MIDTERM TAKE-HOME

Adam Bradie

OCTOBER 2, 2019
PSYC 312-1
Chapter 2

Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky both created theories of cognitive development, but with

different ideas as to how children learn as they develop. While both theories have their own

ideas as to how children develop, they both have very different ideas as to how a student can best

learn or absorb new material. The most obvious difference between the two theories is that

Piaget’s theory iss a series of stages that children grow through depending on their age, whereas

Vygotsky’s theory is a series of characteristics of how children learn and grow without a strict

order or age range. In addition, where Piaget focused entirely on child development independent

of environmental factors, Vygotsky’ theory includes sociocultural factors in the characteristics of

how children develop.

With respect to teaching, Piaget’s theory of cognitive development does not address the

cultural differences between the environments of various children. Research has been done into

how those cultural differences affect progression through Piaget’s stages of cognitive

development and have found that cultural differences do not change the stages or the order in

which they are encountered, but cultural differences do affect the rate at which a child progresses

through each stage. Conversely, Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development supposes that

cultures pass down values and practices that change the way in which a child learns. In

particular, Vygotsky speaks of psychological tools, which are cognitive devices that help

children to explore the world around them. One such example is multi-digit multiplication. This

psychological tool is something of a trick which helps students to understand what is normally a

very complicated process is normally. Tools such as this are passed down from parents and the

child’s environment until it becomes part of the child’s understanding.

 Piaget did have ideas as to how social interactions impact cognitive development.

Piaget’s ideas suggest that students learn best when interacting with peers of similar skill level,

as the child would be working on the same material, and thus would be learning more of the

same tools, ideas, or schema as their peers. In addition, when children speak to adults, the adult

always gets the last word, as adults are just assumed to know more than any child. However,

arguments and conversations between children are on more equal grounds, allowing for the

children to use their wits. Vygotsky believes the opposite, that students and children learn best

from the intellectually advanced. Specifically, Vygotsky is referring to how the intellectually

advanced can pass down additional psychological tools to allow students to learn faster.

Vygotsky’s importance of social interactions is also based on the idea that certain ideas will not

be conveyed to a child if they have never interacted with the idea. For instance, a lack of racial

diversity in the area in which a child is raised might lead the child to believe that a “person” must

be white. Speaking to peers in the same area will not teach the child how they are incorrect but

speaking to those that have an understanding of different races would help to expand that idea of

“person.”

On another note, Piaget’s thoughts on how instruction affects cognitive development

were very negative. Specifically, Piaget’s thoughts suggest that instruction could hasten the

development of schemas of a stage of development, but only if the schema in question is already

mostly completed. Research suggests that having lessons that are slightly ahead of the particular

schemas that a child understands helps to assimilate and accommodate new experiences as

efficiently as possible. Once again Vygotsky’s understanding is almost polar opposite to

Piaget’s. Under Vygotsky’s model, students must learn certain concepts in order to progress in

their development progress. Under Piaget’s progress, these ideas would hasten the child’s
development. Under Vygotsky’s model, some of these concepts are spontaneous concepts and

are impossible to learn without assistance, as they lie outside any child’s zone of proximal

development. In addition, mentors can pass down scientific concepts that allow children to

manipulate their environments to broaden their understanding of the content.

With regards to cultural influences, social interaction, and instruction, Vygotsky and

Piaget had opposite ideas of how students develop. Piaget both relies on each student to be able

to figure out content on their own and expects outside influences to not impact student learning.

Meanwhile, Vygotsky sees children more as receptacles of knowledge to take in ideas from their

cultures and mentors and use those ideas to learn more.

 Chapter 4

The large variety of learning styles that a student could potentially have is

demonstrative of the variety of people that exist. Children’s learning styles can be categorized in

a variety of ways, resulting in a fractal of processes under which a student learns best. This can

also lead some teachers to believe that accommodating to every type of student is impossible. In

the literal sense, this is true. However, using a variety of techniques, teachers can provide

multiple avenues for students to engage the content, and allow them to adopt new learning styles

as they are educated.

The first facet of any individual student’s learning style is their response to a non-obvious

problem. What is being referred to here is impulsivity and reflectivity. An impulsive student is

quick to try and test and attempt to solve the problem, whereas a reflective student will spend

more time preparing, examining, and planning. There characteristics tend to be similar to IQ

scores in that they can change, but usually not dramatically. To adapt a learning plan to this

dimension of learning styles, a teacher should engage with the impulsive students, allowing them

to address the problem, while also pointing out what they could work on in their quick attempt at

a solution. For the reflective students, allow them time to think and ask questions. In the

absence of participation, pose leading questions to the reflective students to goad them in the

right direction.

The second facet is field dependence and independence. Field dependent students can get

distracted by unnecessary information, and have trouble isolating what is important from their

environment. Field independent students can isolate important details relatively quickly. It is

important to note that students do not simply fall into a category but will exhibit both field

dependence and independence depending on the subject and situation. To aid in the
development of each situation, field dependent students prefer to work within an existing

structure and want individual problems to look like others. This could take the form of repetitive

tasks, or simple that the format of a problem be like the format of other problems that the student

has done. Field independent students prefer to work within their own structure, or they prefer to

use their own process, whether it be a very abstract and loose process with no clear instructions,

or their own step by step instructions on how to solve a particular type of problem.

The third and final facet of students’ learning styles is their style of mental self-

government style, where students find a preference on each of 6 spectrums. These spectrums on

how students prefer to follow, make, and analyze guidelines, how many tasks they prefer to work

on at one time, how much of a given task they prefer to handle at once, their preferences towards

working with others, and their preference towards following established procedures.

With each of these characteristics, it can be easy to conclude that it is impossible to

accommodate every student. However, the use of a variety (but not all) teaching styles can prove

useful for several reasons. Students can change their learning styles over time, which means

what works at one time might not work later. Consequently, students may also adapt to certain

learning styles, allowing the use of a small variety of teaching styles to be effective for a large

group. As a result, this will improve and expand the chances for students to use and learn new

learning styles. This can better equip them to learn in an environment when a teacher uses fewer

or only a single teaching style and allow them to thrive in a non-ideal learning environment. It is

also worth noting that students’ learning styles are merely preferences, and that they are capable

of learning through a variety of means. The use of various learning techniques can be easily

accomplished with the use of technology, as it allows for a “choose-you-own-lesson”

environment and allows for more easy to use visual representations.

 By following a variety of techniques, teachers will be able to accommodate for many if

not all of their students in a given class. This will allow each student to engage with the content

in a more meaningful way, while also learning to adapt their learning styles to different

situations. This allows a teacher to teach how to learn in addition to the specific content.

Additionally, technology allows for this process to be done more easily, providing an easy way

to have an adaptable learning environment, in addition to easy access to helpful visuals.