Its not Freud unfortunately (migt have one there as well?) but this got an A and has ideas of criticisms for Piaget etc if that helps
Access to FE
Compare and contrast the different developmental theories and concepts put forward by Piaget, Vygotsky OR Sternberg
In this essay I will look at two psychological theories of cognitive development, those put forward by Piaget and Vygotsky. I will show how the theories differ, but also I will attempt to show that there are similarities between the two also. I will achieve this by first providing a definition of cognitive development, outlining the two main theories and then showing four ways in which they differ. We will discover that, whilst the twp Psychologists had significant differences in their work, there is also a parallel, and that far from being exclusive, the research can in fact be complimentary when used appropriately.
For the purposes of this essay, we will use the definition of cognitive proposed by Malim and Birch (1998). Their definition of cognition ?refers to all
those psychological activities needed in the acquisition, processing, organization and use of knowledge- in other words, all those abilities associated with thinking and knowing? .#
The first theory we will look at is that proposed by Jean Piaget. This theory focuses not on the individual, but attempts to develop a generic theory of cognitive development.#
Piaget?s theorem states that children do not inherit a construct of knowledge, they have to participate full in it?s acquisition by exploring and discovering knowledge themselves. This is referred to in Gross #, as ?the child as scientist?.
Piaget?s theory is a stage theory; he believed that as children develop they pass through a number of developmental stages that are universal (although it should be noted that though a child must pass through the stages in sequence, it is not necessarily a given that a child will complete all the stages- this could be affected by, for example, disability or lack of opportunity). The level of a child?s cognitive development is dependant on which stage they are currently in. There are four stages within this theory: Sensory Motor, Pre-Operational, Concrete Operational and Formal Operational.
A child moves through the sequence by a process that involves a child in accommodating information until it reaches a state of disequilibrium 2, at which point new schemata are developed and the child progresses to the next stage.
Lev Vygotsky, a Russian Psychologist had a more social approach to cognitive developmental theory. He theorized that as social beings intelligence develops as a result of social interaction- ?the child as an apprentice? (Rogoff, 1990) 2. Interaction with more skilled people, whether adults or peers, produces a scaffolding which supports the childs quest for knowledge. Children gradually move forwards from possessing the ability to act in a supported environment to independence.
In comparing the two theories, it is easiest to identify significant differences.
To Piaget, a child learns by doing himself (experiential learning), whilst Vygotsky saw a child as learning by doing with. This differing approach can be at least partly attributed to the backgrounds of the Psychologists. Piaget used a Constructivist approach to his work. ?Constructivism is an approach to teaching and learning based on the premise that cognition (learning) is the result of mental construction? #. He was also raised in the Western culture, born in Switzerland, where individualism is important and his approach reflects this. Lev Vygotsky, however, was Russian at a time when Marxisn and the notion of the collective was dominant. His focus on the importance of societal influences in developing cognitive ability in turn reflects this.
Another contrast between the theories is present in the way children move forwards. To Piaget, children moved forwards in set stages, at a pace loosely reflected on chronological age, and in an ordered and sequential manner. A child?s developmental ability was immediately confined to that stage, and there was no potential for operation beyond. Vygotsky, however, saw a child as slowly outgrowing the need for the scaffolding and support provided by others. He demonstrated the flexibility of this with his theory of the Zone of Proximal Development. This is the level at which a child may operate if it is given the appropriate support. Vygotsky believed that this showed that children can operate beyond their attained stage if given societal support.
A third significant difference is that Piaget viewed the newborn infant as an egocentric individual, entirely focussed on itself and it?s own experiences and needs# . Vygotsky, however, viewed the neonate as a socially active individual, programmed to develop strong attachment bonds and to interact with society from the moment of birth.
A final difference is that whilst Piaget?s stage system gives a final endpoint (full or formal operational stage), Vygotsky believed that learning was an ongoing process that continued throughout life.
It is evident, then, that there are significant differences between the two approaches, but are there any similarities? There is one identifiable similarity: both believed a child between the approximate ages of one and two to be largely a product of the reflexes it was born with. Piaget calls this stage the sensory motor stage, the stage at which the child learns the important skills of walking and talking.
As we have seen in this essay, there are many differences between the work of Piaget and Vygotsky. However, it is interesting to note that in his 1962 book, Piaget admitted that he would now be more in agreement with Vygotsky on certain points if not others#. Piaget also came to believe that stage theory was more of a spiral process- children could straddle two stages at once as they passed along the route to formal operational stage.
In conclusion, it seems that the work of the two Psychologists was intrinsically different in most ways. However, it is possible that the two theories could compliment each other in a real setting. For example, the educationalist could strengthen a child?s retention of information by taking both theories into account; ?scaffolding?, or supportive, sessions could be reinforced with opportunities for the child to act as a scientist and ?discover? anew truths about his environment, therefore concreting the knowledge. It is possible in fact that the true validity of the different research can be best viewed by interaction with the other, and that in reality both psychologists looked primarily at the instances of cognitive development that best fitted their own views, whilst not adhering to the good advice of Gestalt and looking at ?the whole? of the subject. This of course is human nature, and should not be allowed to detract from the validity of both studies; it is inherent in Psychology and other sciences that the best picture of a situation can be gained by using several pieces of research, since scientific phenomema rarely exist in isolation- a child rarely exists without society or without opportunity to discover alone, for example.
1124 words
Bibliography
- Introductory Psychology, Tony Malim and Ann Birch, 1998, Macmillan Press Limited, London.
- Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour Third Edition, Richard Gross, 1996, Hodder and Stoughton, London
- Foundations of Psychology- An Introductory Text, Nicky Haynes, 1994, Routledge, London
- Constructivist Learning and Teaching Models, www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/sa3const.htm, November 3rd 2004
5.A Synthesis Of Different Psychological Learning Theories?, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory , Bettina Dahl, WWW.Ex.ac.uk