Vygotsky vs. Piaget: A Paradigm Shift

Key Takeaways

1. Both were interested in understanding cognitive development in children, but approached it from different perspectives. Piaget focused more on the individual child constructing knowledge through their interactions with the world. Vygotsky emphasized the social and cultural context of development.
2. Vygotsky placed more (and different) emphasis on language, social interaction, and cultural tools in shaping cognitive development compared to Piaget.
3. Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development contrasts with Piaget’s stage theory of development. Vygotsky saw development as a continuous process heavily influenced by social factors, while Piaget proposed universal stages.
4. Piaget emphasized peer interaction as important for cognitive development, while Vygotsky focused more on adult-child interactions and scaffolding by more knowledgeable others.

Unlike Piaget’s notion that children’s cognitive development must necessarily precede their learning, Vygotsky argued, “learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function” (1978, p. 90).  In other words, social learning precedes (i.e., come before) development.

Fundamental Orientations

The core difference between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories lies in their orientation towards the individual’s role in development.

This fundamental difference underlies many specific contrasts in their theories and reflects their different philosophical and ideological backgrounds.

• Piaget: Oriented towards autonomy, emphasizing the individual’s construction of knowledge through independent interaction with the world.
• Vygotsky: Oriented towards heteronomy and focuses on the individual’s dependence on social and cultural factors for cognitive development.

Piaget: Orientation towards Autonomy

1. Constructivism: Piaget’s theory is fundamentally constructivist, emphasizing the child’s active role in building knowledge structures. He stated, “To understand is to invent” (Piaget, 1976, p. 20), highlighting the autonomous nature of knowledge construction.
2. Equilibration: Central to Piaget’s theory is the concept of equilibration, a self-regulating process through which individuals resolve cognitive conflicts and achieve more advanced levels of understanding. This process underscores the autonomous nature of cognitive development in Piaget’s theory (Piaget, 1985).

Vygotsky: Orientation towards Heteronomy

• Cultural Mediation: Vygotsky emphasized the role of cultural tools, particularly language, in mediating psychological processes. This focus on cultural mediation highlights the heteronomous nature of development in his theory (Cole & Wertsch, 1996).
• Zone of Proximal Development: Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development underscores the crucial role of social interaction and guidance in cognitive development, further emphasizing the heteronomous nature of learning and development (Vygotsky, 1978).
• Internalization: Vygotsky’s theory posits that individual cognitive processes are internalized forms of social interaction, again highlighting the heteronomous origins of mental functions (Vygotsky, 1981).

Language

According to Piaget, language depends on thought for its development (i.e., thought comes before language). For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning of life, merging at around three years of age, producing verbal thought (inner speech).

Vygotsky

Vygotsky proposed a strong interrelationship between thought and language. He posited that language plays a crucial role in cognitive development, with private speech serving as a tool for self-regulation and problem-solving.

Vygotsky stated, “The child begins to perceive the world not only through his eyes but also through his speech” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 32).

Vygotsky placed much greater emphasis on the role of language in shaping cognitive development. For Vygotsky, cognitive development results from an internalization of language.

Vygotsky (1987) differentiates between three forms of language:

1. Social speech, which is external communication used to talk to others (typical from the age of two);
2. Private speech (typical from the age of three) which is directed to the self and serves an intellectual function;
3. Inner speech: Private speech goes underground, diminishing in audibility as it takes on a self-regulating function and is transformed into silent inner speech (typical from the age of seven).

He proposed that language and thought are initially separate systems that merge around the age of three, leading to the formation of verbal thought or private speech. This private speech, according to Vygotsky, plays a crucial role in guiding and regulating children’s behavior and problem-solving abilities.

Private speech is overt, audible, and observable, often seen in children who talk to themselves while problem-solving.

Through private speech, children collaborate with themselves, in the same way a more knowledgeable other (e.g., adults) collaborate with them to achieve a given function.

Private speech is “typically defined, in contrast to social speech, as speech addressed to the self (not to others) for the purpose of self-regulation (rather than communication).”

(Diaz, 1992, p.62)

As children grow older, this self-directed speech becomes internalized as silent inner speech, which continues to play a vital role in adult cognition.

Inner speech is covert or hidden because it happens internally. It is the silent, internal dialogue that adults often engage in while thinking or problem-solving.

“Inner speech is not the interiour aspect of external speech – it is a function in itself. It still remains speech, i.e., thought connected with words. But while in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words dies as they bring forth thought. Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings.”

(Vygotsky, 1962: p. 149)

Piaget

Piaget believed that language depends on thought for its development. In his view, children’s cognitive structures develop first, and language emerges as a way to express already-formed thoughts. For Piaget, language was a product of cognitive development rather than a driver of it.

Piaget believed that egocentric (or private) speech, which is common in young children, gradually disappears as children develop social speech and learn to communicate effectively with others. He saw egocentric speech as a sign of cognitive immaturity.

Knowledge Construction

Piaget emphasized the individual’s autonomous construction of knowledge, while Vygotsky stressed the role of social transmission and guidance in the development of the heteronomous subject (Lourenço, 2012).

Unlike Piaget, who emphasized universal cognitive change (i.e., all children would go through the same sequence of cognitive development regardless of their cultural experiences), Vygotsky leads us to expect variable development depending on cultural diversity. 

This contradicts Piaget’s view of universal stages of development (Vygotsky does not refer to stages like Piaget does).

Hence, Vygotsky assumes cognitive development varies across cultures, whereas Piaget states cognitive development is mostly universal across cultures.

Piaget

Piaget viewed development as a relatively natural and spontaneous process. He believed that children construct knowledge through their actions and interactions with the physical world, emphasizing their role as active, autonomous learners.

Piaget stated, “To know an object is to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the process of this transformation” (Piaget, 1964, p. 176).

Piaget maintains that cognitive development stems largely from independent explorations in which children construct knowledge.

Piaget believed that the best way to learn is by actively exploring and figuring things out for yourself. He thought that to understand something, you need to discover it independently rather than just being told the answer (Piaget, 1970).

Piaget (1972) said that true learning happens when you invent or recreate an idea in your mind. He didn’t like the idea of education that focused too much on memorizing facts and information instead of letting students construct their knowledge.

Piaget thought that learning works best when students are actively involved in the process, which shows that he values independence in learning.

Piaget didn’t think it was helpful to try to speed up how quickly kids gain certain thinking skills through direct teaching and practice. He wasn’t sure if making kids learn things faster was actually good for their overall development.

Piaget’s approach focuses on the student’s own actions and experiences rather than just being told information by teachers.

While some parts of Vygotsky’s theory seem to value independence and active learning, when you look carefully, you see that he actually put more importance on guidance from teachers and learning from others.

Vygotsky

Vygotsky emphasized the role of culture and social interactions in shaping cognitive development. He argued that higher mental functions originate in social interactions and are then internalized by the individual.

He stated the importance of cultural and social context for learning. Cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal development as children and their partners co-construct knowledge.

Vygotsky’s focus on instruction and guidance matches his belief that learning from others is more important than independent discovery for development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978, 1987).

Vygotsky asserted, “Every function in the child’s 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)” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57).

For example, Vygotsky (1978) believed that community plays a central role in the process of “making meaning.” For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about.

For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about. The importance of scaffolding and language may differ for all cultures.

Rogoff (1990) emphasizes the importance of observation and practice in pre-industrial societies (e.g., learning to use a canoe among Micronesian Islanders).

Thus, all teaching and learning is a matter of sharing and negotiating socially constituted knowledge.

For example, Vygotsky (1978) states cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal development as children and their partners co-construct knowledge.

Pedagogy

Piaget maintains that cognitive development stems largely from independent explorations in which children construct knowledge of their own.

Piaget advocated for a discovery-based approach to learning, where children are given opportunities to explore and construct knowledge independently.

He was skeptical of direct instruction and emphasized the importance of children’s active engagement with their environment. Piaget stated, “to understand is to invent, or to reconstruct through reinvention” (Piaget, 1972a, p. 24).

Whereas Vygotsky argues that children learn through social interactions, building knowledge by learning from more knowledgeable others such as peers and adults. In other words, Vygotsky believed that culture affects cognitive development.

These factors lead to differences in the education style they recommend: Piaget would argue for the teacher to provide opportunities that challenge the children’s existing schemas and for children to be encouraged to discover for themselves.

Alternatively, Vygotsky would recommend that teachers assist the child to progress through the zone of proximal development by using scaffolding.

Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development concept emphasizes how children can achieve more with adult guidance than independently (Vygotsky, 1978). Even when discussing peer learning, Vygotsky focused on more competent peers, not equal peers.

However, both theories view children as actively constructing their own knowledge of the world; they are not seen as just passively absorbing knowledge.

They also agree that cognitive development involves qualitative changes in thinking, not only a matter of learning more things.

Social Relationships

Piaget prioritized peer relationships as a context for developing autonomy, while Vygotsky emphasized authority-based relationships as drivers of learning and development, reflecting his view of the dependent, heteronomous learner.

Piaget

Piaget distinguished between peer relationships based on equality and mutual respect (promoting autonomy) and adult-child relationships based on authority and unilateral respect (promoting heteronomy).

He emphasized peer relationships and cooperation between equals as crucial for developing autonomy and advanced reasoning skills.

Piaget argued that “the individual would not come to organize his operations in a coherent whole if he did not engage in thought exchanges and cooperation with others” (Piaget, 1947, p. 174).

Vygotsky

Vygotsky (1962) emphasized that learning and development are promoted by adult-child relationships or interactions with more competent peers, not equal peer relationships (Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky believed children should acquire scientific concepts through adult instruction rather than discovering them independently, implying the importance of authority-based relationships. This contrasts with Piaget’s constructivist view of the child as an autonomous learner.

He focused on the importance of relationships between children and more knowledgeable others (adults or more capable peers).

The zone of proximal development highlights how children can achieve more with guidance than they can independently. Vygotsky defined this as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

For Vygotsky, learning leads to cognitive development (“outside-in”), while for Piaget, cognitive development enables learning (“inside-out”) (Marti, 1996). Piaget saw development as relatively independent of social influences (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969).

Research Methods

Piaget and Vygotsky both emphasized a developmental approach to understanding psychological processes. However, the methods they used reflect Piaget’s focus on the autonomous individual and Vygotsky’s emphasis on the influence of social factors.

Piaget

Piaget primarily used the clinical or critical method. In this approach, children are asked to solve problems and explain their reasoning while the experimenter asks questions and offers counter-suggestions (Piaget & Inhelder, 1974; Bond & Tryphon, 2009).

The goal is understanding the child’s natural, spontaneous thinking process and ideas (Piaget, 1972; Salzstein, Dias, & Millery, 2004).

Piaget’s theory emphasizes the child’s independent construction of knowledge through processes like equilibration and self-regulation.

While Piaget occasionally used other methods, such as the microgenetic approach in his observations of his own children (Piaget, 1952, 1954, 1976), the clinical method was central to his theory, reflecting his focus on the child’s autonomous learning.

This method aimed to uncover children’s spontaneous, autonomous thinking processes. Piaget’s goal was to capture children’s “croyances déclanchées” (liberated beliefs) rather than “croyances suggérées” (suggested beliefs) (Piaget, 1972d, p. 15-16).

Vygotsky

Vygotsky favored the experimental-developmental method, which involves guiding the child’s development through interaction with adults or more advanced peers (Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky was interested in how children’s problem-solving strategies change with guidance, which reflects his view of development as shaped by social and cultural influences.

Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development, which describes how children can achieve more with guidance than independently, relies on this experimental-developmental approach.

Similarly, the idea of scaffolding, where adults support children’s learning, aligns with Vygotsky’s theory (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976; Bruner, 1997).

Although Vygotsky sometimes used methods similar to Piaget’s clinical approach, such as in his experiments on children’s use of signs for memory and attention (Vygotsky, 1978), the experimental-developmental method was key to his theory, reflecting his emphasis on social influences on development.

References

• Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.
• Diaz, R. M., & Berk, L. E. (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive task: Relations with task difficulty and task performance. Cognitive Development, 20, 103–120.
• Martí, E. (1996). Piaget and school education: A socio-cultural challenge.
• Lourenço, O. (2012). Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(3), 281-295.
• Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Piaget, J. (1945). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Heinemann.
• Piaget, J. (1947). La psychologie de l’intelligence. Paris: Armand Colin.
• Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (Vol. 5) . Psychology Press.
• Piaget, J. (1960). The general problem of the psychobiological development of the child. In J. Tanner, & B. Inhelder (Eds.), Discussions on child development, Vol. 4 (pp. 3–27). London: Tavistock.
• Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.
• Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. Ripple & V. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child development.(Trans & Ed TA Brown & CE Kaegi). Annual Reviews.
• Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.
• Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books
• Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities. London: Routledge & Paul Kegan. (Original work published 1941)
• Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
• Salzstein, H., Dias, M., & Millery, M. (2004). Moral suggestibility: the complex interaction of development, cultural and contextual factors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1079–1096.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Vygotsky, L. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)
• Wertsch, J. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.