Cognitive development is the order and methods in which people learn and how mental processes gain complexity and develop from infancy to adulthood. (Slavin, 2009, p. 31) While there are numerous theories regarding cognitive development, there are several factors that remain constant throughout all of them, forming some basic premises on cognitive development. These include the ideas that all people go through specific steps or stages of learning or understanding, and that certain criteria must be met before learning can occur. It is the specifics of these basic premises that cognitive theorists have differing opinions about.
Two cognitive theorists that display these basic concepts of cognitive development, as well as how greatly the opinions on the specifics of these concepts can differ are Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. While both theorists adhere to the basics of cognitive development, their opinions differ on even the most basic question of how cognitive development occurs.
One area where Piaget and Vygotsky agree is in the basic idea of constructivism. Constructivism is the belief that cognitive development occurs by adding to and building from that which is already known or learned. While Piaget and Vygotsky were both constructivists (Davison, 2006, p. 1), Piaget was a trivial constructivist, believing that people learn by interacting with their environment and building on what they know and understand about that environment, and Vygotsky was a social constructivist, believing that people learn by social interaction and learning from others (Dougiamas, 1998, p. 4).
Both Piaget and Vygotsky also believed that the limits of cognitive growth are defined by societal influences (Davison, 2006, p. 1). This means that children learn what they are exposed to and what other people can teach them. If a child is not allowed to fall down, they may learn not to fall, but they cannot learn that falling down is painful.
From there, Piaget and Vygotsky’s views begin to differ greatly.
Piaget believed that children learn from interacting with their environment, and that learning came as a direct result of the child’s actions on their environment (Slavin, 2009, p. 31). Piaget believed that a child must learn before they developed. Therefore, the order of learning, according to Piaget, was that a child acted on their environment, learned from the results of that action, and then developed the knowledge and understanding of how their action produced the result.
Vygotsky disagreed with Piaget’s theory and held that development preceded learning, and that children learn from history, socialization and symbolism (Davison, 2006, p. 1). Vygotsky believed that input from others played a crucial role in a child’s learning. He believed that by interacting with more knowledgeable people, children could use that knowledge to learn faster and understand better (Slavin, 2009, p. 43).
Piaget believed that children use “schemes” in order to learn. Children apply these schemes to all objects, indiscriminately. How different objects react to these schemes allows the child to learn. As children interact with different objects, they adapt these schemes in order to fit the environment or they adapt the way they think about the scheme in order to understand their environment (Slavin, 2009, p. 32).
Vygotsky, on the other hand, thought that children used “sign symbols” in order to learn. These symbols are created by the culture in which a child is raised, and the child relies on these symbols to understand things. These symbols can be letters, numbers, pictures, sounds, smells, anything that a child learns associates one thing with another (i.e. linking the scent of smoke with the physical aspects of a fire (Slavin, 2009, p. 42).
When it comes to the steps or stages that children go through as they develop, Piaget and Vygotsky have very different views.
Piaget believed that there are four distinct stages that all children must go through, and that they must go through them in a specific order. Until a child progresses to a certain point in one stage, they cannot begin the next stage, and they cannot skip any stage. According to Piaget, these stages are the sensorimotor stage which lasts from birth to around 2 years of age, the preoperational stage which lasts from around age 2 to around age 7, the concrete operational stage which lasts from around 7 years old to around 11 years old, and the formal operational stage which takes a child through adolescence to adulthood (Slavin, 2009, pp. 33-38).
The irony that Piaget and others noticed is that the formal operational stage is not always completed (Slavin, 2009, p. 39). Since the later part of this stage of development deals with hypothetical thinking and empathetic abilities, some people simply develop the ability to think of situations that may be relevant to them in this way, but they never develop the ability to think abstractly about things that they cannot relate to.
Vygotsky, in comparison, did not believe in distinct stages of development at all. In fact, the closest he comes to defining stages of development is to claim that each person has a “zone of proximal development” that evolves as they mature (Slavin, 2009, p.43). He also devised three steps that all children must go through before they can learn a new concept or idea. According to Vygotsky, the goal of learning is “self-regulation”, or the ability to understand and solve a problem without the input of others (Slavin, 2009, p. 43). In order to reach this point, a child must first, through input from others, learn and understand how a new concept or problem works. Then, a child must practice the new concept or solving the problem. Finally, the child develops the ability to think about and solve the problem without input from others. Vygotsky believed that these steps were used with every new concept or skill a child learns (Slavin, 2009, p. 43).
The practical application of the ideas presented by these theorists in a classroom could help a classroom run more smoothly, and yet, depending on which theorist’s beliefs you follow, the end results would be very different.
A teacher following Piaget’s theories would likely be careful to group children of similar levels of development together. The teacher would encourage abstract thought during discussions, and be certain to build on previous information that the students had been given. However, when testing the skills and knowledge of the students, the teacher would be more likely to use questions that evoked concrete answers such as true/false questions. This teacher would be more likely to review past information, add new information, assign individual assignments, and then test the students’ knowledge on a topic. This type of classroom would be well-suited for a math or science classroom.
A teacher following Vygotsky’s theories would be more likely to form groups of diverse students with different skill levels and different levels of knowledge, possibly even setting up tutors for slower students. The teacher would be more likely to assign group projects and give the students problems to solve, as opposed to asking questions that can be answered with a concrete answer. This teacher would attempt to create a lesson that would encompass all three stages of learning by providing the information to the students, allowing diverse groups to work together and then assigning an individual task that tests the students’ ability to think through the information and problem on their own. This type of classroom would be well-suited for a social studies or English classroom.
Obviously, these classrooms would be run very differently. They would classify and group the students together differently, and the nature of the assignments would be quite dissimilar. Even the questions asked during assessments would vary greatly. However, one thing that both theorists agreed on is how learning should be assessed.
Both Piaget and Vygotsky believed that assessments “…should be a natural part of the learning process rather than an activity completed at the end of the learning process.” (Lutz & Huitt 2004) Testing, in both classrooms, would be used to help students demonstrate competence of new knowledge or skills throughout a unit, as opposed to simply being required at the end of a unit. Teachers in either classroom might use pre-assessments to tailor lessons to the appropriate development level or zone of proximal development.
While both of these theorists had different ideas of how cognitive development works, I feel that both of them offer insight into how children learn and how they need to be taught. By combining the ideas of both theorists, it would be possible to create a well-rounded classroom that would allow students to learn in different ways and help each other to understand the material presented to them.
Works Cited
Davison, B. (2006, December 8). Piaget vs Vygotsky: The Cognitive Development Theory. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94974/piaget_vs_vygotsky_the_cognitive_development.html
Dougiamas, M. (1998, November). A journey into Constructivism. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from Dougiamas.com: http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html#faces
Huitt, W. H. (2003). Valodesta State University. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development: http://chiron.valodesta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html
developmentLutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1), 67-90.
Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational Psychology. In R. E. Slavin, Educational Psychology (pp. 30-44). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
