Psychology
Piaget vs Vygotsky
Piaget and Vygotsky were influential psychologists who developed theories on cognitive development. Piaget's theory focused on stages of individual development, emphasizing the role of maturation and interaction with the environment. Vygotsky, on the other hand, emphasized the role of social interaction and cultural influences in cognitive development, highlighting the importance of language and social learning.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
12 Key excerpts on "Piaget vs Vygotsky"
eBook - ePubPiaget Vygotsky
The Social Genesis Of Thought
- Anastasia Tryphon, Jacques Vonèche, Anastasia Tryphon, Jacques Vonèche, ANASTASIA TRYPHON, ANASTASIA TRYPHON, Jacques Vonèche(Authors)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
CHAPTER NINE Social interaction and individual understanding in a community of learners: The influence of Piaget and Vygotsky Ann L. Brown University of California, Berkeley, USA Kathleen E. Metz University of California, Riverside, USA Joseph C. Campione University of California, Berkeley, USA The importance of social interaction as a major force in cognitive development has become associated in America with Vygotskyan theory. In contrast, Piagetian theory has been seen as influential in mapping individual cognitive growth. However the two theorists have more in common than is usually supposed. Vygotsky’s central interest was in the evolution of cognitive processes, in growth and change rather than static state cognition. It is therefore not surprising that Vygotsky had a special interest in children’s learning, where one can observe cognitive processes “undergoing change right before one’s eyes.” 1 For Vygotsky, developmental analysis was central to psychological investigation in general, not just a peripheral offshoot having to do with the specialised study of children. If Vygotsky was more interested in individual cognitive development than is usually thought, Piaget was not immune to the role of social experiences. In particular, Piaget regarded peer interaction as an ideal forum for helping children “decentre” their thinking from one particular egocentric view in order to consider multiple perspectives. Faced with a group of peers who not only fail to accept his or her views but hold opposing opinions, the child must compromise. In the process of compromising, the group produces a solution that is more mature than each individual effort
eBook - PDFChild Psychology
A Canadian Perspective
- Alastair Younger, Scott A. Adler, Ross Vasta(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
Discovery learning An educational approach based on Piaget’s idea that children learn by acting on the world individually, not by passively taking in information. The Piagetian approach to education emphazises active learning—building on a child’s natural curiosity and natural tendency to act on the world in order to understand it. (Image Source/iStock) 302 Chapter 8 – Cognitive Development: Piagetian and Vygotskian Approaches Vygotsky’s work has also had an important influence on educational practices, such as in the use of scaffolding and cooperative learning. Vygotsky, like Piaget, recognized the im- portance of active learning and of recognizing children’s individual differences in cognitive development (Miller, 2001). Where the two theorists diverge is in how they view the relation- ship between the classroom experience and cognitive development. For Piaget, the classroom exists to provide children with rich opportunities to explore and discover on their own. For Vygotsky, the emphasis is not on individual discovery, but rather on assisted discovery through interactions between teacher and student, as well as between students. The role of the teacher is to carefully guide each child, according to his current ability level, to improve skills in using and manipulating the symbolic systems of his culture. The emphasis then, is on the child’s interactions with others as he participates in meaningful activities with others in the classroom. Another important difference between Piagetian and Vygotskian approaches to education is in the role played by peers. An important aspect of children’s play is that it usually takes place within the context of social interaction with other children. Research has suggested that play with peers may provide a richer context for the development of cognitive skills than play with adults (Farver, 1993; Farver & Wimbarti, 1995).
eBook - PDF- Thomas L Good, Thomas L. Good(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
He studied how children adapt intellectually and morally to social and object worlds, recognizing that adaptation to the object world (referring to phenomena related to physics and chemistry) is the same in all social contexts. In all social environments babies’ encounters with animate and inanimate objects and their own bodies pose problems that motivate efforts toward understanding. Like Vygotsky, Piaget said that children’s environments may differ in social and physical characteristics that portend well or less well for their learn-ing and development. Comparison of Piaget and Vygotsky on Some Theoretical Points Similarities listed here are similarities only up to a point. Scratching beneath the surface of similar ideas of Vygotsky and Piaget often reveals differences. Development Is Characterized by Qualitative Changes Changes in quality of thought refer to its nature or structure, not its quantity. Both Vygotsky and Piaget saw development as characterized by qualitative changes. Both rejected nondevelopmental theories then current such as Gestalt and associationist psychology. Both fought against an idea of quantitative change—accumulation of bits of information. Despite this similarity in their forward think-ing, Vygotsky and Piaget focused on different aspects of development. Vygotsky’s theory focused on qualitative changes in a child’s cultural development. He and his colleagues uti-lized phylogenetic and ontogenetic data to identify “genetic roots of thinking and speech” (Vygotsky, 1934/1987). Vygotsky also examined cultural and social-historical influences on qualitative changes in development of humans. For example, he compared the thought of primi-tive humans with that of children and found similarities such as belief in magic. Vygotsky (1930/1993) wrote about an “evolution of forms of behavior” (p. 37) through stages.
eBook - PDFEducational Psychology Reader
The Art and Science of How People Learn - Revised Edition
- Greg S. Goodman(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
1 Despite this significant distinction between Piaget’s project and the work of Dewey and Vygotsky, one must bear in mind the profound assumptions the three men shared. Although all three worked within different cultural milieus, each scholar questioned how children might be taught to think in new ways and so move beyond lockstep reenactment of the known. Each felt that the necessary quality of intellectual engagement could only be nurtured by giving children developmentally appropriate opportunities to make sense of their worlds in conversation with others. As I have noted elsewhere, Dewey and Piaget were both raised as liberal Protestants: each emphasized the nurture of independent reasoning central to that heritage (Mayer, 2006; see also Vidal, 1987). As discussed here, Dewey and Vygotsky both pointed toward established cultural forms as the scaffolding upon which human reasoning must climb. Most fundamentally, however, all three theo- rists looked to the increased vitality and capacity of human intelligence as the only potential source of the social progress they all desired. 108 | Section III : Piaget and Vygotsky SIMILARITIES BETWEEN DEWEY AND VYGOTSKY Research on the psychological development of individuals has been interwoven with concerns over humanity’s prospects since psychology first organized itself into a discipline in Darwin’s tumultuous wake (Plotkin, 2004; Richards, 1987). Although this may seem a wide net to cast here, the careers of both Dewey and Vygotsky must be seen in relation to this early disciplinary interest in the links between individual development and social progress. Both scholars’ attention to educational method derived from a conviction that the proper nurture of children’s intellects would help to build the enlightened social and political orders that each believed his nation promised.
- Janette B. Benson, Marshall M. Haith(Authors)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
However, Vygotsky did not view individual psychology or human cognition as a direct consequence of social experience, that is, socially determined. He proposed that human development, including cognitive develop-ment, is socially constructed. That is, in the course of social interaction, the cultural context of development, as instan-tiated in social behavior and cultural artifacts, and the biological aspects of the human system, including genetic, maturational, and neurological characteristics, create new understandings and capabilities. In other words, individual psychological functioning is an emergent property of the sociocultural experiences of the human organism. This means that psychological development is a dynamic and constructive process, the outcome of which cannot be known beforehand or by examining the individual and the social context separately from one another. Rather, devel-opment is generated by the processes that transpire over the course of human social experience in cultural context. Vygotsky was particularly interested in social interac-tions involving more and less experienced members of a culture. As these partners collaborate in solving a problem, the more experienced partner assists the less experienced partner, the learner, in ways that support the learner’s engagement in actions that extend beyond the learner’s current individual capabilities. In an effective learning situation, this engagement occurs in what Vygotsky called the learner’s zone of proximal or poten-tial development, the region of sensitivity for learning. The more experienced partner supports the learner’s activity through the use of signs and tools of the culture. As the learner gains competence at the activity, the more experienced partner gradually withdraws support and, in time, the learner comes to function on his or her own in a more advanced intellectual way.
- Sara Meadows(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Psychology Press(Publisher)
Debates about, theories of cognitive development tend to neglect the possibility that the strengths and weaknesses of different theories may arise in part because they apply to different areas. Theorists of cognitive development differ, simply and obviously, in what content they are discussing. Piaget focused mainly on achievements such as conservation and class inclusion, using familiar materials that are universals, developed by most individuals whatever their culture, background or level of intelligence. He had nothing much to say about less general content, such as reading, formal science, or art history. Presumably, in so far as these cognitive activities use general processes, they could be seen as developing via equilibration and the rest of Piaget's fundamental processes; beyond this, their idiosyncracies would be acknowledged as culturally given but dismissed as largely uninteresting. Vygotsky's position, as we will see, allows both the universal and the culturally specific to be of interest. There may be symptoms here of the perennial debate about the position of psychology somewhere between biology and sociology, though I do not wish to address that argument here. However, if our cognitive contents differ as to whether they are universal or idiosyncratic, general or specific, it may be worth considering whether there are different acquisition processes for different components. Recently, biologists (e.g. Gottlieb, 1983, 1991; Greenough, 1991; Greenough & Black, 1992; Greenough, Black, & Wallace, 1987) have made the distinction between "experience-expectant" brain development, which uses universal experience to fine-tune a largely genetically programmed neuronal development with early critical periods, etc., and "experience-dependent" neuronal development, which uses—and is to a degree constituted by—less predictable stimulation that has not been general enough in our evolutionary history for development to be able to take it for granted. Piagetian developmental processes and structures may perhaps be more appropriate descriptions for the former than the latter: the Vygotskian developmental processes which will be discussed later may suit the latter more than the former.
eBook - PDFChild Psychology
Development in a Changing Society
- Robin Harwood, Scott A. Miller, Ross Vasta(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
In the cultural/historical context, individual development unfolds in a particular cultural and historical niche that itself is dynamic and changing. As noted earlier, socioculturalists believe that individual development must be studied in its cultural context. Moreover, so- cioculturalists study how changes in cultural practices and institutions (such as the intro- duction of formal schooling, move to a market economy, or invention of new technologies) shape the human mind. The Social Origins of Thought In addition to emphasizing the cultural contexts of knowledge and intelligence, Vygotsky focused on the role of social interaction in learning. According to Vygotsky, children acquire knowledge and cognitive skills by participating in cultural activities with more experienced partners. By participating in culturally meaningful activities with more knowl- edgeable members of their society, children internalize the values, customs, beliefs, and skills of their culture and, over time, come to use them independently. Vygotsky believed that the most productive interactions occur in what he termed “the zone of proximal (potential) development.” The zone of proximal development is the dis- tance between what a child can accomplish on his or her own and what the child can achieve under the guidance of an adult or in collaboration with a more capable peer. The zone of proximal development involves activities that are slightly beyond the child’s cur- rent capabilities but can be accomplished with help. Interactions within the zone of prox- imal development promote cognitive development because the social support allows children to extend their current skills to a higher level of competence. Vygotsky and the Sociocultural Approach 257 Scaffolding A method of teaching in which the adult adjusts the level of help provided in relation to the child’s level of performance, the goal being to encourage independent performance.
eBook - PDF- Don Lytle(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
American Psychologist, 41, 264–274. Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press. Lambert, E. B., & Clyde, M. (2000). Rethinking early childhood theory and practice. Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press. Lamborn, S., & Fischer, K. (1988). Optimal and functional levels in cognitive devel- opment: The individual’s developmental range. Newsletter of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, 2, 1–4. Low Deiner, P. (1997). Infants and toddlers: Development and program planning. Or- lando, FL: Harcourt, Brace, & Co. McLeod, L. (1997). Young children and metacognition: Do we know what they know they know? And if so what do we do about it? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22, 6–11. McLune, L. (1986). Symbolic development in normal and atypical infants. In G. Fein & M. Rivkin (Eds.), The young child at play: Reviews of research: Volume 4 (pp. 45–62). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Meadows, S. (1993). The child as thinker. New York: Routledge. 96 Vygotskian Theory and Scaffolding Miller, P. (1989). Theories of developmental psychology (2nd ed). New York: Freeman & Co. Minick, N. (1987). The development of Vygotsky’s thought: An introduction. In K. Rieber & S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume 1 (pp. 17–36). New York: Plenum Press. Moss, E. (1992). The socio affective context in joint activity. In L. Winegar & L. Valsiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social context: Volume 2: Research and Methodology (pp. 117–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Murray, F. (1991). Questions a satisfying developmental theory would answer: The scope of a complete explanation of developmental phenomena. In H. Reese (Ed.), Ad- vances in child development and behaviour (vol. 23, pp. 39–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nuthall, G. (1996). Commentary: Of language and learning and understanding the com- plexity of the classroom.
eBook - PDF- Per Saugstad(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
The two disagreed, however, on the role attributed to language in thinking. Whereas Piaget paid little attention to language in the development of thinking in the child, Vygotsky made it central in the form of inner speech. Vygotsky assumed a study of egocentric speech would help him settle the disagreement between Piaget and himself. This may be disputed. Even if he was right in believing egocentric speech to be directed to the child, this does not mean it has a function in the child’s thinking. Thus, the experiments performed by Vygotsky may be taken as evidence against Piaget’s view of egocentric speech, but not as evidence for Vygotsky’s hypothesis about the role played by language – in the form of inner speech – in thinking. A study of child development along the lines suggested by Vygotsky does not seem to produce evidence for his hypothesis. Related to the belief that higher forms of thinking occur as a form of inner speech is the belief that words serve as tools. To make the analogy between words and tools useful in empirical research, I believe we must explain how words obtain their status as tools and symbols. Thus, Vygotsky would have had to give an account of how human beings learn to speak during their ontogenetic development. To my knowledge, he gave no satisfactory account of language development. This may seriously limit the usefulness of his analogy. Vygotsky’s ideas about thinking, language, child development, and culture appealed strongly to intellectuals of the first decade of the Soviet state. He attracted a number of gifted students, and throughout the communist era, Russian psychologists produced British Psychology and Frederic Bartlett (1886–1979) 377 original ideas. However, psychological thinking in this era became so entangled with Marxist philosophy that it is difficult to assess its value independently of an assessment of Soviet Marxist philosophy.
eBook - PDFVygotsky and Education
Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology
- Luis C. Moll(Author)
- 1990(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
One of the results of this is that psychology has often produced ethnocentric conclusions, thereby avoiding some of the most com- plex and interesting issues that we should be addressing. Although my orientation is that of a developmental psychologist, I wish to stress that the issues raised here cannot be adequately addressed if one adheres to a narrow disciplinary perspective. In that spirit I have found it useful to turn to ideas from semiotics, literary analysis, and social theory. This reflects a general belief that it is only by organizing our scholarly efforts around issues such as socioculturally situated forms of representation - that is, issues that integrate rather than isolate various forms of mental functioning and various scholarly orientations - that we will be able to overcome the debilitating effects of disciplinary specialization. The ideas I shall propose here owe a great deal to several scholars, but the work of two Soviet scholars is particularly important: L. S. Vygotsky (1896-1934) and M. M. Bakhtin (1895-1975). Over the past decade or so the ideas of Vygotsky and other Soviet psychologists have come to play an increasingly important role in the thinking of Western devel- opmental psychologists. Furthermore, as scholars in political science (e.g., Cook, 1985), literary studies (e.g., Clark & Holquist, 1985), and other disciplines have come to recognize, Vygotsky's ideas have more general implications for the hu- manities and social sciences. This is not surprising, given that he lived and worked in a setting where most scholars had little patience for the kinds of disciplinary divisions and disputes that characterize so much of today's academic scene. During his career, cut short by his death from tuberculosis, Vygotsky wrote extensively on issues of philosophy, semiotics, psychology, aesthetic theory, pedagogy, the reha- bilitation and pedagogy of the handicapped, and literature, all in pursuit of devel- oping a sociocultural theory of mind.
- Anton Yasnitsky, René van der Veer, Michel Ferrari(Authors)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
45 The notion of “performance before competence” was introduced by Cazdan (1981). 46 In addition, in this conception of the learning-teaching process, the metaphor of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, and Ross, 1976), that may be appropriate for the training of skills, is ill-conceived as a means of understanding the process of designing facilitating situations. 47 Piaget’s theory is often (erroneously) cast in this mold (biological, individual) and placed in opposition to Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory (social). Overview of cultural-historical psychology 41 opposition, with different theories attempting to reduce one to the other or to treat one as the primary cause of the other. 48 In drawing a distinction between the “social” and the “individual,” it is important to recognize that both these terms carry ambiguous meanings and that, consequently, claims about relationships that obtain between them are fraught with potential confusion. Despite its widespread use in the human sciences, the word “social” does not have a uniform meaning. For example, we use the term “social science” and “social club” and although people are implicated in the meaning of “social” in both terms, their social aspect is different in each of them. The main source of confusion arises between two common ways in which the word “social” is used. On the one hand, it is used to refer to other people or more than a single person, as in the term “social club” referring to an association or group of people. On the other hand, it refers to relationships that obtain between people, such as social structures, systems, and roles. In the former case, social is a synonym for group, whereas in the latter case, it refers to society and the kinds of “social” structures and systems sociologists and social (or cultural) anthropologists study, such as class, kinship systems, legal and religious systems, including marriage, rituals, and rites of passage.
eBook - ePub- Irving B. Weiner, William M. Reynolds, Gloria E. Miller(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Wiley(Publisher)
Vygotsky's (1987) examination of the relationships between first and second language acquisition shows how both “represent the development of two aspects of a single process, the development of two aspects of the process of verbal thinking. In foreign language learning, the external, sound and phasal aspects of verbal thinking [related to everyday concepts] are the most prominent. In the development of scientific concepts the semantic aspects of this process come to the fore” (pp. 222–223). He added another comparison between learning scientific concepts and learning a second language. The meanings that a student is acquiring in a second language are mediated by meanings in the native language. Similarly, prior existing everyday concepts mediate relationships between scientific concepts and objects (Vygotsky, 1987). Vygotsky cautions, however, that “the learning of the native language, the learning of foreign languages, and the development of written speech interact with each other in complex ways. This reflects their mutual membership in a single class of genetic processes and the internal unity of these processes” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 179). The unity Vygotsky found in inner speech, verbal thinking, and meaning has been a focus for sociocultural researchers, especially those looking at these three aspects in second-language learners who are trying to create meaning in a new language.Sociocultural Approaches to Second-Language Acquisition and Development
Researchers interested in diverse facets of second-language acquisition both in and out of educational contexts, have utilized sociocultural theory in a variety of ways. Some have focused more on the internal aspects of language, the mental processes involved in making and communicating meaning through language acquisition, while others have focused more on the social, cultural, physical, and historical contexts of second-language learning and acquisition. All have strived to understand second-language learning and acquisition and examine the role of sociocultural context as a mediating force in language development and use and have recognized the essential role of semiotic mediation—making meaning through signs—in the development of the mind.James Lantolf has played a central role in developing a sociocultural approach to the study of second-language acquisition (SLA) and second-language teaching/learning. He and his students and colleagues have developed a methodological approach to researching second-language acquisition based on the work of Vygotsky using mediation; inner speech, private speech, and internalization; the regulatory function of language; the zone of proximal development and scaffolding; testing, including dynamic assessment. (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Lantolf and Beckett (2009) reviewed sociocultural research investigating SLA from 1985 to the present. Mahn (2013) similarly describes aspects of Vygotsky's methodology and theory that have guided sociocultural approaches to SLA research.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
