piagetian theory and vygotsky%e2%80%99s theory in education
This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 1991.
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials.
Please note that Internet Explorer version 8.x is not supported as of January 1, 2016. Please refer to this support page for more information.
This essay proposes (1) that more than one kind of large-scale developmental change exists; and (2) that more than one kind of developmental change mechanism is needed to explain them. These proposals are supported by work in nonuniversal theory which states that intellectual development should be characterized neither as domain-general nor as domainspecific, but as a spectrum of developmental domains that range from the universal to the unique. The current article extends nonuniversal theory by positing and then describing (1) a sixth region of development—a pancultural region: and (2) five basic change mechanisms (maturation, domain-specific structures, technologies, instruction, and equilibration) that differentially influence developmental change at particular points along the universal-to-unique continuum. The contributions of each of the five change mechanisms is illustrated by an analysis of children’s ability to draw maps. The value of the universal to unique framework is demonstrated by showing how it helps resolve Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s seemingly contradictory views on the relationship between learning and development.
Kurt W. Fischer and Daniel Bullock
If the future is not to be a reenactment of the past, it is important to ask why it has been so difficult to avoid drifting toward one or another type of preformism. Why has no well-articulated, compelling alternative to preformism been devised? Any compelling alternative to preformism must describe how child and environment collaborate to produce new structures during development. Constructing such a framework is an immensely difficult task. At the very least, the framework must make reference to cognitive structure, environmental structure, the interaction of the two, and mechanisms for change in structure. The scope of these issues makes such a framework difficult to formulate and difficult to communicate once formulated.
30. Gorelick M, Clark A. Effects of nutrition program on knowledge of preschoolchildren. J Nutr Educ. 1985; 17(3):88-92. [ Links ]
In this way, children also learn that there are different types of food, their food schemata are enriched and new food schemata begin to form. This helps children remember the food schemata they learned through social transmission.