Piaget vs Vygotsky (In Just 3 Minutes)

[@helpfulprofessorexplains]

For more on this topic, 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/

[@erichokhold8459]

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.

[@cinro_val]

i think vyvotskys approach makes a lot more sense. In general I am not very fond of discontinuous ideas as it feels rather unnatural. i also really like vygotskys theory of scaffolding and assisted discovery

[@ridazainab5043]

I am All for Vygostky

[@KEESWEIG]

I see no merit in Piaget’s theory. For Vygotsky, however, humans develop no higher order thinking (which is mediated by and has its genesis in language) without cultural-historical means, that is the funds of knowledge, language, tools, and other humans in society. Importantly all of these bear properties developed by peoples/societies over history. This theory of development views higher order thinking as a marriage of biological endowments generated/activated and are reflected in the social actions that give rise to their function.

[@jacksharp8392]

Piaget seems like he'd be stuck in his ways and not willing to learn from others lol

[@someonesomething5336]

Children can learn alone, but the concept of feral children all but proves social interaction IS important for our brain's development.

[@missgift88]

Thank you so much from Stockholm ❤

[@GamerSchoo]

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

[@shrrannabannaetc7545]

Thanks a lot for your information. Jazak Allah khairan ❤

[@helpfulprofessorexplains]

It's my pleasure

[@zynalljordan5351]

I believe both theories have a lot to do with how economics and political factors

[@id-meow]

Nice explanation

[@toffee129]

Really helpful, thx

[@chainsawteddybear]

HAIL VYGOTSKY

[@Phurwishashahzad]

sometimes i think whats going on , everyone questions others theories one day I'll also question vygotsky's theory .

[@An_Abandoned_Forest]

Thank You

[@helpfulprofessorexplains]

You're welcome!

[@n3fi]

Team Vygotsky

[@lewismcelroy6946]

Environment is everything so I support vygotsky if U hang around with the right people and environment is everything. Had a friend who's very smart he didn't speak till about 6

[@abdouenglish9145]

🎉

[@helpfulprofessorexplains]

🎉🎉

[@ElizabethSanchezTejar]

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.

[@KEESWEIG]

I don’t think, based on your argument, that this is excluded from either theory of development. However, I see no merit in Piaget’s theory. For Vygotsky, however, humans develop no higher order thinking (which is mediated by and has its genesis in language) without cultural-historical means, that is the funds of knowledge, language, tools, and other humans in society. Importantly all of these bear properties developed by peoples/societies over history. This theory of development views higher order thinking as a marriage of biological endowments generated/activated and are reflected in the social actions that give rise to their function.

[@mrunalkarche543]

can't you apply vygotsky's theory to geniuses. What if they are genuises because they receive the right scaffoling in their zone of proximal development and can specialise because the culture surrounding them promotes engagement in a certain field. For example, Judit Polgár grew up in a household (of a psychologist who wanted to promote playing chess) with sisters. The environment provided made playing chess a normal and desired behaviour so the children had a natural curiosity to play chess. The mentors weren't only her parents but also peers. That is, if your definition of genius aligns with mine. If you believe geniuses can only be self taught from books like fictional characters like Matilda or Young Sheldon then I'm afraid I can't say much. I consider Judit Polgar, spelling bee winners, etc as geniuses.