Dear Dennis

Let me start by saying that you raise an interesting and highly debated question: You ask the following: Are Vygotsky and Piaget really constructivist?  You keep on saying that you have read some views claiming that Vygotskian learning theory is a constructivist, similar to Piaget's learning theory. You add that you have some reservations on this because Piaget's theory about learning is based on genetic epistemology but for Vygotsky's theory is based on mediation or specifically the ZPD.

As you certainly know, constructivism has a lot of meanings and it is often confounded with social constructionism. It is noted, however, that contrary to the postmodern constructionist claim that all knowledge is socially constructed, constructivists accounts assume that individuals all construct essentially the same understanding of knowledge and value as a result of their interactions with the physical and social worlds. In this sense, Piaget is to constructivism such as Vygotsky is to constructionism.

 Constructivist approaches to development and education emphasize the importance of one’s own actions on one’s development and education. In this sense, both Piaget and Vygotsky may be considered constructivist authors for they both put a great emphasis on the importance of action on the genesis of the diverse forms of intelligence (Piaget), and on all functions of consciousness (Vygotsky). Note that according to Piaget [1964, p. 176, Development and learning. In R. Ripple, & U. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press] “To know an object is to act on it. To know is to modify, to transform the object, and to understand the process of this transformation”. In the same vein, for Vygotsky (1962, p. 153. Thought and language, Cambridge. MA: The MIT Press). “In the beginning was the deed. The word was not the beginning--action was there first; it is the end of development, crowning the deed.”  

As I see it, although there is a crucial, and generally unnoticed difference between P & V, they both share the following (1) a genetic (i.e., developmental) perspective; (2) a dialectical approach; (3) a non-reductionist view; (4) a non-dualistic thesis; (5) a primacy of processes over external contents or outcomes; and (6) a focus on qualitative changes over quantitative ones (see, for this respect, an article I published, in 2012, in New Ideas in Psychology, and titled: Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances and a crucial difference, which I attach to my answer to your question.

I partly agree with you when you say that Piaget’s learning theory heavily relies on his genetic or developmental epistemology. I say partly, because Piaget’s learning theory also greatly relies on his theory of the individual’s psychological cognitive and moral development. In contrast to this, and as you noted, Vygotsky’s theory of learning is largely based on his socio-cultural and even historical theory, namely on his famous notion of zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is, “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86, Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

All that said, I think that, even though Vygotskian learning theory may be considered a constructivist theory, his theory is not as constructivist as Piaget's learning theory is. Note, among others, the following aspects: (1) Vygotsky’s mediational learning theory (i.e., “We learn and become ourselves through others”) has a constructionist flavor that does not exist in Piaget’s theory; (2) Psychogenesis is a key concept more in Piaget’s theory than in Vygotsky’s; (3) The opposite is true regarding the key concept of socio-genesis: (4) Piaget’ learning theory is mainly based on his epistemological assumptions and psychological developmental findings, whereas Vygotsky’s leaning theory is guided by his social and even Marxist views. (5) To a great extent, transformation is to Piaget as transmission is to Vygotsky: (5) Piaget was mainly interested, as it were, in one’s relatively spontaneous and natural development and learning, whereas Vygotsky was mainly concerned with one’s cultural development and learning. I could make this list a longer list.

Here, I do not say more because my article mentioned above may give you some hints on the difference and similarities between these two geniuses of developmental psychology. Needless to say, not all who are familiar with both Piaget’s and Vygotsky’ oeuvre will share what I say in my article mentioned above.

I hope I have got your question and that this helps.

Best regards.

Vygotsky likely did not think that the Zone of Proximal Development was a constructivist approach because there are indications that he rejected some constructivist ideas.

Nevertheless, the ZPD is a concept that is well integrated into constructivism today and much of constructivist learning theory is about how the teacher and the instructional design manages this zone of learning. For example, it underlies student-centered active learning.

Thank you, Professor Lourenco for sharing the paper with us. I've just finished reading it. Very very helpful.

It is good that you raise this question in 2017. I do respect the theories of the two well -known scientists Vygotsky and Piaget.  If you are doing this comparison between these two scientists in 1970, I would say that it will be interesting and both theories are constructivist. But nowadays, unfortunately, very few scientists produce a constructivist program or software, which is used by billion of learners who became the victim of this product in one direction. Therefore, the theory of constructivism is becoming a digital constructivism, and we as human being, whether we believe in Piaget  or Vygotsky theories,  are prisoners of constructivist machine and devices products.

Great question, Denis. 

I would like to share my perspective, derived from the more in-depth exploration in the attached publication.

The lineage of social constructionism can be traced from Kant, through Piaget, Vygotsky, and Papert. Constructivism emerged from Immanuel Kant‘s philosophical position that the only known reality is that which can be represented by human thought. The theory of constructivism asserts that knowledge is actively constructed rather than passively received.

Just as Kant asserted that knowledge cannot be represented outside of human thought, Piaget asserted that the relationship between an individual‘s conceptual structures and the individual‘s experiential world was not one of representation of an independent reality, but of adaptation based on previously constructed perceptions.

The term cognitive equilibration was developed by Piaget to account for his idea of a constant balancing process between assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation refers to organizing experiences within a learner‘s current understanding, while accommodation refers to the modification of current understanding as the learner experiences contradictions.

Vygotsky, who worked with Piaget, diverged from Piaget's theory. Piaget's cognitive constructivism focuses on the cognitive structuring process of the individual, while Vygotsky's social constructivism emphasizes the sociocultural effects of the environment on the cognitive structuring process. Another difference is Vygotsky‘s emphasis on social interaction, as seen in his stress on dialogue, beyond Piaget‘s focus on contradiction and equilibration.

Von Glaserfeld offered a bridge between cognitive and social constructivism by noting Piaget‘s acknowledgment that the causes of disequilibrium most often were found through interactions with others. Thus, social interactions, as emphasized by Vygotsky, offer important opportunities for Piaget‘s process of adaptation, through accommodation or assimilation, to occur.

Constructivism (Kant) contributes the broad theory that knowledge is created. As derivatives of constructivism, cognitive constructivism (Piaget) contributes the concept of equilibrium and social constructivism (Vygotsky) contributes the importance of dialogue. From social constructivism comes social constructioNism (Papert) and its contribution through the importance of artifacts.

While both constructivism and constructionism view learning as an act of constructing knowledge (Ackermann, 2001), constructionism goes on to suggest that learning occurs when the learner is constructing a "public entity," such as an object or artifact. The key is that the entity, artifact, or object is public, meaning it is both external and sharable.

Not only are ideas made, instead of transmitted, and not only are these ideas more likely to emerge during the construction of an artifact, these ideas are more likely to emerge because the process and the outcome of construction are personally meaningful to the learner. In addition, reflection, considered essential in adult learning, is easier when there is an artifact on which to reflect. This newly created artifact then serves as material for future reflection and, subsequently, knowledge refinement and construction.

Social constructionism supports the existence of multiple ways of knowing.Jonassen (1999) noted that "to impose a single belief or perspective is decidedly nonconstructivist" (p. 217). Accepting the validity of multiple ways of knowing and thinking, as suggested by constructionism‘s emphasis on proximity to objects, allows for an epistemological pluralism (Turkle & Papert, 1991).

This was a long response, though I hope it is useful to you and/or others in considering the constructivism and constructionism of these seminal theorists.

Best wishes,

Barb

Thesis How cognitive requirement of prompt and time in course are c...

Yes spot on, both are constructionists, Piaget base on psychology and genetics while Vygosky focus more on ZPD and Linguistics, he likes group learning and communication too.you really answered well.

Thank you, Maris!

Hi Didem:

Thank you very much for the positive tone regarding my article, "Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances and a crucial difference", which I attached in my answer to Denis' s question concerned with the idea of constructivism  in both Piaget and Vygotsky.

Denis's question has given rise to an interesting debate among RG members.  I want to insist on the idea that (social) constructionism a la K. Gergen, for example, is not tantamount to constructivism a la Piaget.

I want also to stress that Piaget's (1932), in his seminal book, The moral judgment of the child, elaborated on social interactions and even distinguished two types of social interactions: a horizontal social interaction or an interaction between equal peers, and a vertical interaction, or an interaction, for example, between a child and an adult. Whereas horizontal interactions are likely to lead to an autonomous morality, a morality guided by the ideas of cooperation, equality and mutual respect, vertical interactions are likely to lead a heteronomous morality, a morality oriented to the ideas of obedience, fear, and unilateral respect. In his famous notion of ZPD, Vygotsky values more vertical than horizontal interactions.

It is often claimed, by Bruner for example, that Piaget's theory, in contrast with Vygotsky's, relies on an untenable individualism, which is not correct. Suffice it to say that, for Piaget, social factors are a necessary, albeit not sufficient condition, for one's development, and that the early Piaget even sustained that social factors were the main responsible for one's cognitive development. However, as Piaget, in contrast with Vygotsky, was mainly interested in the individual's construction of necessary knowledge, came to recognize that it would be, as it were, a lost epistemologically battle to base such type of knowledge on physical or social regularities, which are contingent in their very nature.

As such, according to Piaget, in order for one to look for the origins of necessary knowledge and logical necessity -- what it has to be the case and cannot  be  otherwise -- one has to take into account complex cognitive processes such as equilibration, reflecting abstraction, grasp of consciousness, dialectics, and the like. Needless to say, Piaget's equilibration is a kind of balance between an active assimilation of external or internal perturbations to one's pre-existing cognitive structures and an active accommodation of such structures to the external novelties or internal lacunae.This gives rise to an optimizing equilibration (equilibration majorante) or an ever increasing active adaptation to the physical and social milieu. It may be the case that Vygotsky's notions of  mediation and internalization correspond to Piaget's process of assimilation/accommodation. Necessary knowledge and logical necessity has no room in Vygotsky's theory.

Best regards.

:

Very interest discussion and lots to think about as we consider what theoretical foundations best capture learning across a lifetime, inside and outside schools, in this 21st century digital age. As a researcher studying learning from various developmental and phenomenological perspectives since the late 1960s, I have seen us reject then accept a number of philosophical and research-validated theories in favor of those whose voices were the loudest and whose funding allowed them to capture the market so to speak.  As we begin 2017, I would challenge all of us to take political agendas in the direction of actually looking at how students learn from infancy through senior years.  Of course, both Piaget and Vygotsky are giants to build upon but here's one link that may be helpful to those interested in what we do in developmentally appropriate classrooms:  http://www.apa.org/education/k12/learners.aspx

Dear all,

I never thought that my question brings a lot of attention.  Thank you very much to all for your responses.  I am very excited to have this discussion. Wish we could have it face to face.

Dear Orlando

I thank you for your insights and your article (I have yet read it in detail, pardon me). 

Actually, what I meant to raise the issues of that people equate Piaget and Vygotsky as constructivism.  I agree, in my opinion, that Piaget is in fact constructivist in which he considers the knowledge of a person is actively constructed entirely by the individual himself/herself without the roles of others, which is maybe referred as individualism.  On the other hand, Vygotsky’s view of learning is sometimes thought to be constructivist because of he also view that knowledge is constructed by the individual.  However, Vygotsky emphasis of roles the mediator or the able persons (for example teachers, parents, and the society) on the development of knowledge through scaffolding such as corrections, feedbacks, supports and guidelines, and also the use of tools such as language and symbols.  This is, to me, separates Vygotsky from Piaget. 

So, now, it is quite clear that Vygotsky and Piaget views about the construction of knowledge are entirely different.  But, can we soundly say that Vygotsky’s emphasis on the role of mediator in his theory, makes this theory not a constructivist but rather constructionist?

Dear Denis.

To an extent I can follow your views on the differences between Piaget' and Vygotsky's theories. Because  both give a great emphasis to action in the sense that action is for both chronologically priori to cognition, they both may be considered constructivist authors.  

I don't agree with you that  for Piaget, the knowledge of a person is actively constructed entirely by the individual himself/herself without the roles of others, which is maybe referred to as individualism. Those who are well acquainted with Piaget's oeuvre know that on several occasion he sustained, for example, that without exchanges of perspectives, the individual would never come to organize his/ her operations  into a coherent whole. This shows that Piaget  cannot be faulted for individualism. In spite of this, Vygotsky's idea that we become ourselves through others would not be espoused by Piaget. In this sense, Vygotsky's oeuvre has a social constructionist flavor which does bot exist in Piaget's theory.  So, I agree with you that Vygotsky’s emphasis on the role of mediation in one's learning and development makes this theory less constructivist than constructionist.

As you read my paper on Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference, one can find many differences and similarities between these giants of developmental psychology. It should be remarked that, in his conservations with the French journalist Jean Claude Bringuier, Piaget confessed that if he had known Vygotsky and his work earlier than it was the case, then he would be able to see that his work was more similar to that of Vygotstky than he used to see.

Given my previous considerations and my article mentioned above, I stop here. It seem to me that I am saying what I have already said.

Best regards.

If w

Well Vygotsky was a social constructivist and as he points out in his book Language and Thought, all language/ meaning comes from the social domain before it becomes individual. language -meaning is individualized through childrens inner speech when they are connecting thoughts with words .

So the ZDP is about learning in the social context along side capable peers. Piaget on the other hand is about individual inner stages of development such as sensory motor, formal operations etc. Yes Piaget is regarded as a constructivist but not a social constructivist. Dave 

Thank you to all who have given the answers to this question. They enlightened me and many others.

I've learnt a lot from such an intellectual discussion. I am interested in the applicability of these theories in 'adult learning'. These days, it seems that some researchers attempted to extend the theories beyond the already defined stages. Any one aware of the applicability of either of the two theories in adult education/learning? please share, thanks

I want to start by saying that Constructivism is a group of ideas about how knowledge is constructed, whether by a group or by individuals. We cannot speak about  constructivism (in singular) but of "constructivisms" (in Plural) because there is a variety of constructivisms (Raskin, 2002), Piaget can be consider constructivist as well a Vygotzky, but their approaches to constructivism are different. For Piaget knowledge is personal and for Vygotsky is social.  Constructivism is a theory of cognition rather than a teaching methodology. 

Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology, radical constructivism, and social constructionism. In J. D. Raskin & S. K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning: Exploring constructivist psychology (pp. 1-25). New York: Pace University Press. 

What we need to remember is that regardless of whether Piaget or Vygotsky intended for their theories to move to the level of a teaching methodology or not, others since have taken BOTH theories to that level.  Please look at research in the applied psychology areas relevant to teaching and learning to find those with the most and least acceptable methodologies and suggested approaches.  I suggest looking at research put forward by the APA, AERA. PDK, and ASCD.  My own experience over the past 45 years is that many of us in cross-disciplinary areas have taken ideas from Piaget and Vygotsky to heart in putting forth our own research-validated approaches.  These approaches are being cited by both national and international researchers who look for ways to move theory to practice in ways that honor how people learn.  See http://mxtsch.people.wm.edu/Teaching/JCPE/Volume1/JCPE_2008-01-09.pdf for just ONE EXAMPLE.

Jean Piaget is well-known for his theory of cognitive development. He was highly interested in expressing the HowNess of making sense (by human beings) with regard to their own experiences of the world and, subsequently, he became concerned with the concept of ‘constructivism’. He is the originator of the theory of constructivism. So, there is no doubt that he has shaped and made the notion of 'constructivism'. By the way, he was certainly influenced by a number of thinkers, philosophers and psychologists like Dewey and Montessori. Lev Vygotsky was influenced by Piaget. In my opinion, he was the originator of the concept of 'social constructivism'. He believed that humans do constructing two times: The first is within their interactions (with environment and other agents), and the second is in themselves (based on the affections of the first). There is no doubt that Piaget and Vygotsky are two of the most constructivist constructivists! They both believed in (i) conceptual change and in (ii) development of any individual human being's experiments and backgrounds. Humans, mainly, based upon (i) and (ii) make senses of their worlds and of themselves.  

Small Group Environmental Decision-Making

Small Group Environmental Decision-Making

Carlos Cornejo discussed this subject in a paper entitled "Piaget, Vigotski and Maturana: three voices, two constructivisms" (full-text in Spanish):

Article Piaget, Vigotski y Maturana: Tres Voces, Dos Constructivismos

I do not think it means what you think it means!

https://lorenabarba.com/blog/computational-thinking-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

For example, Vygotsky (1978), believed that community plays a central role in the process of "making meaning." For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about. While science capital is an important factor the research clearly shows that personal experience plays significantly more important role in determining children future

science capital: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/departments/education-practice-and-society/science-capital-research

social mobility: https://in2scienceuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Oxford-Impact-Report-2018.pdf

In 1980, Seymour Papert published the book “Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas”2. Papert was co-director, under Marvin Minsky, of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory from 1967 to 1981. Previously, he had worked with Jean Piaget in Geneva. Piaget was a developmental psychologist best known for pioneering the learning theory known as constructivism: simply put, that learners construct new knowledge (in their minds) from the interaction of their experiences with previous knowledge. Papert, in turn, developed the theory of constructionism, adding the notion that learning is enhanced when the learner is engaged in “constructing a meaningful product.”