Dani Abell

Professor Krakowski
Learning and Cognition
August 9, 2012
Learning and Cognition Final
The subject covered in class was that of clinical interviews. Each group
interviewed a five year old child in the hopes of discovering something about the
way the child processes and understands information. The objective of our

groups interview was to explore a five year olds understanding of kashrus.

We were interested in discovering how much this girl knew and how much
she understood about the information she knows. We focused on three
general aspects: kashrus, waiting between milk and meat, and what
constitutes a kosher product or animal. We hypothesized that understanding
what a child actually knows at this age would be helpful for a teacher in
order to be aware and ultimately better equipped to teach children about
kashrus. We were also interested in investigating the thought process that
takes place for a child at this stage of development.
While we are not experienced interviewers, it seems we made
interesting observations. In our interview we asked basic questions and after
receiving answers we pushed the child to reveal why they gave that answer
specifically. We asked questions such as how do you know something is
kosher, do non Jews keep kosher, can you eat milk and meat together and
how long does one need to wait before eating milk after meat. It was

interesting to see the answers the child gave because this is an area that
most kindergartners have not learned in depth.
What was most intriguing about these observations was the lack of
depth in the childs understanding. It seemed the child was able to answer
basic questions with the appropriate response. For instance, when asked
what animal is not kosher, the child was quick to respond a pig. When
asked if a cow was kosher the child knew that it was. When asked about fish,
the child said it depends on what kind of fish. While the child knew the
answers to these questions intuitively and could respond immediately, when
asked why this was true she had no idea.
Another interesting thing that happened was the childs reaction to
being given a hint from the interviewer. During the interview when asked
what makes a fish kosher, the interviewer prompted her by saying, A fish is
kosher when it has fins and He hoped this clue would trigger her memory
and prompt her to fill in the word scales. While the child still was unable to
answer the question on her own, once the interviewer gave her the answer,
she said that she really knew the answer but didnt know what they were
called. It was unclear if the child actually knew the answer was scales, but
that fact that she said it sounded familiar may indicate that the interviewers
clue was indeed helpful in triggering the childs memory.
A similar strategy was used when asking the child how one knows
what makes any food kosher or not kosher. It was only after the interviewer

took a number of steps back, asking if the child knew what the Torah was
and what was written inside, that the girl realized the idea of kosher comes
from the Torah.
I found these two ideas fascinating and felt they highlighted two crucial
ideas every educator should be aware of. The interview demonstrated that
just because a student can produce a correct answer to a question (i.e. a pig
is not kosher) does not mean he or she knows why this is true. This idea is
stressed in both the Siegler and Crowly articles. Both authors demonstrated
that children may know the min strategy for subtraction but dont
understand how it works. Not understanding the way a strategy or concept
works makes it difficult to apply and use in proper situations. The interview
also highlighted the idea of a zone of proximal development. It showed that
in instances where the child didnt know the answers, with the help of a
teacher, a child is capable of figuring out the right answer. The fins and
scales as well as the Torah hint given by the interviewer clearly showed this
idea.
I would speculate the reason the child was able to answer questions on
a superficial level was because she has a schema about what kosher is but
her schema is very limited. Her association as to what makes something
kosher is based off of what she has experienced in her home life and what
she has been told. This is why when she was asked how she knew
something was kosher she said, Because my father looks at the box. She

associates a product being kosher with her father looking at the box and that
is how she relates to the concept of kosher in her actual life.
When the girl was asked what animal was not kosher, pig immediately
came to her mind as it is the most common animal children are taught to
identify as not kosher. Once the question became more complex and in
depth, the child was stumped as she never had the opportunity to observe
why a pig is not kosher. Because she had never been taught or seen why a
pig is not kosher, she had not stored that as part of her kashrus schema.
When the girl was asked to explain why pigs, as well as certain candies, are
not kosher she reasoned that pigs are not kosher because they are dirty from
playing in the mud and candy is not kosher because its not healthy. I
believe the child gave these answers because she used case-based
reasoning. She realized these things needed some sort of unique
characteristics to make them not kosher so she came up with these answers.
The findings from the interviews have major implications for all
teachers. Our interview showed the importance for a teacher to dig deeply
to discover what students actually know and understand. The interviews
clarified that while a student may be able to produce the correct answer
when tested, does not mean they have a true understanding of the subject
matter or concept. Due to this, teachers must employ proper methods for
testing students. Based on this, giving a test that simply requires a student
to spit back information is not an adequate representation of a students

grasp on the material. A students memorizing skills are no indication that

they have mastered and internalized the material. Tests that require
students to apply information learned in class and questions that demand
explanations are a much better indicator of what the child actually knows. I
also believe oral tests are a good tool for a teacher to use so that he can
further probe a student and see what more the student knows. Besides
assessing whether the child knows how to properly apply the information,
oral tests can be helpful for the teacher to detect where the students are
making their mistakes and therefore allow the teacher to properly correct the
child allowing them to master the material.
The interview also showed the important role that the teacher has in
helping a student grasp information that might be just beyond their reach.
The teacher not only has the responsibility to teach information to his
students, but to give proper clues and devices that help students answer
questions that may have seemed beyond their reach. It is crucial teachers
help their students figure out how to answer tougher questions on their own
without giving them the answer. This method was best demonstrated when
the interviewer said Fins and giving her the opportunity to fill in the word
scales. Prompting the student with a fill in question may help them trigger
their memory and come up with the answer on their own.
Another important aspect of the interviewing process was the
importance of making the child comfortable. It seemed that when the child

felt safe and understood what was expected of her, she was able to recall
her best answers. This idea highlights the importance of teachers producing
a classroom where all students feel safe and free to express themselves
without feeling judged. This level of comfort is extremely important for test
taking. Being uncomfortable can make it more difficult for students to
produce proper answers to questions and ultimately harm their performance.
These tactics were stressed in the articles discussing the process of
conducting a clinical interview. I believe these skills are crucial for teachers
to understand and incorporate into the classroom. Without these skills it is
much harder for teachers to truly know what their students understand.
These techniques should allow teachers to make sure students not only know
the material, but that they understand how to apply it in real life. I believe
the constructivist model of teaching is built off these ideas and is a model of
teaching that can help lead students to mastery of the material being taught.
Teaching based on clinical interviewing also allows for more creativity and
can help motivate students to think on their own.
Before taking this course I never considered the process of how a
student thinks and how complicated it is. I have come to the realization that
learning and cognition is a complex activity that involves many intricate
processes within the brain. I dont believe we have all the answers as to how
the brain works, but this class revealed that there are concepts that can help
give direction to what is taking place. These theories and methods can be

helpful for everyone to understand how we think, but more importantly it is

crucial for allowing teachers to understand their students. The material that
we covered throughout this semester was so valuable in helping me
understand how I can better teach my students in the future. It allowed me
to be exposed to the way people think and has given me clarity as to what I
can do to assist my students in mastering what I teach them.
I found it the most helpful to have the interviews in class and to get a
first hand glimpse of what and how children think. I learned valuable lessons
in examining how much the students actually know and how the teacher is
essential in allowing kids to understand the information. This will have an
effect on how I will test my talmidim in the future and what methods I will
apply in the classroom.