When comparing Vygotsky and Piagets theories of cognitive development What is the major difference between the two?

Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are known for their enormous contributions to the field of education through their works in developmental psychology. The two psychologists were contemporaries and are frequently compared to each other in relation to their theories and approaches. Both of the scholars have made a significant impact not only on the development of psychology but on education as well. Their contributions are still influential and are widely discussed in today. In this paper, the similarities and differences between the theories and approaches of Piaget and Vygotsky will be discussed.

Our experts can deliver a customized essay tailored to your instructions

for only $13.00 $11.05/page

308 qualified specialists online

Piaget and Vygotsky contributed to the way modern educators understand the learning and cognitive processes of children. Even though the approaches of the two psychologists are different, they provide a firm ground for modern practitioners to develop teaching strategies.

Piaget’s understanding of development is based on his constructivist theory where he differentiated between various stages of development. In Piaget’s theory, the child is the main facilitator of the learning and cognitive processes. At the same time, Vygotsky’s theory takes social interactions and learning as the basic components that determine the development of the child.

Differences

According to the view of Piaget, the cognitive development a child undergoes between the periods of infancy and youth can be divided into four main stages – sensorimotor (from 0 to 2 years old), preoperational (2 to 7 years old), concrete operations (7 to 11 years old), formal operations (11 years old to adulthood) (Comparing Piaget and Vygotsky, n. d.). Piaget theorized that development had an end as well as a beginning.

Vygotsky’s understanding of the cognitive development of children relied on the concept of social learning and collaboration (Malone, n. d.). That way, the psychologist believed that the accomplishments a child would achieve collaborating with other learners or a supervisor were much greater than those a child would make learning alone (Malone, n. d.).

Therefore, the most noticeable difference between the two theories is the theorists’ views on how and by whom the learning is facilitated – autonomy versus collaboration (Lourenço, 2012). In Piaget’s constructivist approach, a learning child is viewed as an independent actor who interacts with the environment, obtains, and interprets information autonomously, and is the constructor of their learning (Lourenço, 2012). According to Vygotsky’s social development theory, the cognitive growth of a child is seen as a collaborative process that requires the participation of other individuals and social interactions as necessary conditions enabling the learning process.

Similarities

The fundamental similarity between the two theories is their exploration of development as the basis for learning (Lourenço, 2012). Both Piaget and Vygotsky focused on the transition from one form of cognition or memory to another and attempted to explain the causes and processes that enable development (Lourenço, 2012). Moreover, it is important to mention that even though one of the theorists emphasized solitary learning, and the other one favored the collaborative one, they both agreed that an individual exists inseparably from their environments and social interactions (Lourenço, 2012). In addition, Vygotsky and Piaget’s perspectives on the human intelligence and consciousness were rather similar due to their non-reductionist point of view. In other words, both theorists believed that intelligence and consciousness were the forms of adaptation and organization and could not be seen as combinations of reflexes (Lourenço, 2012).

On-Time Delivery! Get your 100% customized paper done in

as little as 3 hours

What Can Be Gained by a Better Understanding of the Theories?

Lourenço (2012) connects the different orientations of Piaget and Vygotsky (autonomy and heteronomy) to their ultimate worldviews and states that the theorists’ idea concerning the origins of knowledge dictated their scholarly arguments. That way, Piaget perceived knowledge as coming from within a person and can be gained autonomously, whereas Vygotsky believed that knowledge comes from without and thus required social interactions (Lourenço, 2012).

Overall, analyzing the two theories one may notice that Vygotsky’s approach is grounded on the concept of authority that is viewed as the source of knowledge. That way, the theorist assumed that the knowledge possessed by the supervisors is the “correct” or “necessary” one. At the same time, Piaget’s approach, even though it is based on rigid categories and stages, provides more freedom to a child as an autonomous learner relying on individual and independent interpretations of the situations and environments without being limited by the “right” or “wrong” information judged by the adults based on their own perspectives. The two approaches have multiple supporters and opponents today, and neither can be considered better than the other. Emphasizing the two different ways of obtaining knowledge and exploring their benefits, Piaget and Vygotsky provide a substantial basis for contemporary educators to combine both approaches in modern education. To date, some of the most progressive educational programs attempt to combine carefully weight combinations of tasks and strategies for autonomous and guided learning.

Conclusion

Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky have immensely contributed to the fields of child development and psychology, which in turn, impacted education. To this day, their impacts are significant and meaningful. The approaches of the two theorists are similar as they emphasize the process of cognitive development in children but differ in the perspectives on the origins of knowledge. These days, the works of both theorists serve as the basis for the creation of harmonious curriculums incorporating both approaches.

References

Comparing Piaget and Vygotsky. (n. d.). Web.

Lourenço, O. (2012). Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 281–295

Malone, D. (n. d.). Jean Piaget vs. Lev Vygotsky: Differing views in cognitive development. Web.

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.