THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEACHING LEARNING A

FOREIGN LANGUAGE USING PIAGET THEORY

PROPOSAL
Submitted in Patricidal Fulfillment of
The Requirement for The Degree
of Sajarna Pendidikan

By:
NISA FARADILLA
Student Number : 150403007
Department : Language and Arts
Study Program : English Education

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT UNIT 1
SAMUDRA UNIVERSITY
2018
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Two main strands of learning theory tend to be drawn upon in science education.

The first of these strands has its origins in Piaget’s genetic epistemology and related

cognitive science views. At the heart of this based on is the Piagetian ideas that

‘l’intelligence organise le monde en s’organisant elle-même’ ‘intelligence organizes

the world by organising itself ( Piaget 1937, p.92). The opus of human effloresce

theorists as well as as Jean Piaget As the case (1896–1980) or, in our own time,

psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and Michael Tomasello (Esteban- Guitart, 2012a;

Lázaro & Esteban-Guitart, 2014), the work of Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934,) contains

traces of the answer to a fundamental question: what is it that makes us human? Unlike

Jean Piaget, who established a continuity between the non-human animal world and

the human world through mechanisms of assimilation and accommodation that allow

for an adaptation to the environment guided by the tendency towards the equilibration

of cognitive structures (Piaget, 1975), Vygotsky, with his famous of differentiation

higher and lower psychological processes, established a qualitative leap among humans

and animals (Ratner, 1991, 2004; Vygotsky, 1997; Vygotsky & Luria, 1993,p.).
 According to this perspective, in order to predict how learners will respond to

attempts to teach science it is necessary to understand the knowledge that students

bring to a given teaching situation. Detailed descriptions of students’ preinstructional

knowledge in various science topic areas have been developed, as well as information

about how this knowledge changes as a result of science teaching. There are now

several theories of conceptual change in science learning which have their origins in

Piaget’s genetic epistemology. Some of these theories of conceptual change focus on

describing individual learners’ ‘mental structures’,1 whereas others have something

to say about the mechanisms that drive changes in individuals’ ‘mental structures’.

While recognising the social nature of formal learning situations, this strand of

learning theory portrays science learning fundamentally in terms of changes in the

‘mental structure’ of individuals. We will therefore refer to these views as individual

views on learning.

Piaget respective theories of cognitive development have contributed

immeasurably to the field of education. One quintessential example worth citing,

among many others, is the contribution towards the conceptualization of the

interminably burgeoning tenet universally known as constructivism .

“Constructivism posits that in the process of learning, learners do not simply

acquire new knowledge but they use various tools that include their personal

experiences and skills, to assign meaning to ‘new’ information and, thereby,

construct their own knowledge” (White, 2011; Blake & Pope, 2008,). Hence, White

(2011) argues that “constructivism puts the individual at the centre of learning,
forming meaning through experience” (p. 90), and that it (constructivism) is based

on the “belief that people can only understand what they have themselves

constructed” (ibid). Constructivism continues to shed light and is, thus, invaluable

in enabling scholars, teachers and a myriad of practitioners from various fields to

make sense of how learning takes place.” Studying and intellectual development

occur due to continuous interaction between a child and the environment thats

Piaget posits” (Gordon & Browne, 2011,p. 1527).

Central to learning and development is cognition. Muthivhi & Broom

(2009,p,1527) define cognition as;” the input structuration of thought driven by

subject’s own activity in the world of experience in a perpetual quest to acclimatize

to the surroundings”. Through cognition, information about the world is acquired,

transformed, stored and regularly retrieved by the cognising subject in order to

interact with the environment (Brandimonte, Bruno & Collina, 2006; Greeno,

Collins & Resnick, 1996). Inherent in cognition are cognitive structures and several

dynamic and interdependent processes that include assimilation, accommodation

and organization, all of which assist a developing child to adapt to the environment

(Simatwa, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Blake & Pope, 2008).

Jean Piaget’s perspective is often compared with Lev Vygotsky’s because both

authors acknowledged the active role of humans in the construction of knowledge.

However, they differ in that, unlike Piaget, Vygotsky thought that the assimilation

of new information does not have to wait for an appropriate level of development
but must, on the contrary, produce that development: Children constitutes a

significant practical problem for schools is The organization of scientific concepts

(Vygotsky, 1934/2007, p.24).

Lev Vygotsky’s socio–cultural perspective focuses on the whole child (Gordon &

Browne, 2011). According to Vygotsky, the society in which the child develops

plays a central role in the holistic growth of the child, notably, cognitive

development. To amplify this point, Berk (2009) writes that, Vygotsky “believed

that many cognitive processes and skills are socially transferred from more

knowledgeable members of society” (p. 25) to the child. Some of the more

knowledgeable members of society who contribute meaningfully towards the

development of a child include; experienced family members, knowledgeable

peers and teachers (Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana, 2010; Woolfolk, 2010).

Therefore, conceived from Vygotsky’s perspective, cognitive development is a

social process that is mediated through continuous interaction between the

developing child and competent others; these knowledgeable people can be s i g n

i f i c a n t o t h e r s who are closely related to the child or distant individuals

(Simatwa, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Jones & Brader–Araje, 2002).

Social factors play a central role in child development. Vygotsky's position that

social factors are central in development is well known. Piaget, however,is often

misunderstood as viewing the child as a lonely scientist apart from the social

context (e.g., Damon, 1981; Haste, 1987; Goffin, 1994; Lubeck, 1996; New, 1994;

Santrock, 1997). It is true that his research focused mostly on individuals in a

laboratory setting (the study of children's marble play being an exception).

However, it is important to distinguish between Piaget's statements as an

epistemologist and his statements as a psychologist. His main goal was

epistemological } to explain how knowledge develops, not how the child develops.

It is certainly incorrect to state, as did Bedrovaand Leong (1996) that` Piaget placed

thinking at the center of child development (p. 27). It seems that by criticizing

Piaget for not explaining in full detail the speciffic role of social factors in the

child's development, we ask more of Piaget than he asked of himself.

Internalization is not a process of copying material from the environment but is

a transformative process. Piaget's stage theory describing qualitatively different

structures of knowledge and his constructivist theory of the transformative

interiorizing mechanisms of intellectual development are well known (see, for

example, Piaget, 1970). Vygotsky emphasized internalization in development ,but

it is no teasy from reading Vygotsky's works available in English to determine

exactly what he meant by his famous statement: We could formulate the general

genetic law of cultural development as follows: Any function in the child's cultural

development appear stwice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane,

and then on the psychological plane. First it appears between people as an

interpsychological category, and then within the child as an intrapsychological

category (Vygotsky, 1930a/1981, p. 163)

What develops is the individual. While Vygotskians criticize Piaget for having

a theory of individual development, Vygotsky certainly saw the higher mental

 functions of the individual as the goal of development. The discussion of

internalization above presents the individual child as the site of intrapsychological

activity. Matusov (1996) also discussed the privileged role given to mastery of solo

activity in Vygotsky's model and notes its dualistic conception of the social and the

individual..

1.2 Problem of Study

The problems of this reserach are focused on :

1.2.1 How the implementation of Piaget and Vygotsky theory for young

learner?

1.2.2 What overview of theory and research relevant to children’s language

learning?

1.3 The Purpose of Study

In line with the statement in problem of research, the purpose of this research

can be stated as follows :

1.3.1 to find out how the Implementation of Piaget and Vygotsky theory for

young learner.

1.3.2 To find important differences do arise from linguistic, phychological

and social development of the learners.

1.4 Scope of Study

The researcher limited this research the implementation of teaching learning a

foregin language using Piaget and Vygotsky theory. The subject in this research is

young learner in Junior High school in Langsa.

1.5 Hypothesis

1.6 Significance of Study

The result of this study has some benefits especially to the researcher, the readers,

education fields and others researcher. They are:

1.6.1 To know different about a foreign language to children.

1.6.2 To know the implementation of Piaget and Vygotsky theory for young

learner

1.6.3 To know overview of theory and research relevant to children’s language

learning

1.7 Related Thoery.

 In this study, the researcher will adopt theory from Piaget and Vygotsky

Theory. Researchers will only focus on The Implementation of Teaching Learning a

Foreign Language Using Piaget and Vygotsky Theory

It has been with some surprise that I have taken note of Vygotskians' criticisms

of Piaget for not emphasizing social processes in development. I have been surprised

because Piaget's theory led me to a de"nition of education emphasizing the social

(DeVries & Zan, 1994; Kamii & DeVries, 1978/1993, 1980). I have found myself

wonderingwhetherI had unwittinglybecome a Vygotskian.As a Piagetianseekingin

Vygotsky what might enrich my constructivist educational ideas, I have sought to

understand the similarities and di!erences between Vygotsky and Piaget, both in theory

and in the extensions of theory to educational practice In view of the presence in

Vygotsky's writing of both behaviorist and constructivist conceptions, it is not

surprising that some educators draw from Vygotsky's work educationalimplicationsthat

are behavioristic, and others draw implications that are constructivist. It is important to

look at speci"c educational practices drawn by theorists and their followers because

these applications of theory give us insights into the theory itself, at least as it is

interpreted by followers. As far as I know, Vygotsky himself hardly described any

educational practices that he saw as consistent with his theory. In one lecture given in

1933 or 1934, and published in French, Vygotsky (1935/1978) speci"ed the necessity

to take into account the fact that the child up to the age of three years `learns while

following his own programa (p. 35) and that by school age (7 years in Russia) he is
able to learn according to the teacher's wishes. The preschool age, according to

Vygotsky, occupies an intermediate position in which the child`does what he wishes

but that he wishes what the guide wishesa (p. 36). From the age of three years, `the

child of preschool age is capable of learning to the degree that the program of the

teacher becomes his own programa(p. 36) [translations from this source the

responsibility of the author]. Followers of Vygotsky draw key practical implications

from Vygotsky'swell-knownnotion of the zone of proximaldevelopment(ZPD),

expressed as follows: What we call the zone of proximal development2is the distance

between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving

and thelevel of potentialdevelopmentas determinedthroughproblemsolvingunder adult

guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1935/1978a, p. 86).

In their discussion of how the Vygotskian teacher orchestrates the whole group,

TharpeandGallimore(1988)notethatinthekindergartenyearchildrenaresocialized into

the habits and understandings required for participating in a center-based classroom.

One of the teacher's responsibilities in the "rst few days of school is to teach

children`the rules and the rest of the social system that make up the classroom and

schoola (p. 167). This contrasts sharply with the constructivist approach to establishing

a cooperative sociomoral atmosphere, in part by having children construct the

classroom rules on the basis of the needs they experience (see DeVries & Zan, 1994).

As explained, scaffolding is associated with the sociocultural theory of mind

(SCT), as elaborated in the writings of Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky (1987).

The central tenet of SCT is that human psychology is fundamentally mediated activity.

Like other animals, humans are endowed with certain innate capacities. Humans are

unique, however, in their use of culture to create tools that transform their activities

and their relation to the world. Just as humans rely on physical tools to transform

physical activities, Vygotsky reasoned, so they similarly create symbolic tools that can

be used to regulate psychological activity. Through a process of assigning meaning to

objects, images, and, ultimately, representations, humans are able to exercise control

over such basic cognitive functions as perceiving, paying attention, and remembering.

Human cultures have produced many complex symbolic systems that have allowed for

new understandings of the world and, by extension, action in the world. Examples of

symbolic tools include counting systems, abstract conceptual knowledge, and, most

important, language. Through verbal thinking, humans are able to engage in reasoning,

planning, and problemsolving. Moreover, language allows for communication among

individuals, and this is essential to how human societies pass on and continue to

develop culture from generation to generation.

1.8 Population and Sample / Data source

1.8.1 population

In Junior High school in Langsa city

1.82. Sample
1.9 Research Methodology

1.9.1 Research Design

The methodology will be used in this study is qualitative approach.

Qualitative approach is the research method that will be used to obtain the data

deeply and the data gained from the research will be written and explained.

According to McMillan(2008) in his book Educational Research, he stated that

qualitative approach is characterized by the assumption that the researcher’s

biases and perspectives must be understood and used in interpreting findings.

To decide the research method will be used in the research, the researcher has

to match the research method with the research problem. The problem of this

research already stated above that this research will be focus on the Language

Ideology of teenagers toward the Categories of Gender. In this study, the

research method will be used is qualitative descriptive research. Descriptive

research is the research method to describe the information based on the data

gained from the research.

1.9.2 Research Instrument

In this research, the researcher will use interview and questionnaire to obtain

the data. Therefore, the researcher will get the data completely and systematically.
1.9.3 Data Collection Procedure

 Do the observation.

 Make interview to junior high school in Langsa Kota.

 Make questionnaire.

 Analyzing the data, and interpreting the data.

1.9.4 Data Analysis Procedure

The data which is obtained from the data collection procedures will be analyse

by the researcher. First, the researcher will analyse the syllabus design of

English subject use which is given by school with the research instrument to

find out the suitability of English Language teaching principles used in teaching

learning process and also the implementation of the principle.

Furthermore, to find out the conclusion of this research the researcher

will analyse the data which is obtained by the interview with the student.

Finally, the researcher will obtain what is The Implementation of Teaching

Learning a Foreign Language Using Piaget and Vygotsky Theory.

1.10 Time and Place of the research

1.11 Organization of Study

This research is organized into five chapters, those are: introduction, theoretical

framework, research method, findings and analysis and the final is conclusion and

suggestion.
 Chapter one is the background of study, problem of study, purpose of study,

scope of study and the significant of the study.

Chapter two will be explain about the principles of language teaching and how

is the implementation of the principle and also about material development.

Chapter three is about research design, population and sample, source of data,

data collection procedures, data analysis procedures and research schedule.

Chapter four is data findings and Analysis.

Chapter five is the last one that consists of conclusions and suggestions.

Refferences

Piaget, J.: 1937, La construction du réel chez l’enfant, Neuchâtel, Switzerland:

Delachaux et Niestlé.

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical

imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide.

London, England: Routledge. Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and

classroom education. In B. Steirer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning

in educational practice (pp. 92–110). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

DeVries, R. (1997). Piaget's social theory. Educational Researcher, 26(2), 4}17. DeVries, R.,

& Edmiaston, R. (1999). Misconceptions about constructivist education. The Constructivist,

13(1), 12}19. DeVries, R., Haney, J., & Zan, B. (1991). Sociomoral atmosphere in direct-
instruction, eclectic, and constructivist kindergartens: A study of teachers' enacted

interpersonal understanding.

Illeris (2018) European Journal of Education

Goffin, S. (1994). Curriculum models in early Childhood education: appraising the

relationship. New York: Maxwell & Macmillan.

Piaget, J. (1928/1995). Genetic logic and sociology. In J. Piaget, Sociological studies (pp.

184}214). New York: Routledge. Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgement of the child (M.

Gabain, Trans.) London: Free Press. Piaget, J. (1936/1952). The origins of intelligence in

children (M. Cook, Trans.) New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J., (1937/1954).

The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.) New York: Basic Books.

Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1929/1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van der

Veer, J. Valsiner, & M. Cole, ¹he <ygotsky reader (pp. 99}174). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. (1930a/1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch, The concept

of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 147}188). New York: Sharpe, Inc.

Vygotsky,L.,(1930b/1981).Theinstrumentalmethodin psychology.InJ. Wertsch,Theconcept

ofactivity in Soviet psychology (pp. 136}143). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Vygotsky, L.

(1934/1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. (1935/1978). Interaction

between learning and development. In L. Vygotsky, Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1935). Apprentissage et developpement a l'age prescolaire.

Societe Francaise, 52(2), 35}45. Vygotsky, L., (1935/1978). Mind in society: The development

of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J.

(1993). Commentary. Human Development, 36, 168}171.

PARAPHRASING

At the heart of this based on is the Piagetian ideas that ‘l’intelligence organise le
monde en s’organisant elle-même’ ‘intelligence organizes the world by organising
itself ( Piaget 1937, p.92).
The opus of human effloresce theorists as well as as Jean Piaget As the case (1896–
1980) or, in our own time, psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and Michael
Tomasello (Esteban- Guitart, 2012a; Lázaro & Esteban-Guitart, 2014,p.157),

Vygotsky, with his famous of differentiation higher and lower psychological

processes, established a qualitative leap among humans and animals (Ratner, 1991,
2004; Vygotsky, 1997; Vygotsky & Luria, 1993,p.157).

Children constitutes a significant practical problem for schools is The organization of

scientific concepts (Vygotsky, 1934/2007, p.24).

“Constructivism posits that in the process of learning, learners do not simply acquire
new knowledge but they use various tools that include their personal experiences and
skills, to assign meaning to ‘new’ information and, thereby, construct their own
knowledge” (White, 2011; Blake & Pope, 2008,p.1525).

“Studying and intellectual development occur due to continuous interaction between

a child and the environment thats Piaget posits” (Gordon & Browne, 2011,p. 1527).

Muthivhi & Broom (2009) define cognition as; the input structuration of thought
driven by subject’s own activity in the world of experience

“Inherent in cognition are cognitive structures and several dynamic and

interdependent processes that include assimilation, accommodation and organization,
all of which assist a developing child to adapt to the environment” (Simatwa, 2010;
Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Blake & Pope, 2008,p.1527).
REFERENCES

Piaget, J.: 1937, La construction du réel chez l’enfant, Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et
Niestlé.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014a). Funds of identity: A new concept based on funds of
knowledge
approach. Culture & Psychology, 20, 31–48.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014b). Lived experiences, funds of identity and education.
Culture &
Psychology, 20, 70–81.
.

Ratner, C. (1991). Vygotsky’s sociohistorical psychology & its contemporary

applications. New York: Springer.
Ratner, C. (2004). Vygotsky’s conception of psychological development. In R.
Rieber & D. Robinson
(Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp. 401–413). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2007). Pensamento e linguagem [Thought and language]. Lisbon: Relogio
D`Agua
Editores. (Original work published 1934)

White, H.C. (2011). Constructivism. In Newman J. & Robbins, P. (Eds.), Green Education:
An A to Z Guide (pp. 90 – 91). Los Angeles: SAGE.Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008).
Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms.
Journal of Cross–disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59 – 67.
Gordon, A.M. & Browne, K.W. (2011). Beginnings and beyond: Foundations in early
childhood education (8th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Muthivhi, A. & Broom, Y. (2009). School as cultural practice: Piaget and Vygotsky on
learning and concept development in post–apartheid South Africa. Journal of Education, 47,
1 – 18.

Simatwa, E.M.W. (2010). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development and its implication for
instructional management at pre–secondary school level. Educational Research and Reviews,
5(7), 366 – 371.
JURNAL

1. 92 JOHN LEACH AND PHIL SCOTT

contexts and practices of science education are diverse, the majority of resources
in science education are put into schooling. The purpose of this paper is therefore
to consider how the theoretical tools that are available in the literature might be
drawn upon to provide a perspective on learning science in classrooms, with a
view to improving the effectiveness of science teaching in enhancing students’
learning. We agree with Millar (1989) that theories of science learning do not
have inevitable consequences for science teaching. In this paper, however, we will
develop an account of science learning that aims to inform our understanding of
how learning might follow from teaching, and consider the implications of this
view for future research and practice in science education.
In recent years, a number of critiques of views of learning collectively labelled
as ‘constructivist’ have been published. Our own work has been focused upon in
some of these critiques, and we therefore conclude with some reflections on these,
in the light of the perspective on teaching and learning science developed in this
paper.

Individual and Sociocultural Views on Learning in Science Education

Two main strands of learning theory tend to be drawn upon in science education.
The first of these strands has its origins in Piaget’s genetic epistemology and related
cognitive science views. At the heart of this strand is the Piagetian notion that
‘l’intelligence organise le monde en s’organisant elle-même’ (‘intelligence organises
the world by organising itself’; Piaget 1937). According to this perspective, in
order to predict how learners will respond to attempts to teach science it is necessary
to understand the knowledge that students bring to a given teaching situation.
Detailed descriptions of students’ preinstructional knowledge in various science
topic areas have been developed, as well as information about how this knowledge
changes as a result of science teaching. There are now several theories of
conceptual change in science learning which have their origins in Piaget’s genetic
epistemology. Some of these theories of conceptual change focus on describing
individual learners’ ‘mental structures’,1 whereas others have something to say
about the mechanisms that drive changes in individuals’ ‘mental structures’. While
recognising the social nature of formal learning situations, this strand of learning
theory portrays science learning fundamentally in terms of changes in the ‘mental
structure’ of individuals. We will therefore refer to these views as individual views
on learning. In recent years, the ‘discursive turn in psychology’ (Harré & Gillett, 1994) has
involved a shift in focus away from viewing meaning-making in terms of cognitive
processes in the individual, towards an account of individuals as they function in
social contexts. There has been a similar shift in focus in research into teaching
and learning science (Solomon 1994). The second strand of learning theory that
is increasingly drawn upon in science education has its origins in Vygotskian and
neo-Vygotskian psychology. Learning and meaning-making are portrayed as ori
OXFORD REVIEW OF EDUCATION 157

Such a definition of identity artefact is purposefully very broad. My concern is less the definition
of an identity artefact as a precise thing, as tracing how artefacts-in-use function to make identity
itself thing-like. Stated otherwise, How do processes of artefactualization or reification give
form to experience by congealing this experience into identity-shaping ‘thingness’? (Leander,
2002, p. 199)
Rather than concentrating on the production of identity in a space of social interaction, our
precise aim here is, in contrast, to take up the concept, to redefine it within more precise
limits and link it to the teaching and learning processes.
To this end, this article is organised into four main sections. First, we shall contextualise
the notion of mediation and cultural artefact within the framework of Vygotskian cultural,
or socio-cultural, psychology. Second, we present the idea of using identity artefacts (IAs) as
an educational resource, which can facilitate the processes of contextualised teaching and
meaningful learning. Third, we provide a description and critical analysis of the use of IAs in
a number of different projects and educational contexts. Finally, in our concluding discussion,
we explore the potential of the concept and the likely developments for future research
linked to this notion.

The notions of mediation and artefact from a Vygotskian perspective

The work of Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) has already been extensively reviewed by a number
of authors (Daniels, 2008; Daniels, Cole, & Wertsch, 2007; Kozulin, 1990; Moll, 2014; Rivière,
1984; Van der Veer, 2007; Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). Here we will focus on what in our
view are two core concepts in the authors thinking, namely: mediation (Wertsch, 2007) and
psychological instrument or cultural artefact (Cole, 1996). We have used these two concepts
in order to articulate the theoretical basis of our definition of an identity artefact, therefore,
we will explore these two concepts first.

Cultural mediation of higher psychological processes

As is the case with the work of human development theorists such as Jean Piaget (1896–
1980)
or, in our own time, psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and Michael Tomasello (Esteban-
Guitart, 2012a; Lázaro & Esteban-Guitart, 2014), the work of Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934)
contains
traces of the answer to a fundamental question: what is it that makes us human?
Unlike Jean Piaget, who established a continuity between the non-human animal world
and the human world through mechanisms of assimilation and accommodation that allow
for an adaptation to the environment guided by the tendency towards the equilibration of
cognitive structures (Piaget, 1975), Vygotsky, with his well-known differentiation between
lower and higher psychological processes, established a qualitative leap between humans
and animals (Ratner, 1991, 2004; Vygotsky, 1997; Vygotsky & Luria, 1993).
This distinction had already been made by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt (1832–1920) in
differentiating between the physiological psychology involved in studying the elementary
or lower processes—such as the sensations studied in his laboratory in Leipzig—and the
Völkerpsychologie (or psychology of peoples), involved in studying the cultural products and
collective higher processes such as language, thought, myths, legends, stories, and
traditions
(del Río & Álvarez, 2016; Esteban-Guitart & Ratner, 2010). In the 10 volumes of
Völkerpsychologie,
written between 1900 and 1920, Wundt examines the psychological development of
humankind
(Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we headed?). The Probleme der

Psychology in Russia: State of the Art

Volume 7, Issue 3, 2014
Lomonosov
Moscow State
University
Russian
Psychological
Society
24

Vygotsky and Piaget: Scientific concepts

Pedro Ferreira Alves
Quintino Aires Institute, Clinic of Post-Classical Psychotherapy,
Lev Vygotsky Institute, Lisbon, Portugal
Corresponding author. E-mail: pedro_ferreira_alves@hotmail.com
Jean Piaget’s so-called biological perspective is often paired with the viewpoint of Lev
Vygotsky when we speak of learning in humans. Both authors acknowledged the active
role of children in the construction of knowledge. However, they differ in that, unlike
Piaget, Vygotsky believed that the assimilation of new information does not have to wait
for an appropriate level of development but must, on the contrary, produce that development
through instruction; thus, cooperation between teacher and student promotes the
development of higher psychological functions. The present research presents proof that
school instruction is instrumental in this process. Samples of adults who had acquired
distinct levels of schooling (from illiterates to university students) are differentiated experimentally
through the use of four Piagetian cognitive problem-solving tasks created
for adolescents and adults. The present research suggests that instructional level is the
distinctive factor in the development of those problem-solving capacities that implicate
higher psychological functions.
Keywords: Vygotsky, Piaget, learning, development, scientific concepts

Introduction: Basic distinctions

Jean Piaget’s perspective is often compared with Lev Vygotsky’s because both authors
acknowledged the active role of humans in the construction of knowledge.
However, they differ in that, unlike Piaget, Vygotsky thought that the assimilation
of new information does not have to wait for an appropriate level of development
but must, on the contrary, produce that development: “The organization of scientific
concepts in children constitutes an important practical problem for schools”
(Vygotsky, 1934/2007, p. 222).
Piaget framed his cognitive theory in a biological context, repeatedly referring
to his intellectual roots in Immanuel Kant’s, C. H. Waddington’s, and Henri Bergson’s
thoughts, as well as focusing on evolutionism and structuralism. He based
his orientation and his psychogenetic theory on five principles: reason is rooted in
action; it stands on two “a priori” mechanisms, adaptation and organization; reason
is “pure” and nontemporal; structuralism is an independent concept.
ISSN 2074-6857 (Print) / ISSN 2307-2202 (Online)
c Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2014
c Russian Psychological Society, 2014
doi: 10.11621/pir.2014.0303
http://psychologyinrussia.com

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION

2017, VOL. 12, NO. 6, 1525-1545
Towards a Theory–driven Integration of Environmental
Education: The Application of Piaget and Vygotsky in Grade R
Headman N Hebe
College of Education, School of Teacher ARTICLE HISTORY
Education, University of South Africa,
SOUTH AFRICA KEYWORDS
Piaget, Vygotsky, Assimilation, Received 20 January 2017
Environmental Education, Early Childhood Revised 28 March 2017
Education, Grade R, Scaffolding, Accepted 9 May 2017
Internalization

Introduction
Piaget and Vygotsky’s respective theories of cognitive development have contributed
immeasurably to the field of education. One quintessential example worth citing, among
many others, is the contribution towards the conceptualization of the interminably
burgeoning tenet universally known as constructivism. Constructivism posits that in the
process of learning, learners do not simply acquire new knowledge but they use various
tools that include their personal experiences and skills, to assign meaning to ‘new’
information and, thereby, construct their own knowledge (White, 2011; Blake & Pope,
2008). Hence, White (2011) argues that “constructivism puts the individual at the centre
of learning, forming meaning through experience” (p. 90), and that it

CORRESPONDENCE Headman N Hebe herbzhn@yahoo.com © 2017 H. N. Hebe Open Access terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition
that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any
changes. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
v 1526 H. N. HEBE.
(constructivism) is based on the “belief that people can only understand what they have
themselves constructed” (ibid). Constructivism continues to shed light and is, thus,
invaluable in enabling scholars, teachers and a myriad of practitioners from various
fields to make sense of how learning takes place.
Furthermore, numerous authors have sought to elucidate the applicability of the theories
by the two reputable thinkers, both collectively and individually, in the teaching and
learning of various subjects. For example, scholars have written about the utilization of
these theories in mathematics pedagogy across different levels of education (e.g.
Denhere, Chinyoka & Mambeu, 2013; Ojose, 2008; Phillips, 1995). Others have reflected
on how these paradigms facilitate instructional management and assessment (e.g.
Simatwa, 2010; Lutz & Huitt, 2004). Likewise, some scholars have highlighted the role of
Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories in play–based learning and cognitive development in
Early Childhood Education (e.g. Bodrova, Germeroth & Leong, 2013; Gordon & Browne,
2011; Nicolopoulou, 1993). Indeed, owing to the monumental scholarship of these great
minds, any attempt to exhaust Piaget and Vygotsky’s influences in the field of education
would be futile.
Notwithstanding the immense contribution by the two theorists to the field of education,
it seems very little (if anything) has been written about the applicability of Piaget and
Vygotsky in the integration of Environmental Education (EE) in Early Childhood
Education (ECE). In my considered view this could be, partly, attributed to the general
‘neglect’ of the field of ECE. In her paper entitled, revealing the Research ‘hole’ of Early
Childhood Education for Sustainability: a Preliminary Survey of the Literature, Davis
(2009) does not only highlight the dearth of research that focuses on EE in ECE but she
also laments the universal abandonment of ECE. Accordingly, Davis (2009) writes that;
“the early years are those that traditionally have received the least attention from the
education world” (p. 241). Furthermore, she asserts that, “this pattern of neglect extends
to the field of environmental education/education for sustainability” (ibid.). Apart from
Davis (2009), there are other authors who also underscore the ‘neglect’ of ECE (e.g.
Adegbami & Adewole, 2013; Kamerman, 2006; Calman & Tarr–Whelan, 2005). Thus, to
some extent, the need to contribute towards addressing this ‘neglect’ prompted the
penning of this paper.
Therefore, this paper seeks to demonstrate how Jean Piaget’s theory on the Stages of
Cognitive Development and Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Perspective could be applied in
the integration of Environmental Education in Grade R – Grade R refers to the South
African equivalent of the class known as the Preschool or Kindergarten class in other
parts of the world. In this discussion, I commence by briefly presenting some basic
assumptions of each of the two theories. Thereafter, I provide an illustration on how the
two theories could be used, simultaneously, in the integration of EE in Grade R. By way
of illustration, I use the mathematics theme; “numbers, operations and relations”
(Department of Basic Education, 2011, pp. 19 – 22) prescribed in the Grade R National
Curriculum Statement (NCS), also referred to as the Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement (CAPS), implemented in South African public schools. However, in view of the
fact that, a typical Grade R learner falls within the age–group of 4 – 6 years, my
discussion of Piaget’s stages of cognitive development is confined to the first two stages,
namely; the sensori–motor and INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
& SCIENCE EDUCATION 1527
the pre–operational stages. Therefore, any reference to the other two stages by Piaget
will be cursory. The following is, thus, a reflection on Piaget’s theory of cognitive
development.
Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
Piaget posits that learning and intellectual development occur due to continuous
interaction between a child and the environment (Gordon & Browne, 2011). Central to
learning and development is cognition. Muthivhi & Broom (2009) define cognition as;
“the internal structuration of thought driven by subject’s own activity in the world of
experience” (p. 14) in a perpetual quest to acclimatize to the surroundings. Through
cognition, information about the world is acquired, transformed, stored and regularly
retrieved by the cognising subject in order to interact with the environment
(Brandimonte, Bruno & Collina, 2006; Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996). Inherent in
cognition are cognitive structures and several dynamic and interdependent processes
that include assimilation, accommodation and organization, all of which assist a
developing child to adapt to the environment (Simatwa, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009;
Blake & Pope, 2008).
Although cognition is, from childhood through adulthood, an intrinsic element of
learning, intellectual development and other human actions; humans are not born
cognizing. This point is underlined by Berk (2009) who writes that, “according to Piaget
human infants do not start out as cognitive beings. Instead, out of their perceptual and
motor activities, they build and refine psychological structures – organised ways of
making sense of experience that permit them to adapt more effectively to the
environment. Children develop these structures actively; using current structures to
select and interpret experiences, then modify those structures to take into account more
subtle aspects of reality” (p. 224). Furthermore, cognition is fundamentally predicated on
interplay between several factors. These elements include; heredity of the child,
maturation of the nervous and endocrine systems, action–oriented experience, regular
social interaction and sharing of knowledge and the internal regulatory mechanism
(Woolfolk, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Louw, van Ede & Louw, 1998; Webb, 1980). In
addition to the preceding factors, Piaget (1952) argues that human actions are
precipitated by the “two most general biological functions: organization and adaptation”
(p. 5). As I try to demonstrate in this discussion, adaptation and organisation are
inseparable. The same applies to related processes of assimilation and accommodation.
Piaget (1952) conceives adaptation as a reciprocal process wherein the organism, in the
context of this discussion a cognizing child, and the environment have a mutual influence
on each other. Hence, according to him; “there is adaptation when the organism is
transformed by the environment” (ibid.) and this transformation leads to more interaction
between the organism and the environment, culminating in auspicious preservation of the
latter. Furthermore, Piaget (1952) argues that the transactions between the organism and
the environment are centred on two interconnected processes: assimilation and
accommodation. There are numerous examples that could be presented to highlight how
adaptation might occur in a developing preschool child. However, in the interest of this
discussion a single illustration should suffice.