AO1
VYGOTSKY
- saw COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT as a SOCIAL PROCESS of learning from MORE EXPERIENCED OTHERS
- first knowledge is INTERMENTAL between the TWO INDIVIDUALS and INTRAMENTAL within the mind of the less expert
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITVE ABILITIES
- if REASONING ABILITIES are acquired from the MORE EXPERIENCED that the child has CONTACT WITH, the child will gain THOSE ABILITIES which leads to CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
- pick up MENTAL TOOLS that are IMPORTANT to LIFE such as HAND-EYE CO-ORDINATION needed to HUNT to the EVALUATION SKILLS needed at A-LEVEL
THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT (ZPD)
- the GAP between the CHID’S CURRENT LEVEL of DEVELOPMENT (what they know alone) vs. what they can understand AFTER THE INTERACTION = ZPD
- EXPERT ASSISTANCE allows the child to CROSS THE ZPD and understand as much of the subject as CAPABLE
- children are to some extent LIMITED BY THEIR DEVELOPMENT
- can not only learn FACTS through social interaction but also REASONING ABILITIES through interaction and more advanced others
SCAFFOLDING
- all the kinds of help more advanced peers and adults give
- WOOD ET AL: 5 STAGES from level 5 to 1 as the child grasps the concept
5 DEMONSTRATION – e.g. drawing with the crayon
4 PREPARTION FOR CHILD – e.g. mother helps child to grasp the crayon
3 INDICATION OF MATERIALS – e.g. mother points to the crayon
2 SPECIFIC VERBAL INSTRUCTION – e.g. ‘how about the green crayon?’
1 GENERAL PROMPTS – e.g. ‘now draw something else’
AO3
- APPLICATION TO EDUCATION: the idea that children can learn MORE and FASTER with APPROPRIATE SCAFFOLDING has RAISED EXPECTATIONS of what they can ACHIEVE and SOCIAL INTERACTION through GROUP WORK, PEER TUTORING and INDIVIDUAL ADULT ASSISTANCE from teachers to scaffold children
- KEER AND VERHAEGHE: found 7 yr olds tutored by 10 yr olds in addition to the WHOLE-CLASS TEACHING – they progressed FURTHER than CONTROLS
- SUPPORT FOR IDEA OF SCAFFOLDING: CONNER + CROSS: LONGITUDINAL procedure they followed up 45 children, observing them ENGAGED in PROBLEM SOLVING tasks with help of their MOTHERS AT 16, 24, 44, 54 months – DISINCTIVE CHANGES in help were OBSERVED over time; mothers used LESS and LESS DIRECT INTERVENTION and more HINTS and PROMPTS as children gained experience
- SUPPORT FOR ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT: ROAZZI + BRYANT: gave 4-5 yr old children the task of ESTIMATING the NUMBER of SWEETS IN A BOX, ONE CONDITION: the children WORKED ALONE and ANOTHER they worked with the help of an OLDER CHILD – MOST working ALONE FAILED to give a GOOD ESTIMATE and with EXPERT HELP: older children were observed to offer PROMPTS, POINTING in the RIGHT DIRECTION = most successfully mastered the task
COMPARE PIAGET AND VYGOTSKY
- piaget: cog development is driven when we ADAPT to NEW EXPERIENCES that develop our mental representations of people etc. – SCHEMAS, have a DISEQUILIBRIUM when learning something new – go through ASSIMILATION (adding to EXISTING schemas) and ACCOMODATION (a DRAMATICALLY new experience that creates a NEW SCHEMA)
- vygotsky: cog development is driven by SOCIAL INTERACTION EXPERIENCE with more experiences peers and adults
- piaget: learning occurs when the CHILD IS READY as they learn through ACTIVE LEARNING AND EXPLORING INDIVIDUALLY to make our OWN REPRESENTATIONS
- vygotsky: learning can be SPED UP with SOCIAL INTERACTION with the more experienced peers that can help to close the gap of ZPD of what they currently know and what they are capable of knowing – this is done through SCAFFOLDING, the expert will start with DEMONSTRATING the task and, as the child starts to understand, it will end up leading to GENERAL PROMPTS
- piaget: young children are seen as SCIENTISTS; we learn and develop our own understandings of the task
- vygotsky: young children are seen as APPRENTICES; young children learn a skill from an expert
- piaget: cog development is the SAME UNIVERSALLY
vygotsky: cog development DIFFERS ACROSS CULTURE and TIME through DIFFERENT INTERACTIONS with the EXPERTS