renamed Vygotsky’s theory because it has many of the main constructs that the sociocultural framework offers. Specifically the use of the external environment for learning as well as the many different cultural tools that each student can bring to the classroom. These are all very important factors that need to be considered when instructing our students.
I think the biggest difference when considering the value of the sociocultural framework versus the cognitive framework is to look beyond the student as an individual. Many factors play a role in the development of the complete student and all of those factors have to be considered when dealing with the motivation of the student. It is easy to label a student who seems unmotivated as one who does not put forth effort, but the sociocultural framework is there to remind us of many outside factors that can contribute to what are seemingly unmotivated students. These students may have to work one or two jobs to contribute to their family’s resources, thus they may actually be tired versus unmotivated. Or these students may come from such a rigid and unforgiving background that they are afraid to take a risk at displaying their knowledge in the classroom so they appear to be uninterested. Often what is on the surface may not necessarily depict the true situation that we appear to be viewing. So I think as an educator, we need to look at the individual student, but do so with an open and curious mind.