Piaget and Vygotsky: similarities and differences in developmental theory

Introduction
Two of the most influential theorists of education, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, continue to influence educational policy and pedagogical practice. Both of these theorists focus on developmental psychology to underscore their respective theories of learning. A better understanding of Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s contributions to education and child development can help clarify historical continuities and how to promote evidence-based educational practices and policies.
Summary of the Theories
Piaget and Vygotsky were both interested in how children learn, grow, and develop psychologically and socially. Both are constructivists, believing that individuals construct meaning through their lived experiences. Moreover, both Vygotsky and Piaget believed that children learn progressively, building upon prior knowledge in stages of development. However, Vygotsky is known more for sociocultural learning and development, whereas Piaget focused more on the individual. It is not that Piaget ignored the environmental or contextual variables in development and learning so much that he stressed individual or autonomous reactions to environmental and situational variables. Vygotsky stressed the importance of culture and context to a far greater degree.
Similarities Between Piaget and Vygotsky
Both Piaget and Vygotsky are essentially constructivists, believing that development consists of successively assimilating or accommodating during developmental processes and stages (Van Geert, 1998). Therefore, there are ontologies and epistemologies shared in common by Vygotsky and Piaget. The similarities between Vygotsky and Piaget also extend into their respective beliefs on the universal origins and characteristics of human development: namely that all persons will progress according to similar stages due to genetic or ingrained biological factors. Lourenço (2012) posits seven main points of convergence between Piaget and Vygotsky, including the genetic, developmental perspective, the dialectical approach, a non-reductionist view, non-dualism, as well as an emphasis on action, primacy of processes over outcomes, and a focus on qualitative rather than quantitative changes (p. 282). Piaget and Vygotsky are both essentially phenomenologists, interested in lived experiences during the processes of learning and development.
Differences Between Piaget and Vygotsky
The primary difference between the two theorists is that Piaget remained far more focused on the individual and the endogenous factors in development, whereas Vygotsky was more concerned with the social and the exogenous (Marti, 2013). According to Lourenço (2012), the philosophical underpinnings of Piaget’s individualist theory include a belief in immanent versus transcendent deity: divinity is immediately accessible to a person and does not need to be mediated through any social organization like organized religion. Vygotsky, on the other hand, favored a learning environment or teaching style that was more authoritarian, based perhaps on a transcendent view of deity (Lourenço, 2012). Piaget dismissed rigidity and dogma, favoring individual curiosity and discovery of knowledge. Vygotsky preferred an approach based on the social or collective accumulation of knowledge that would be passed down through hierarchical systems. Essentially, the differences between Piaget and Vygotsky parallel the differences between an individualistic and a collectivistic society. Lourenço (2012) conceives of the differences as being between autonomy and heteronomy.
For Piaget, external influences are important but only to an extent. The individual’s own core competencies still determine capacities for specific types of learning and cognitive development. Piaget believed that individuals must construct their own meaning, which can then motivate the person to learn even if by rote. Thus, Piaget fostered what is known as psychogenesis: whereby the individual initiates the cognitive processes most important and implicated in constructivist learning and developmental changes (Lourenço, 2012). Vygotsky also believed in a process of learning but instead of psychogenesis promoted sociogenesis: all learning must take place in a social environment or context. There can be no learning without a teacher, essentially. Any cognitive or motor skills changes taking place within the child do so in response to social learning. Piaget, on the other hand, would have postulated that any social learning took place after one had already internalized independent learning. Piaget believed that a child would naturally come to modes of thinking such as scientific classification and rational or critical thought; Vygotsky believed that such constructs could only be inculcated through elders or the society. Vygotsky’s theory is more relational than Piaget’s, even though both are procedural in nature.
Gaining Understanding
One of the main implications of the differences between Piaget and Vygotsky is pedagogical. How teachers construct their learning environment and structure their lesson plans will depend on whether or not they ascribe to one or the other theories of development. It may seem that Piaget would have stressed individual cognitive performance and individual learning opportunities, but a teacher who favored Vygotsky may rely on collaborative learning and scaffolding techniques. Yet as Lourenço (2012) points out, Vygotsky’s theory actually favors the authoritarian model whereby a teacher delivers lectures and disseminates absolute knowledge and rigid methods or techniques. Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development entails a “vertical, asymmetrical, or authority-based” relationship between an instructor and the student (Lourenço , 2012, p. 287). On the contrary, Piaget envisioned a classroom with “horizontal, symmetrical” relationships between “equal peers,” (Lourenço , 2012, p. 287). A Montessori method classroom builds more on the Piaget theory, whereas most public school classrooms would be more Vygotsky-influenced or at least revealing a hybrid of the two theorists.
A teacher oriented towards Piaget would instead encourage a view of peer-driven learning in which knowledge can be socially constructed on individual terms. A student interacts with peers to generate shared systems of knowledge, as opposed to students working together on teacher-driven exercises with right and wrong answers. The implications extend not just to absolute learning but also to moral development. Within the Piaget framework of autonomous learning, individuals come to their own conclusions about right and wrong.