Piaget believed in the child to society association whereby children have the skills to organization information they receive from the society. He felt that children make sense of the world around them with the innate organization skills they possess. As the child grows, his views might undergo a change and his association with society might also alter depending on his age. While in his theory, innate knowledge is important, Piaget never discredited environment's role in the development process: There are no more such things as societies qua beings than there are isolated individuals. There are only relations.... And the combinations formed by them, always incomplete, cannot be taken as permanent substances (Piaget, 1932, p. 360).

A there is no longer any need to choose between the primacy of the social or that of the intellect: collective intellect is the social equilibrium resulting from the interplay of the operations that enter into all cooperation (Piaget, 1970, p. 114)

Vygotsky maintained that a child learns from the society and needs the guidance of adults, parents and others to form a concept or organize information. He did not support Piaget and their findings collided because of the direction...

While it went from child to social environment in Piaget, it took the other route from social environment to child in Vygotsky's theory.
A what we have in mind is not reality as it is passively reflected in perception or abstractly cognized. We mean reality as it is encountered in practice (1987, pp. 78-79)

Both theories have their limitations as we see from the argument presented in each to support their own positions. How the information flows between the child and social environment is still debatable and the role of both cannot be ignored. Neo-Vygotskian theory of development also stresses the importance of environment in learning. This theory argues that learning is a social process that is formed through social and discursive resources.