Hi Miranda. Interesting point. I have much stronger affiliation with Vygotsky so I'll comment on his theory. I can see why you may question its currency because students access so much information so readily, but I think that the theory still holds because it is about knowledge acquisition, ie what happens inside the brain. Outwardly, students are becoming very adept at reconstructing information from the web, but they don't necessarily conceptualise it when it outside their zone of proximal development and ithout social interaction. It is a bit like 'word barking', where people can read fluently but don't get the meaning of what they read. Short answer: Vygotsky is still the best mode for constructing learning situations as his theory still effectively describes what happens during the learning process.

Hi Miranda. Interesting point. I have much stronger affiliation with Vygotsky so I'll comment on his theory. I can see why you may question its currency because students access so much information so readily, but I think that the theory still holds because it is about knowledge acquisition, ie what happens inside the brain. Outwardly, students are becoming very adept at reconstructing information from the web, but they don't necessarily conceptualise it when it outside their zone of proximal development and ithout social interaction. It is a bit like 'word barking', where people can read fluently but don't get the meaning of what they read. Short answer: Vygotsky is still the best mode for constructing learning situations as his theory still effectively describes what happens during the learning process.

Thanks Mark for your response :)

Let's see how other RG friends look at this question.

I am not an educational specialist, but I can understand the meaning of your question. Well, I think this is a great problem in the whole building of education: We cannot escape from the sucess stories of the past, although they cannot be applied today, just because the tech level is totally different! So, despite that I don't know the theories you mentioned, I'd rather say that they are probably out of the date.

Agree with @Mark.I do think these theories are still relevant. These are like classics.

Itsn't Newton still relevant?

I wonder if there has been 'negative' results or different results that a researcher has obtained and found that it is different form the giants of the past? :)))

As we know, Jean Piaget theory of the transition from sensory motor actions to specific transactions, and then to formal - is the most complete in the whole hypothesis of developmental psychology. Developmental psychology, including the idea of multiple intelligences, a very complex process and if those theories (Piaget's and Vygotsky) allow to explain the laws of this process, then I think that they are not yet obsolete.

I think it will apply because there is nothing in it that specially for certain periods of time.

All these theories still apply, I think, because all olden theories have proved to still be relevant with modern times. I am not very well acquainted with these education theories but whatever I can judge, they still seem relevant and working.

Well, if a theory is well constructed and sufficiently abstract then it can hold longer.

In this case we can say: cognitive development is still nowadays a progressive reorganization of mental processes as a result of biological maturation and environmental experience.

It is environmental experience and, above all, the way we receive these environmental stimuli, what has drastically changed through the recent past years.

We can continue accepting that children construct an understanding of the world around them, and learn through the analysis of the discrepancies between what they already know and what they discover in their environment.

So in this sense, we can think of his theory as still valid in its abstract concept, but likely not in the realization process imagined by him.

Thanks for your opinions.

@Sylantyev, Samuel et al.,

Even Bandura's Social Learning Theory has the 2nd concept, that internal mental states are important for learning to occur. This also hints that learning is active constructivism :))

What do you all think?

Hi colleagues. On my opinion Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories are the basic psychologic level. They have many "points of development". Of course, today education theories have gone forward, but we can see their connections with Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories

Very interesting question. Education is the tool that molds the children. So the curriculum should be designed in such a way that focus on development of skills in communication, problem solving, critical thinking, inquiry, investigation, analysis, social and personal awareness and their interaction.

As mentioned by one of our colleagues the methods are related to psychological level. Both have similarities and differences too check the links given. Let that be Piaget or Vygotsky or some one else all are great scientists approaches may be a bit different but what mentioned by them is to develop interest in children to learn enthusiastically.

Generations are changing. So the curriculum also meet all demands so that they successfully go against all challenges they come across.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Similarities_%26_differences_between_Piaget_%26_Vygotsky_theories

http://www.personal.psu.edu/jms5355/blogs/jessicas_blog/2009/01/differences-between-piagets-and-vygotskys-theories-of-development.html

I agree with Mark, Samuel and several other colleagues who view the theories as still relevant. Moreover, I believe that Piaget provides very useful insight regarding the transition of children from nonsymbolic experimenters who are trying to figure out the world based on motor schemes alone to the symbolic experimenters who now have the tool of language with which to think about their experiences in combination with action schemes. In terms of teaching, there is still much to be said for respect for the child's developmental level (thank you Piaget and Vygotsky) and providing learning experiences that meet the need for appropriate challenge to promote problem solving. I do think we must be careful with the "flavor of the week" when it comes to considering the role of education and the function of the educator. To pull out another classic, Social Learning Theory, children are born with the inherent ability to learn and an experience affects a change, even when there is no observable change in behavior. One admonition for the educator is to be careful of the lesson presented.

Dear friends, thanks for your views. Each of us may be more familiar with a particular theory. This is fine :))

I see that your schematic looks very similar to a "node view"; with the theme of constructivism prominent in processes. Yes process is critical. However, at critical junctures we do need product reflective of the processes. Miranda, would you provide some discussion of your schematic?

@Nola, I will get back to you all when I can. I have a busy day ahead, still keying in data when I have finished classes for today at 1700 h. [My time now is 1028 h.]

I do understand!

I know a little about these theories, but I write mainly to put a question. Maybe it deserved to turn a new question.

The question is how these theories and specialists would see these new technologies nowadays available for children? Cell Phones? Tablets? Internet? Facebook?

Alexandre, interesting question. The technology is still experienced through the perceptual systems of children. I would offer a cautious guess that the basic theoretical tenets would be the same. Some American developmental specialists suggest that a danger with interactive computer-based games is a tendency for the "game to be in control:," with children having fewer opportunities to formulate their own rules and do broad exploration using fine and gross motor skills. The assumption is a danger of the child having to adapt and conform, with fewer opportunities to experience control. So, some specialists recommend balance, with children having exposure to a broad array of toys and physical activity.

As you can see, my response took a side road. But the question you suggest is still interesting to think about: What would Piaget and others have said about learning given the impact of current technology?

what I think for 15, l6, 17 year olds is that the easy access to te×t around a topic' has allowed them to focus on the text and not the underlying concepts. An increasing number of my Students can grab chunks of text from the internet & recreate it for their purposes. They are not intending to plagiarise. It appears to be something more complex. The result is that they can often sound much more knowlegable than they are. It is a type of 'word barking'. The reason I bring it up is because they don't appear to be processing the information except at a superficial textual level. Perhaps Piaget & Vygotsky may have some comment on what I think is a shift in learning behaviour.

Mark, this is a wonderful description. I agree that access to information and ability to regurgitate does not necessarily indicate a deep level of understanding among our adolescents. This is true of undergraduate students as well. I believe that in many cases the plagiarism in writing assignments for inexperienced writers is not intentional. However, the student has only one way to present the information--that modeled by the text they read. Wow, a number of factors might contribute to this--as you and Miranda know. To counteract the stilted and piecemeal approach to writing that typify some students, frequently, I have students read texts aloud in class and explain, give examples, take counter arguments, and so forth (the pre write). Following this experience, the writing begins.

Friends, I'm glad you are discussing, and enjoying the discussion. I have been busy, waging war with the computer viruses. At last, they (all 77) are neutralized. I place my link to Piaget's theory here.

http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Piaget%27s_Constructivism

This link provides the ideas of Piaget and Vygotsky. I will get back to this thread when I can. Thanks.

@Mark, I think 'word barking' is dangerous; as teachers we may make mistakes that our students understand when they don't.

Actually Miranda, both problems exist. In marking assessment esp. extended written pieces, I very firmly point out to my teachers that they must beware of two common mistakes, giving too much credit to the student who says very little but says it very well (the word barker) and the obverse, not giving enough credit to the student who says a lot but does not have as much facility with language.

@Mark, thanks for all your insights :))

At least, you are in a position to give advice to the teachers. I'm glad about this.

There is a problem with the 4th Vygotskian principle, in that as stated it implies that the congenitally deaf are retarded in mental development. Admittedly, because of defective or missing auditory input their Verbal IQs and hence school attainments are low, nevertheless their Non-verbal IQs are perfectly normal.

I don't think Piaget or Vygotsky have much relevance to modern education. On the other hand, the Vygotsky-Luria theory of developmental disability ought to be of major relevance to child psychology, but seems to be largely unknown. This postulates that in infancy the brain develops centripetally, while in adults it organises centrifugally. Thus the most damaging lesion for infant speech or language is a peripheral one, whilst for adult aphasia it is a cortical one.

@Anthony, thanks. Like you, I cannot agree that 'congenitally deaf are retarded in mental development'.

Do you have materials about the Vygotsky-Luria theory? I will also search for more info about this, there's still such a lot to learn...

"Do you have materials about the Vygotsky-Luria theory?"

It is a long while since I read up about this, and it is now far more difficult to get access to the libraries and old books where this was written up. I'm afraid I do not have a handy reference to hand, so perhaps someone else can provide one.

@Anthony, thanks. I have found materials :)

Both theories are still apt as they addressed how children make meaning of their worlds, working mentally with the inputs provided, then thinking and behaving qualitatively differently as they develop across childhood. The processes by which we come to understand and function in our world (developmental)--the essence of childhood--has not changed significantly. But the inputs have!

I am working on a difficult subject to find and even more to confirm: did hominids become intelligent with a brain that increased in volume? The use of stone or language were determining factors? After all, what is intelligence? I am in a specialty that I completely ignore. Some articles refer to Jean Piaget's theories.