Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky: Conceptual and Historical Contributions to Developmental Psychology - Term Paper Example

Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky: Conceptual and Historical Contributions to Developmental Psychology Introduction Jean Piaget was born on the 9th of August 1896 in Neuchâtel and died on the 16h of September 1980 in Geneva. On the other hand, Lev Vygotsky was born on the 5th of November 1896 in the vicinity of Minsk and died on the 11th of June 1934 in Moscow (Smith, Dockrell, & Tomlinson, 1997). Their conceptual and historical contribution on developmental psychology has been phenomenal throughout the twentieth century and seems set to persist soundly into the new millennium. The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast the conceptual and historical impact and contribution of these two renowned psychologists to the growth of developmental psychology. Two dilemmas confront anyone who aims to examine, explain and address the work of Piaget and Vygotsky. On one hand, their contribution was massive in scope and magnitude. On the other hand, their influence is as decisive as it is flecked. Each has embarked on fundamental standpoints which provide integral components in current descriptions founded on basic constructs which deserve meaningful application, development and modification. Hence understated judgments are needed so that realistic decisions can be made concerning what must be sustained and what must be modified in the works of Piaget and Vygotsky in relation to viewpoints in psychology. This has never been an easy task. There is occasionally a propensity to elaborate the work of Piaget and Vygotsky in a contrasted manner, as though their works are not related to one another in any way. On this elaboration, there is a limited decision to be made between the theory of Piaget, or Vygotsky. This kind of interpretation would have the implication that the field of education and developmental psychology may possess no similarities, when explained from Piagetian point of view versus a Vygotskian standpoint (Smith et al., 1997). Contrary to this limited elaboration of Piaget or Vygotsky, there exists a more general analysis in that a number of assumptions are exclusive to Piaget’s work, some assumptions are exclusive to Vygotsky’s, while other assumptions are in their general knowledge (Smith et al., 1997). The latter interpretation will be used in this comparative analysis. Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky: A Comparative Analysis of Developmental Psychology Primarily, the general interpretation explains the common belief that intellectual growth takes place as a series of hierarchical stages. It is widely recognised that this premise is made clearly by Piaget and Vygotsky, for instance: ... we do in fact find, in the analysis of forms of social equilibrium, these same three structures... (just as the) cognitive mechanisms in children involve three distinct systems (Piaget, 1995, 56). ... development consists in three intrinsic stages (Vygotsky, 1994, 216). There is little understanding as to how such arguments are to be interpreted given that the available literature and empirical findings are discovered irreconcilable with common levels of development (O’Donnell & King, 1999). Nevertheless, concerns are not definite and Flavell (1992) maintained that there is a big issue specifically because there is quite little agreement with regard to substitutes to ‘general’ phases of development. One means to prevent this standoff is to delineate between two aspects of generality. First, generality equates to ‘transfer’, for instance the ‘transfer of knowledge across domains, contexts and cultures’ (Smith et al, 1997, 3). Secondly, in a fairly different aspect, generality equates to ‘universalisation’, such as the ‘development of knowledge of universal properties as opposed to merely observational properties’ (Smith et al., 1997, 3). Next, a shared dedication to the social unpredictability of intellectual growth is also clearly espoused by Piaget and Vygotsky: Human intelligence is subject to the action of social life at all levels of development from the first to the last day of life (Piaget, 1995, 278). The entire history of the child’s psychological development shows us that, from the very first days of development, its adaptation to the environment is achieved by social means (Vygotsky, 1994, 116). It is apparent that Vygotsky has a propensity to shift from a social to a cultural categorisation of development, a premise that is used in annotations of his works. Certainly the foundation of this transition is his dedication to a concept of society that is fundamentally cultural. This concept is not deducible to social relations (Daniels, 2001). It is similarly apparent that Piaget’s dedications are comparable in this regard with appropriate attention granted to social interactions and the cultural accessibility of values and knowledge (Smith, 1996). Then, an equally shared assurance is made concerning a biological input to cognitive development by Piaget and Vygotsky: The stages of development are far from being just the manifestation of internal organic maturation (Piaget, 1995, 296). We must, therefore, distinguish the main lines in the development of the child’s behaviour. First, there is a line of natural development which is closely bound up with the processes of general organic growth and maturation (Vygotsky, 1994, 57). Even though Piaget is generally recognised with a biological knowledge, it is not consistently recognised that Vygotsky’s description involves an explicitly biological component. One suggestion is that there are similarities within and between species in relation to cognitive development and that at every stage there are primordial structures of intelligence which have a connection with more highly developed descendants in the never-ending progress of new knowledge and understanding (Montangero & Maurice-Naville, 1997). Certainly, there are commonalities in the perspectives espoused by Piaget and Vygotsky. Evidently, this does not imply that commonality is identity, for the reason that there are significant dissimilarities to consider as well. It does imply that there are similar dedications which are fundamental to their two descriptions that can be applied together, instead of unilaterally, in educational and psychological research. Development is a transparent mechanism with no transferable term, dissimilar to an ordinary mountain which has a single apex. Piaget clearly emphasised the transparent character of the growth of knowledge. Vygotsky’s dedication to cognitive development through a ‘zone of proximal development’ opens up the level to which intermediated support is effective and the degree to which effective intermediation is ingenious of new knowledge (Wertsch, 1998, 42). The belief of Vygotsky that social forces are integral in development is widely recognised. Piaget, on the other hand, is frequently misinterpreted as perceiving the child as an isolated scientist independent of the social environment. It is factual that his studies focused primarily on individuals in a laboratory environment. Nevertheless, it is essential to differentiate between Piaget’s assertions as a psychologist and his assertions as an epistemologist. His primary objective was epistemological, or to elaborate how knowledge grows, and not how a child grows (Smith et al., 1997). It is definitely erroneous to assume that Piaget placed intellect at the core of child development. It appears that by disparaging Piaget for not clarifying thoroughly the specific function of social forces in the development of the child, people demand more of Piaget than he demanded of himself. When Piaget articulated as an epistemologist, he puts emphasis on the development of insights. When Piaget articulated as a child psychologist, he puts emphasis on the integral function of social forces in the creation of knowledge (Smith, 1996). For instance, even in his preliminary work, he resembled Vygotsky when he argued that “social life is a necessary condition for the development of logic” (Piaget, 1995, 120), “social life transforms the very nature of the individual” (p. 210), and “that the progress of reason is due to social mechanisms” (p. 199). In subsequent work, he maintained that “relations among individuals... modify the mental structures of individuals” (Piaget, 1950, 40). Moreover, he explicitly associated social and cognitive functioning as indistinguishable, arguing that: In the realm of knowledge, it seems obvious that individual operations of the intelligence and operations making for exchanges in cognitive cooperation are one and the same thing, the ‘general coordination of actions’ to which we have continually referred being an interindividual as well as intraindividual coordination because such ‘actions’ can be collective as well as executed by individuals (Piaget, 1967, 360). It is thus apparent that Piaget and Vygotsky have the same opinion that when one talks about child development, one should greatly consider social forces. The next approach is an epistemological premise. This premise demonstrates that there is a basic commonality in the descriptions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Cognitive development for Vygotsky is an evolution from social harmony to personal identity; in Piaget’s point of view, it is the capture of identity as the primary component in social harmony (O’Donnell & King, 1999). Quite basically, their similarity is the creation of unbiased knowledge. In order to identify this, it is important to take into account first Vygotsky’s point of view consistent with which knowledge accessible in a particular culture is socially intermediated, leading to the creation of psychological mechanisms which are prolific of sign-founded structures of communication. This form of communication can consequently provide an input to shared culture with continuous emphasis of this phase of ‘voices of the mind’ (Wertsch, 1998, 68). On the other hand, Piaget and Vygotsky consented that the cognitive development of children also occurred in stages. Nonetheless they were delineated by dissimilar modes of thinking. Piaget initially emphasised that children rationalise and think in a different way at different stages of their lives. He assumed that all children develop through four distinct phases of cognitive development. This assumption is referred to as Stage Theory because it addresses four stages of cognitive development, which are ‘sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational’ (Montangero & Maurice-Naville, 1997, 19). Piaget as well hypothesised on adaptation and development. The constructivist theory or also referred to as adaptation theory included three basic mechanisms, which contributed to the intellectual development of children. These are ‘assimilation, accommodation and equilibrium’ (ibid, 9). Contrary to Piaget, Vygotsky is most generally related with the social constructivist theory and formulated three broad premises, namely, culture, language and the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky consented with Piaget concerning the constructive character of cognitive development. Nevertheless, for Vygotsky, intellectual development takes place within a social perspective. Rather than develop techniques of cognition as a person, the child assigns methods of thinking through social relationships (Daniels, 2001). The larger society is constructed through the creation and utilisation of cultural instruments, such as language. Vygotsky viewed the child as a social individual who is capable of assigning new ways of thinking when gaining knowledge along with a more knowledgeable individual, or what is referred to as ZPD. This is the region between the stage of development of a child and their possible development stage, in relationship with more knowledgeable people (Vygotsky, 1994). On the other hand, the theory of Piaget does not support the argument that children carry out tasks that are outside their intellectual capacities. The teacher simply arranges the environment for the developmental capability of cognitive or motor functioning of the child. Hence, the child is restricted by their developmental level. However, the ZPD provokes the child to perform beyond their capabilities. It could be assumed that the developmental model of Vygotsky is unsound and, certainly, the ZPD does receive a number of criticisms. Some psychologists argue that children performing jointly with their peers are uncreative. Definitely, the argument is a compelling one (O’Donnell & King, 1999). With that in mind, theirs is not an entirely persuasive contention. Vygotsky cannot be blamed for the misuse of his model. Definitely, application of the ZPD encourages developmental mechanisms only if the child relates with the environment and work with their peers. Piaget definitely views the nature of the stimulus in a different way from that of Vygotsky. In the point of view of Piaget, the stimulus will cease to be a stimulus until a subject acted upon it (Scholnick, Nelson, Gelman & Miller, 1999) contrary to the empiricist standpoints of Vygotsky on conditioned and unconditioned reactions that hinge on the behaviour of the environment (Daniels, 2001). Another variation in relation to this premise is that Vygotsky puts emphasis on the substance of the stimulus whereas Piaget puts emphasis on the system of the perceptive individual (Smith et al., 1997). Similarly, Vygotsky highlighted the substance of development whereas Piaget underlined the system of development. Contrary to other scholars in this discipline, Piaget underlines the fundamental forms of mutual relationship among individuals, just as he performs for relationship of the person with objects. The substance of relationship could differ depending on the mutual action and the developmental stage of the participants. The function of a partaker who is regarded to be more knowledgeable and is anticipated to function as a teacher, as highlighted by Vygotsky, associates to the substance rather than the system of interaction (Smith et al., 1997). Piaget and Vygotsky had several conflicting perspectives which involved Piaget (1995) assuming that cognitive developments go before linguistic advancements, dissimilar to Vygotsky (1994) who suggested that language enabled the child a higher level of freedom of thinking and result in further intellectual advancement. Piaget has confidence in the development of cognition and that language advanced from individual to social (Smith, 1996). On the contrary, Vygotsky argued that language shifted from the social to the individual. In Vygotsky’s view speech transferred from communicative or social speech to personal self-centred speech. He thought that children initiated by articulating an inner conversation and then shifted to social speech. He maintained that it happens to be personalised as an adult (Daniels, 2001). On the contrary, Piaget argued that self-centred speech was basically an accessory to a child’s behaviour and that self-centred speech dissolves with maturity (Montangero & Maurice-Naville, 1997). Nonetheless, although they both had contrasting arguments on the function of self-centred speech both consented on the significance that it served in cognitive development. Vygotsky, just like Piaget, thought the interaction between the individual and the social as an indispensable connection. However, Vygotsky considered that it was grown-ups and the peers of the child, which had the obligation in transmitting their greater shared knowledge with the younger people. He did not think that it was likely for a child to gain knowledge and develop individually, and that the environment and the culture surrounding the child contributed greatly to their intellectual development. He also thought that a child was incapable in developing the means s/he possesses without being taught by others in the context wherein they were developed (Wertsch, 1998). On the contrary, Piaget argued that children were spontaneously curious about their own capabilities and about their surroundings, and that children improved their knowledge due to biologically controlled cognitive developments (Sternberg & Williams, 1998). Furthermore, Piaget assumed that a child was basically capable of learning the mechanisms in each phase at any time and failed to notice the function of the child’s task with regard to thought mechanisms. In Piaget’s perspective, children create awareness through their behaviours and attitudes on the world (Sternberg & Williams, 1998). On the contrary, the stages of Vygotsky, dissimilar to those of Piaget, were that of an even and steady process. That knowledge is social in foundation. In Vygotsky’s assumption the social and cultural features assumed a particular relevance (Daniels, 2001) which is a lot less proportioned than the theories of Piaget. To sum it up, Vygotsky was cynical of Piaget’s theory that developmental growth was based on a general attribute of stages and was independent of experience. Vygotsky assumed that attributes did not stop at a particular point as Piaget believed. If a thing is learned, it is applied afterwards. It did not cease merely because a child crossed the threshold of another phase of development. All things are dynamic. Vygotsky also opposed the assumption of Piaget that development may not be hindered or sped up through instruction (O’Donnell & King, 1999). Vygotsky assumed that cognitive development was constantly developing infinitely and not concluded in stages as Piaget assumed. Stages of Piaget merely move towards to, and stop with, roughly age fifteen. This assumption does not appear to have any key issues after roughly age fifteen (Sternberg & Williams, 1998). There are aspects that can upset the constructivist theory or the stage theory. A child with mental abnormality, such as autism or mental retardation, or special needs would be incapable of completing all the developmental stages of Piaget as revealed by several studies (Flavell, 1992). Not every grown-up in a particular culture completes the formal operational stage of development but are still able to live a satisfying life. Owing to experiences Piaget had modified his way of thinking and changed his methods of research over the years to integrate a greater importance of the function of the child’s activity. Even though cynical of Piaget, Vygotsky recognised the significance of the ideas and information that Piaget had collected and despite of his disapprovals, Vygotsky developed his educational theories on the strong points of the theories of Piaget (Smith et al., 1997). Conclusions The major insights of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s works diverge. Piaget assumed that intelligence originated from action. He argued that children gain knowledge through relating with their surroundings and their immediate environment and that learning occurs after development. On the contrary, Vygotsky believed that learning occurs prior to development and that children gain knowledge because of representation and history. Vygotsky also assumed that children give importance to contribution from their immediate environment and from others. On the other hand, Piaget did not value the contribution of others. Most importantly, the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky on cognitive development have diverging assertions. Nevertheless, Piaget and Vygotsky clearly aimed to present an excellent picture of the same mountain. They understood that this particular mountain had been a big problem in rational epistemology. They understood that empirical research of this mountain is important and can be enlightening, specifically by determining how children do construct new knowledge or awareness. Each presented a chart of this mountain with joint features, including the differentiation of separate stages in developmental series which are in all instances influenced by social and cultural experience and also by personal internalisation. Ultimately, their descriptions have an epistemological component, particularly in relation to the goal, inter-subjective and available characteristics of knowledge. The contention has been that there is similarity between the points of view of Piaget and Vygotsky. All the same, it could not be sufficient on two points. One is that there are a number of ‘pictures’, not a single ‘picture’ in the work of Piaget. And this is also valid in the case of the work of Vygotsky. Second, the existing ‘pictures’ may be incomplete, neither individually nor mutually. The theories of Piaget and Vygotsky cross numerous and different theoretical and empirical concerns. It was the objective of this discussion to name concerns which both demonstrated present issues in education and child development and provided a medium for examining information, ideas and evidence which would push the formulation of the concerns forward in a productive manner. References Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer. Flavell, J. (1992). Cognitive development: past, present and future. Developmental Psychology , 998-1005. Montangero, J., Maurice-Naville, D., (1997). Piaget, Or the Advance of Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O'Donnell, A. M. & King, A. (eds.). (1999). Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Piaget, J. (1967). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Piaget, J. (1950). Explanation in Sociology. In J. Piaget, Sociological Studies. New York: Routledge. Piaget, J. (1995). Sociological Studies. London: Routledge. Scholnick, E. K., Nelson, K., Gelman, S.A. & Miller, P.H. (eds.). (1999). Conceptual Development: Piaget's Legacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Smith, L. (1996). Critical Readings on Piaget. New York: Routledge. Smith, L., Dockrell, J., & Tomlinson, P. (eds.). (1997). Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond: Future Issue for Developmental Pyschology and Education. London: Routledge. Sternberg, R. & Williams, W.M. (eds.). (1998). Intelligence, Instruction and Assessment: Theory into Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vygotsky, L. (1994). The Vygotsky Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More