What kind of interaction in cognitive development of Piaget and Vygotsky emphasize is important?

Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky developed their theories of cognitive development. These two theories were created at the same time, and that is why they are often compared. Piaget and Vygotsky studied the same phenomena, but they used different theories to explain them (Obukhova, 2016). The current paper analyses each theory and argues that there is a crucial difference between Piaget and Vygotsky. Namely, Piaget did not take into account the role of culture and collaborative learning, whereas Vygotsky put particular emphasis on the cultural dependence of development.

Cut 15% OFF your first order

We’ll deliver a custom Human Development Theories paper tailored to your requirements with a good discount

Use discount

322 specialists online

Jean Piaget suggested that children’s cognitive abilities were not the same as adults’ ones. He proposed that children developed through sequential, innate, universal cognitive stages that are qualitatively different from each other. Piaget implied the concept of schemes to explain how this development occurred. Schemes represented specific behavioral patterns at each stage, and they evolved from concrete to abstract levels in the course of development. Moreover, this theory included the concepts of assimilation, which is the process of implementing the existing thinking to new observations, and accommodation, which is changing the existing way of thinking when a new event occurs. Thus, Piaget’s theory implied that a child is born with the predispositions needed for natural cognitive development.

Although Piaget insisted on the developmental stages to be universal, this approach has been questioned. First, the stages are not always the same, and they can vary from individual to individual. Second, these stages are determined biologically, eliminating all other determinants of development. Finally, Piaget seems to isolate personal development from the influence of the environment and, specifically, from other people. These issues were addressed in the theory of Lev Vygotsky.

Proposing Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development, Lev Vygotsky argued that cognitive development was majorly culture-specific. He insisted that social interactions between children and adults determined the development of cognitive functions. The collaboration of a child and a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) happens within a child’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is the range of abilities the child possesses. The lower boundary of ZPD is defined by the skills a child can perform independently, whereas the upper limit is the abilities a child can demonstrate with the help of MKO. The task of development, therefore, is to learn how to perform upper limit activity independently, which is achieved due to the scaffolding of MKO.

One can derive from Vygotsky’s theory that children do not passively go through the stages, but they actively construct their cognition in collaboration with adults. That is why this approach is considered as groundwork for constructivism. This theory suggested that children from different cultural backgrounds should not be directly compared because they probably developed different cognitive abilities specific to their environment. Moreover, the Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development implied that teaching methodology was of extreme importance for cognitive development. Therefore, Vygotsky’s theory put forward the significance of the social environment for cognitive development.

There is a striking difference between the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. While Piaget considered development as a passive progressing through the stages, Vygotsky emphasized the activity of people in collaboration. The latter is considered a more general picture because, indeed, the typical growing-up happens in society, where MKOs direct the children’s development. In contrast, Piaget’s approach seems to underestimate the contribution of the social environment suggesting age as the only factor of development. Vygotsky was aware of Piaget’s study, and he did not try to disprove the whole theory (Obukhova, 2017). Instead, he admitted that biological premises were necessary but he insisted that they were not the major determinants of the development.

On-Time Delivery!

Get your customised and 100% plagiarism-free paper done in as little as 3 hours

Let’s start

322 specialists online

Although these approaches are usually contrasted, there are also some attempts to integrate the two theories into a teaching methodology. For example, Hebe (2017) introduced the way to apply Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s principles to Environmental Education teaching in pre-school education. In his paper, Hebe (2017) suggests considering accommodation and assimilation within ZPD. Moreover, Sharkins, Newton, Causey, and Ernest (2017) show how integrating the two approaches “results in intentional teaching practices that support children’s construction of knowledge and development of autonomous thinking” (p. 17). Therefore, nowadays, these theories are believed to be complementary, at least for teaching practice.

There are other variants of explaining the difference between the two approaches. Fowler (2017) suggests that Piaget and Vygotsky did not focus on the same type of development. Instead, while Piaget studied universal features of development, Vygotsky considered non-universals, such as cultural tools of development. However, Fowles (2017) seems to ignore the fact that Piaget’s theory could not explain individual differences in development, therefore, it was not universal.

To conclude, Piaget and Vygotsky created massive theories of cognitive development. Both approaches still provoke much debate because their potential has not been fully revealed yet. Specifically, there are arguments on how similar the theories are and whether it is possible to integrate the best parts of them into one effective approach. Although Piaget’s theory is outstanding, it concentrates too much on the isolated development of an individual, whereas Vygotsky recognizes the significance of collaborative learning of children and adults.

References

Fowler, R. C. (2017). Reframing the debate about the relationship between learning and development: An effort to resolve dilemmas and reestablish dialogue in a fractured field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(2), 155–162. Web.

Get a custom-written paper

For only $13.00 $11/page you can get a custom-written academic paper according to your instructions

Let us help you

322 specialists online

Hebe, H. N. (2017). Towards a theory-driven integration of environmental education: The application of Piaget and Vygotsky in Grade R. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 12(6), 1525–1545.

Obukhova, L. F. (2016). On account of the 120-th birthday anniversary of L.S. Vygotsky and J. Piaget. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 12(3), 226–231. Web.

Sharkins, K., Newton, A., Causey, C., & Ernest, J. (2017). Flipping theory: Ways in which children’s experiences in the 21st century classroom can provide insight into the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. International Journal of Early Childhood Education and Care, 6, 11–18.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

While Piaget’s theories were waning in importance, those of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky began to receive more attention.  Vygotsky died young before his theories could be completely fleshed out (and some of his work has not yet been fully translated from Russian) but they provide fascinating insight into how children learn.  Vygotsky argued that social learning preceded cognitive development.  In other words, culture affects cognitive development.  Whereas Piaget asserted that all children pass through a number of universal stages of cognitive development, Vygotsky believed that cognitive development varied across cultures. According to Vygotsky’s theory, cognitive functions – social and individual – are then affected by the beliefs, values, and tools for intellectual adaptation of the culture in which a person develops. This makes sense when we consider that cultures have varying tools for intellectual adaptation. We teach children how to take notes to remember things, but pre-literate cultures use other methods to insure the reliable preservation of information, such as call and response, poetry, knots on a string, rote memorization, etc.

For Piaget, thought preceded language.  A child learned to think first, and then from that thought, speak.  Vygotsky believed that thought and speech were separate, intact processes that merged around age three. He also believed – and this is key – that cognitive development occurred as language was internalized.  It appears that the language referred to here is not just what the child can produce, but also what the community of adults around the child is using.  The socio-cultural environment shapes the child’s cognitive development, the way he or she understands the world. This dovetails nicely with what we understand now about the critical nature of vocabulary in predicting a child’s academic success.

Arguably Vygotsky’s greatest theory was the Zone of Proximal Development.  Piaget asserted that cognitive development had to occur before learning, and learning had to be initiated by the child; this became the basis for Discovery Learning.  Vygotsky believed that children developed cognitively when they were assisted by a More Knowledgeable Other (MKO: parent, teacher, older sibling, peer) to learn and practice new skills in a supported environment as a precursor to using them independently.  Even a brief reflection of basic parenting activities supports this practice: children often lack skills which parents model for them and help them practice.  Riding a bike, putting away toys, learning how to hold a book, doing a jigsaw puzzle — all fall into this category. Even the classic tea party could be viewed as a supported practice of table manners for some children.  Children have learned important skills at the knees of their parents and tutors since forever – skills they could not have easily developed without adult guidance and support. What those skills were was determined by the child’s culture. Cloth weaving, playing the zither, memorization of lists of battles, use of the abacus, interpretation of law, cheese making, surveying, calligraphy, metal working; whatever the culture deemed important.  A child would be moved incrementally along a continuum of skills by a MKO, who would support the child’s development until he or she could use the skills independently.

I often hear teachers, administrators, and laypeople say that kids can’t do higher order thinking until they “get the basics.” While not precisely Piagetian, this idea certainly borrows from the idea that learning cannot occur without some other event or development happening first.  What is exciting about the Zone of Proximal Development is that children don’t have to “get the basics” prior to developing cognitive skills. They need only have a reliable, skilled MKO who can work with them in that area just above their own skill level, and support them as they practice new skills to the point of independence.

This feels like a good place to point out that “the basics” are mostly not necessary for higher order thinking.  Reading is an important skill, and the primary vehicle through which (in our culture) information is disseminated. But reading is not actually necessary for learning to think critically and analytically.  Children can listen to a story, prior to knowing how to read, and be guided through the process of evaluating and analyzing events, characters, motives, themes, etc.  They do not need to spend hours on worksheets practicing word families and consonant blends or basic comprehension questions before they can hear, enjoy, and discuss a story critically if they have sufficient guidance and support from a MKO.  Unfortunately, children from impoverished backgrounds and English Language Learners are often condemned to worksheet purgatory instead of being assisted to develop the higher order thinking skills they need to be successful in school. Additionally, this relegates them to the least engaging aspects of education rather than provide them with hands-on, engaging activities that stimulate still more learning.

Vygotsky’s theories form an important part of our Cognitively Challenging Instruction training – using the Zone of Proximal Development to move children toward greater rigor. Vygotsky’s theories of the importance of socio-cultural factors in learning also provide support to another area of great concern: Culturally Responsive Instruction.  Our next journal post will discuss the links among all three of these areas.