Introduction
Before enrolling in the graduate programs at Kathmandu University School of Education in Nepal and the M.Ed. program at James Madison University in the USA, my knowledge of learning theories was limited. I was not very familiar with learning theories. Slowly, different learning theories began to hold my attention. In this paper, I have briefly discussed in brief the learning theories of three psychologists, Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky. Also, I have made a reflective observation on how their theories are similar and different and why they have remained so prominent throughout today’s educational contexts.
Piaget
Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development is hinged on four major cognitive processes: schema, assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium. The schema is the mental framework or blueprint that an individual uses to organize, understand, and interpret information. Assimilation involves taking in new information into existing schemas to develop a greater understanding without altering the present structure. However, the process of accommodation involves new information not fitting into these schemas and requires changes so that new structures can be made. Equilibrium is a balanced state of assimilation and accommodation for cognitive stability in learning. Together, they describe how individuals adapt to new experiences and construct knowledge through interaction with their environment (Piaget, 1952).
Piaget‘s work remains central to the understanding of cognitive development, especially in terms of educational contexts. Teachers can, for example, create activities that challenge a child to modify their schemata, which would make them think more critically and reason out problems. The theory also points out the need for challenging yet accessible learning experiences that support both assimilation and accommodation (Driscoll, 2005).
There is a differentiation of distinct intellectual periods during one’s development according to Piaget’s Theory of Intellectual Development. The sensory-motor period, infancy between 0 and 2 years, is one whereby mental processes develop object permanence but use sensory experiences and motor activities to explore the environment. The preoperational stage, from 2 to 7 years, includes symbolic thinking, egocentrism, and the beginning of language, but logical reasoning is not possible. During the concrete operational stage, children between 7 and 11 years of age start thinking logically regarding concrete events and understand conservation and classification. Lastly, the formal operational stage, starting at 11+, allows for abstract and hypothetical thinking, enabling problem-solving and deductive reasoning. These stages highlight the incremental and sequential nature of cognitive development (Piaget, 1952).
It seems to me that Piaget belongs to a cognitive school that undertakes learning as an internal process. At the same time, Piaget belongs to the constructivist school as well (Pritchard, 2018). This school sees learning as construction (Dahal, 1996). Therefore, within constructivism, I understand Piaget as a cognitive constructivist. He believes that change and transformation produce knowledge, and its progress is observed based on different developmental stages. Making a notable contribution to developmental psychology, Piaget identified four stages in cognitive development: sensory-motor, pre-operational, concrete, and formal. The major argument of these developmental stages of learning is that infants and children do not think the way adults do. Also, Piaget’s cognitive stage theory maintains that children and youth gradually become able to think logically and scientifically in distinct stages.
This shows that Piaget’s theory of cognitive stage influenced the way schools are designed. The concept of grades and age-based grading of the students is based on this theory (Wray, 2018). Particularly, Piaget’s theory stresses that children come to learning with ideas and experiences, and therefore, learning is dependent on what is already known and new experiences. It believes that meanings can be accepted (assimilated), accommodated, or rejected, which stresses that what is in the learner’s mind matters. Also, Piaget’s theory suggests that learning in the classroom needs to be planned to build on prior knowledge and experiences (Pritchard, 2018). It gives emphasis on practical activity, inquiry, and problem-solving.
Vygotsky
The Zone of Proximal Development refers to the range of activities that a learner cannot perform independently but can carry out with the assistance of others. It indicates the area where learning and development are optimized with the help of someone else. According to Vygotsky (1978), the innermost ring represents tasks the learner can do independently without help, while the next ring is the ZPD, containing tasks the learner can do with the help of a teacher, peer, or someone knowledgeable. The outer ring represents tasks beyond the learner’s current capacity, even with support. According to Vygotsky, the role of the More Knowledgeable Other in ZPD is very crucial and provides necessary scaffolding to learners to make a progression (Vygotsky, 1978). MKO could be a teacher, peer, or any other person who is more knowledgeable or skillful. For instance, suppose a child cannot add two-digit numbers; then the MKO explains the procedure and guides him until the child is able to perform independently. Scaffolding refers to the temporary support that an MKO provides to assist learners in being successful within their ZPD. This support is reduced as competence is developed, allowing them to take full responsibility; Wood et al., 1976. For example, the teacher may first explain every step and over time step back so that the learner can solve the problems independently.
Slightly different from Piaget, Vygotsky believed that the socio-cultural environment is critical for cognitive development. Here, I understand that Vygotsky’s theory is a movement from inner cognition to outer influence in learning. Thus, unlike cognitive construction, Vygotsky emphasized the roles of social interaction and instruction. He proposed that social structures and social relations lead to the development of mental functions (Huitt, 2000). If so, for Vygotsky, learning takes place in social activities and interactions. For Vygotsky, learning is a collaborative process and children are co-constructors of learning. It looks for social creativity through the role of emotions in learning and learning through action and reflection. Also, for Vygotsky, learning context is crucial.
One of the major contributions of Vygotsky is that he developed concepts of cognitive learning zones. He called it the Zone of Actual Development (ZAD). It occurs when students can complete tasks independently. More knowledge supports new learning beyond what is already understood. Also, it undertakes that learning needs to be autonomous and continuously challenging (Pritchard, 2018). It suggests that in class, teachers act as guides and facilitators. Also, it suggests a dialogic approach: talk and learning partners. Studying Vygotsky, I realized the importance of collaborative and cooperative learning and problem-solving. Also, I realized the importance of peer assessment and oral feedback.
Bruner
Jerome Bruner’s theories of education hinged on three important concepts: scaffolding, discovery learning, and the spiral curriculum. Scaffolding is a concept whereby educators support learners to achieve mastery, while the educator slowly withdraws his support as the learner becomes capable (Bruner, 1961). Discovery learning is the approach in which students explore problems independently to arrive at a deeper understanding. The spiral curriculum revisits subjects at ever-increasing levels of complexity. Learners develop previous learning through reinforcement and, with time, mastery of a concept becomes well established (Bruner, 1960).
Jerome Bruner’s learning theory outlines three stages of cognitive representation: enactive, iconic, and symbolic, which align with concrete, pictorial, and abstract learning. In the enactive stage, students learn through physical interaction with objects, such as using blocks or counters to understand math concepts. The iconic stage involves visual representations, like pictures or diagrams, to transition from tangible to abstract understanding. Finally, in the symbolic stage, learners use abstract symbols, such as numbers and equations, to solve problems and generalize concepts. This progression from concrete to abstract ensures a deeper understanding and supports effective learning (Bruner, 1966). Learners experience the enactive mode when they comprehend concepts through action and movement; for example, playing with a book. The iconic mode involves learning through images and visual representations, such as observing pictures. Finally, the symbolic mode emphasizes abstract thinking and the use of symbols, such as reading and conducting research (Bruner, 1966). These principles underpin the necessity for adaptive teaching methods that must be congruent with the developmental stages of learners.
For Burner, however, the ability to ‘invent’ is a crucial part of learning. For Bruner (1961), the purpose of education is neither just to impart knowledge, nor just to construct it, but instead to facilitate a child’s thinking and problem-solving skills. We can then apply this invention to a variety of situations. From this perspective, Burner made a significant contribution by advocating for the development of symbolic thinking in children’s education. From these perspectives, Bruner is primarily recognized for his spiral curriculum. His emphasis is on discovery learning that allows cognition to reach higher levels.
According to Bruner, learning is mediated by culture and society. This means we must consider both the individual and their social environment. Moreover, your context—language, symbols, and thinking-affects your learning (Wray, 2018). In stressing these, Bruner focuses on situated learning. Social events and interactions within a cultural setting embed situated learning. In the classroom, Bruner observes the place of empathy, respect, and acknowledgment of children’s different cultural interpretations. Also, it sees the relevance of multilingual classrooms with awareness of the context of learning and how it can be seen from different cultural perspectives.
Three Theories Compared
While Piaget advocates learning as a cognitive construction, Vygotsky believes in interactional construction. Therefore, I find that both Piaget and Vygotsky have provided a distinctive approach to learning theory that differs from each other. Both theories offer reasonable approaches on how to teach certain material, either through internal processes or social interactions. Eggen and Kauchak (2001) state that while constructivists see learning as an active process that requires learners to construct meaning, social constructivism suggests that knowledge exists in a social context. In this regard, both Bruner and Vygotsky emphasize a child’s environment, especially the social environment for knowledge invention.
Conclusion
From the close observation of these three different learning theories, the way I see teaching and learning has been different. As a teacher, I can use effective instructional strategies based on the developmental and cognitive psychology theories of Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Burner. Some of the major ideas I have developed are that learning is based on past experiences and these past experiences shape how learners take in and process new information. Even though Piaget and Vygotsky hold different views concerning developmental psychology, the use of both theories in classrooms is advantageous. Vygotsky particularly supported me in appreciating the collaborative style learning approach; for example, learners work together and the instructor facilitates and guides group learning. Peers provide students with more opportunities to play and learn together.
References
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Studies in cognitive growth. Wiley.
Dahl, B. (1996). A synthesis of different psychological learning theories? Piaget and Vygotsky.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Huitt, W.G. (2000). A constructivist approach to learning [PowerPoint]. CA: Valdosta State University.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press. (Original work published 1936)
Pritchard, A. (2018) Ways of Learning: Learning Theories for the classroom. London: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Wray D. (2018) ‘Looking at Learning’ in Cremin, T. and Burnett, C. Learning to Teach in the Primary School (4th Ed) London: Sage