Compare and contrast Piaget’s theory with one or more alternative explanations of cognitive development.
There are conflicting ideas to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, the transfer of control from external to internal processes, regarding the influences and mechanisms involved. Indeed, psychologists such as Vygotsky and Siegler suggest that development is gradual and isn’t as fixed as Piaget proposes and that social interaction plays a greater role. However, there are also several mild comparisons within their theories such as the methods used, resembling key components and the doubt casted on the validity of their theories.
Indeed, their mental viewpoints contrast remarkably. Piaget’s theory centred around the biological influences …show more content…
Indeed, Vygotsky believed children learnt through social scaffolding, acting as social learners. Siegler also had conflicting ideas to Piaget’s theory. Siegler proposed that instead of categorizing information through schemata, children use various methods to process information. He believed it wasn’t true that children could only learn one aspect at a time and saw the mind as a computer, a machine able to manipulate symbols. Contrasting Piaget, Siegler figured that when children are in a novel situation, they change their behaviour rather than the representation of the task due to the brain constantly being able to update itself (Siegler, 2005).
Another significant contrast is the type of process involved, Piaget’s theory differing from both Siegler’s and Vygotsky’s. Indeed, Piaget believed that development is universal, invariant and discontinuous and that children learn independently, in different ways and in separate but chronological stages. He thereby conducted a theory consisting of …show more content…
Indeed, although Piaget’s theory has been very influential in drawing attention to how reasoning and understanding develop throughout childhood, it has been hugely criticized. One criticism was for underestimating children’s abilities, due to perhaps his use of difficult and inappropriate tasks. This is a common feature with Vygotsky’s theory who believed that more challenging tasks promote cognitive development. However, this limitation could also have arisen from his tasks confusing competence and performance. For example, a child may have had the competence of object permanence but the inability to perform the search. Another limitation was that Piaget overestimated the role of logical thinking and understated the importance of context and interaction (Lourenço, 2016). Certainly, culture and schooling affect the performances on his tasks and the fact that knowledge could be culture-specific was not considered. These external influences were however noted by Vygotsky. A similarity between these two theorists was that they both had constructivist outlooks, believing children construct their own knowledge rather than simply absorb information. However, as mentioned, their differences become evident regarding how this construction occurs. Furthermore, although they had different opinions on the purpose, both Vygotsky and
There are conflicting ideas to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, the transfer of control from external to internal processes, regarding the influences and mechanisms involved. Indeed, psychologists such as Vygotsky and Siegler suggest that development is gradual and isn’t as fixed as Piaget proposes and that social interaction plays a greater role. However, there are also several mild comparisons within their theories such as the methods used, resembling key components and the doubt casted on the validity of their theories.
Indeed, their mental viewpoints contrast remarkably. Piaget’s theory centred around the biological influences …show more content…
Indeed, Vygotsky believed children learnt through social scaffolding, acting as social learners. Siegler also had conflicting ideas to Piaget’s theory. Siegler proposed that instead of categorizing information through schemata, children use various methods to process information. He believed it wasn’t true that children could only learn one aspect at a time and saw the mind as a computer, a machine able to manipulate symbols. Contrasting Piaget, Siegler figured that when children are in a novel situation, they change their behaviour rather than the representation of the task due to the brain constantly being able to update itself (Siegler, 2005).
Another significant contrast is the type of process involved, Piaget’s theory differing from both Siegler’s and Vygotsky’s. Indeed, Piaget believed that development is universal, invariant and discontinuous and that children learn independently, in different ways and in separate but chronological stages. He thereby conducted a theory consisting of …show more content…
Indeed, although Piaget’s theory has been very influential in drawing attention to how reasoning and understanding develop throughout childhood, it has been hugely criticized. One criticism was for underestimating children’s abilities, due to perhaps his use of difficult and inappropriate tasks. This is a common feature with Vygotsky’s theory who believed that more challenging tasks promote cognitive development. However, this limitation could also have arisen from his tasks confusing competence and performance. For example, a child may have had the competence of object permanence but the inability to perform the search. Another limitation was that Piaget overestimated the role of logical thinking and understated the importance of context and interaction (Lourenço, 2016). Certainly, culture and schooling affect the performances on his tasks and the fact that knowledge could be culture-specific was not considered. These external influences were however noted by Vygotsky. A similarity between these two theorists was that they both had constructivist outlooks, believing children construct their own knowledge rather than simply absorb information. However, as mentioned, their differences become evident regarding how this construction occurs. Furthermore, although they had different opinions on the purpose, both Vygotsky and