Piaget believed that learning was a result of two processes, assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is a process of dealing with an object or an event in a way that is consistent with an existing schema. (Schemas are what is learnt by the child and organised into a schema). When the child comes across a new object the child will, place that object into an existing schema, modify that schema, or indeed form an entirely new schema for the object, this is thought of as accommodation. Piaget believed that children were active learners always making new schemas and challenging the world around them. As a child progressed the schemas found new boundaries and the child formed new schemas. The schemas may change but the way in which the child forms the schema stays the same and as schemas become increasingly more complex, they are termed as structures and as a persons structure become more complex, they are organised in a hierarchical manner.
Vygotsky outlined a major alternative to Piaget’s theory. Internalisation and the social nature of thinking. Vygotsky believed that cognitive learning was a social event, that through language and interaction with other children and adults, children would begin to learn about and challenge their surroundings. He also believed that our interpretation of skills and objects influence children. Vygotsky proposed that social interaction deeply influences cognitive development and central to Vygotsky’s theory is his belief that biological and cultural development does not occur in isolation. The major theme of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework is that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition, as we have already mentioned. Vygotsky (1978) states: “every function in the Childs cultural development appears twice; first, on the social level, and later on the individual level, first between people, interpsychological, and then inside the child, intrapsychological”. This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relationships between individuals. Rogoff (1990) stated, “ This is the reverse of how Piaget, at least initially, saw things. Piaget’s idea of `the child as the scientist` is replaced by the idea of the `child as an apprentice, who acquires the culture’s knowledge and skills through graded collaboration with those who already possess them”. Scaffolding, meaning, support from people, peer group school etc, is built upon. Scaffolding is an important aspect of Vygotky’s views, and is also important for parents, as they play a large part in the scaffolding process.
Another main area of dissimilarity between Piaget and Vygotsky concerns their views on the relationship between language and thought. Vygotsky saw a much closer link between the acquisition of language and the development of thinking, and he gave much greater prominence to the importance of social interaction in development, especially as it influenced language and thought. Whereas Piaget gave very little importance to language, in the development of thought.
Vygotsky and Piaget had a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between language and thought. Piaget (1923) argued that early language is egocentric and only becomes socialised with cognitive development. He suggested that the pre-operational child fails to take into account the other person’s view and as a result, the early conversations of children have more of the quality of monologues than of dialogues. Only with cognitive development does speech take on a genuinely communicative function. According to Piaget’s theory, language and communication depend on the development of thinking. Vygotsky argued, on the contrary, that language is communicative from the beginning. He carried out an ingenious test of his theory. He compared the amount of `egocentric` speech when hearing pre-school children together, with the amount of speech produced when the hearing child is placed in a room with a group of deaf-mute children. Under these circumstances the hearing child has little chance of communicating and Vygotsky found that the rate of egocentric speech decreased significantly. This result would not be expected if speech had been intended by the child simply as a monologue. Piaget believed that egocentric speech reflects an inability to take the perspective of others and plays no useful role in development. Whereas Vygotsky believed that egocentric speech is an important developmental phenomenon, which helps children to organise and regulate thinking. Vygotsky has a point, pre-school children believe what they are told by others, and so this must mean that they listen to other people’s views, but maybe they do not have the ability to compare different views on the same subject. For instance, Santa clause, children are told from a young age of his existence by family and friends, if a single person challenged this belief before they are at an age where they can rationalise, they would totally dismiss this, no matter how strong the persons argument was.
The theories of Piaget and Vygotsky have been very influential in the field of education. Although Piaget himself did not focus very much on the usefulness of his theory for educational practice, many people working in education have done precisely that. The Plowden Report (1967) suggested that some of Piaget’s ideas should be used in schools. There are three main ways in which Piagetian theory has been applied in education. Firstly is the concept of readiness, according to Piaget, what children can learn is determined by their current stage of cognitive development and more specifically, children can only deal successfully with tasks that make use of the various cognitive structures and operations they have already mastered. Secondly is the curriculum, Piaget put great emphasis on mathematical and logical principles, but of crucial importance is the notion that the learning material must not be too complex and far removed from the child’s existing schemas. Finally, teaching methods, Piaget claimed that children learn best when they engage in a process of active self-discovery and discovery learning. Smith & Cowie (1991) claim “Children apply the processes of assimilation and accommodation to their active involvement with the world around them. This is central to Piagetian views of the educational process, to set intrinsically motivating tasks and provide learning opportunities that create disequilibrium. Teachers must recognise that each child needs to construct knowledge for itself, and that a deeper understanding is the product of active learning”. This does seem like a `nice` idea and I am sure it would work well, but I think perhaps only with bright children, and as Piaget himself says, children need to have developed such, that they can use logical thought, so is Piaget referring to older children with this idea, or does he suggest that it is how children of any age should be taught? Is that not a contradiction by Piaget? I think so.
Vygotsky believed rather than teachers playing an enabling role, the teacher should guide the child in paying attention, concentrating and learning effectively. Vygotsky argued that teaching methods should be a didactic approach rather than by experiment and experience. Sutherland (1992) said “by doing this, teachers scaffold children to competence”. Vygotsky believed that learning was most effective when it occurs within the ZPD, zone of proximal development, this refers to the range of tasks a child can perform with help from a skilled individual and not yet on their own, functions that have not yet been matured. Vygotsky suggested that this promoted cognitive growth because a child has to work out a problem orally and in turn it is stored better in the memory. Vygotsky also deems collaborative learning or peer tutoring important. According to Vygotsky, it is important for those involved in educating children to focus on the Childs ZPD. It could be argued that the ideal tutors are children who are slightly older and more advanced than the child being taught. They should also remember the limitations in their own knowledge and understanding at that age or stage of development. Peer tutoring has become increasingly used in schools, and today there is a project in Medway, which uses mentors in a few colleges and schools, the mentor passes on skills, direct students and helps them in areas of difficulty. This project has been used effectively and successfully in other areas so it gives credibility to Vygotskys view.
Vygotsky’s theory shares a number of similarities with Piaget’s but differs radically in its treatment of language and its influence on thinking. Vygotsky agreed with Piaget’s view that children do not think like adults and applauded the fact that Piaget did not simply set out to discover what children could not do in comparison with adults, unlike most child psychologists before him, but sought to find out what they could do. Where Piaget views young children’s play and talk as a manifestation of a natural desire to manipulate and assimilate the physical world, laying down the sensory-motor and intuitive foundations for mathematical and logical operations, Vygotsky sees it as a product of social experience and evidence for the emergence of intellectual self-control.
To conclude, when you compare Piaget to Vygotsky you clearly see that; both men agree that the child must mentally construct knowledge, however, Vygotsky placed stronger emphasis on the role of social interaction in this construction process. Vygotsky also placed stronger emphasis on culture in shaping cognitive development. As a child develops, they learn to use tools for thought that are valued by their culture. Piaget believed that development precedes learning but Vygotsky believed that learning pulls development. In terms of `readiness`, Piaget believed that children’s readiness for learning is defined by their existing level of competence and knowledge. Whereas Vygotsky, argued that instruction should be directed toward the child’s potential level of development, the level of competence they can demonstrate with the assistance and guidance of others. And finally, Piaget believed that egocentric speech reflects an inability to take the perspective of others and plays no useful role in development, but Vygotsky believed that egocentric speech is an important developmental phenomenon. It helps children to organise and regulate thinking. When you look at their practical applications to education, you can see that infact there is a place for both views in schools. Children are not all the same and learn differently, what works for one does not necessarily work for another, there are no hard and fast rules. It should be a matter of looking at the individual and finding a teaching method that works best for them. You can see Piaget’s views at work in the classroom, lots of experiments and practical lesson. As well as Vygotsky’s view that the teacher should go back to the blackboard. Surely there is a time and place for both in education, and both are of equal importance.
