For more, read my full articles on these theorists: 1. Piaget vs Vygotsky: helpfulprofessor.com/piaget-vs-vygotsky/ 2. Piaget's Sensorimotor Stage: helpfulprofessor.com/sensorimotor-stage-examples/ 3. Piaget's Preoperational Stage: helpfulprofessor.com/preoperational-stage-examples/ 4. Piaget's Concrete Operational Stage: helpfulprofessor.com/concrete-operational-stage-examples/ 5. Piaget's Formal Operational Stage: helpfulprofessor.com/formal-operational-stage-examples/ 6. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development: helpfulprofessor.com/zone-of-proximal-development-examples/ 7. Vygotsky's More Knowledgeable Other: helpfulprofessor.com/more-knowledgeable-others-examples/

Transcript: One instructional method designed to draw on the zone of proximal development is scaffolding. Scaffolding is a method in which assistance by more knowledgeable others is aimed slightly above what the child can do on his or her own, creating an environment that actually enhances children's learning. As the child becomes more competent, the supports are gradually removed and the child takes over. Piaget's famous model of child development conceptualizes learning as happening in distinct stages. Vygotsky, on the other hand, didn't believe in a stage-based model of development. Vygotsy believed that learning occurred based on socialization rather than age-based developmental milestones. He placed more emphasis on the role of teachers and parents in supporting development rather than the biological development of the brain. Let's jump into the five key differences between these two theorists. First, their views of the role of social interaction in learning and development differ. Piaget saw children as solitary learners. He believed that cognitive development occurs when the individual child interacts with the environment. No adult or parent is necessary in his conceptualization. Vygotsky, on the other hand, emphasized the vital role of social interaction. He believed that cognitive development is largely a result of a child's interaction with more knowledgeable others in their environment. Another key difference between the two is the role of language. Piaget viewed language as a result of cognitive development, a tool that emerges after certain cognitive milestones are achieved. Vygotsky, however, saw language as both a product and a catalyst of cognitive development, fundamental to thought processes and social communication. Next, let's explore the concept of readiness in both theories. Piaget's theory includes the idea of stages, suggesting that children must reach a certain level of cognitive maturity before they can understand certain concepts known as readiness. Vygotsky's work didn't explore biological readiness as a key factor in learning. Rather, he proposed the zone of proximal development, emphasizing that learning is most effective when tasks are just slightly beyond a child's current competence, but achievable with guidance. So for Vygotsky, a child's readiness isn't based on the child's age. Each child's readiness is individual to that child. Piaget and Vygotsky also disagreed about the role of cultural factors in impacting development. While Piaget's theory is universalistic, assuming all children go through the same stages of cognitive development, Vygotsky placed more emphasis on cultural and social influences. He argued that cognitive development can vary across different cultures due to differences in social interactions and cultural tools of thought. Many decades later, cultural anthropologist Barbara Rogoff supported Vygotsky's claims when she demonstrated fundamental differences in the emergence of skill sets between Western children in the United States and indigenous children in Central America, which could be explained by differing social expectations in their respective communities. A final contrast between Piaget and Vigotsky lies in their view of learning. Piaget emphasized the importance of independent exploration, arguing that children learn best through direct interaction with their environment and personal discovery of knowledge. Vigotsky, however, advocated for collaborative learning, asserting that guidance and collaboration with more knowledgeable others significantly promote cognitive development. This underscores his sociocultural approach, highlighting the interdependence of individual and social processes in learning.

Wishing the comment section was alive and rife with debate on who's theories are more correct and how they have evolved over time. Probably an applied mixture of both men's theories grow the most generative young minds compared to either exclusive camp or lack of both.

Really helpful, thx

Thank you so much from Stockholm ❤

Nice explanation

Do you have a citation for your reference to barbara rogoff here?

Thank You

HAIL VYGOTSKY

🎉

They both have forgotten geniuses. There are adolescents that skip some school years and go directly to university. None of those theories apply to them. They can work alone or in groups. For those people, life teaches the world what they already know: they did not need people or mentors. They know things nobody knows. They can go to college and be better than their classmates who are older than them.Why? Because the human brain has a set of instructions already placed in the brain. Then, Piaget is right. However, their brains do not know about ages. And then a problem arises. Can we all be genius? Well. If you need a teacher, you are not. Each brain is different. There are four types of brain: the ones that understand thinks slowly, the average brain who usually get 8, 9 and 10s, the fast brain who usually gets 9 and 10 (still average, but they usually excell), and the ones that nobody understand but change the world with their innovative and solve-problem ideas. I think both representatives of constructivism are right. Of course, if you have brains type 1, 2, and 3. And as geniuses they are only good at one or two things, their brains are also average in some sense.