PROPOSAL
Submitted in Patricidal Fulfillment of
The Requirement for The Degree
of Sajarna Pendidikan
By:
NISA FARADILLA
Student Number : 150403007
Department : Language and Arts
Study Program : English Education
INTRODUCTION
Two main strands of learning theory tend to be drawn upon in science education.
The first of these strands has its origins in Piaget’s genetic epistemology and related
cognitive science views. At the heart of this based on is the Piagetian ideas that
the world by organising itself ( Piaget 1937, p.92). The opus of human effloresce
theorists as well as as Jean Piaget As the case (1896–1980) or, in our own time,
psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and Michael Tomasello (Esteban- Guitart, 2012a;
Lázaro & Esteban-Guitart, 2014), the work of Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934,) contains
traces of the answer to a fundamental question: what is it that makes us human? Unlike
Jean Piaget, who established a continuity between the non-human animal world and
the human world through mechanisms of assimilation and accommodation that allow
for an adaptation to the environment guided by the tendency towards the equilibration
higher and lower psychological processes, established a qualitative leap among humans
and animals (Ratner, 1991, 2004; Vygotsky, 1997; Vygotsky & Luria, 1993,p.).
According to this perspective, in order to predict how learners will respond to
knowledge in various science topic areas have been developed, as well as information
about how this knowledge changes as a result of science teaching. There are now
several theories of conceptual change in science learning which have their origins in
to say about the mechanisms that drive changes in individuals’ ‘mental structures’.
While recognising the social nature of formal learning situations, this strand of
views on learning.
acquire new knowledge but they use various tools that include their personal
construct their own knowledge” (White, 2011; Blake & Pope, 2008,). Hence, White
(2011) argues that “constructivism puts the individual at the centre of learning,
forming meaning through experience” (p. 90), and that it (constructivism) is based
on the “belief that people can only understand what they have themselves
constructed” (ibid). Constructivism continues to shed light and is, thus, invaluable
make sense of how learning takes place.” Studying and intellectual development
occur due to continuous interaction between a child and the environment thats
interact with the environment (Brandimonte, Bruno & Collina, 2006; Greeno,
Collins & Resnick, 1996). Inherent in cognition are cognitive structures and several
and organization, all of which assist a developing child to adapt to the environment
(Simatwa, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Blake & Pope, 2008).
Jean Piaget’s perspective is often compared with Lev Vygotsky’s because both
However, they differ in that, unlike Piaget, Vygotsky thought that the assimilation
of new information does not have to wait for an appropriate level of development
but must, on the contrary, produce that development: Children constitutes a
Lev Vygotsky’s socio–cultural perspective focuses on the whole child (Gordon &
Browne, 2011). According to Vygotsky, the society in which the child develops
plays a central role in the holistic growth of the child, notably, cognitive
development. To amplify this point, Berk (2009) writes that, Vygotsky “believed
that many cognitive processes and skills are socially transferred from more
knowledgeable members of society” (p. 25) to the child. Some of the more
peers and teachers (Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana, 2010; Woolfolk, 2010).
(Simatwa, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Jones & Brader–Araje, 2002).
Social factors play a central role in child development. Vygotsky's position that
social factors are central in development is well known. Piaget, however,is often
misunderstood as viewing the child as a lonely scientist apart from the social
context (e.g., Damon, 1981; Haste, 1987; Goffin, 1994; Lubeck, 1996; New, 1994;
epistemological } to explain how knowledge develops, not how the child develops.
It is certainly incorrect to state, as did Bedrovaand Leong (1996) that` Piaget placed
thinking at the center of child development (p. 27). It seems that by criticizing
Piaget for not explaining in full detail the speciffic role of social factors in the
exactly what he meant by his famous statement: We could formulate the general
genetic law of cultural development as follows: Any function in the child's cultural
development appear stwice, or on two planes. First it appears on the social plane,
What develops is the individual. While Vygotskians criticize Piaget for having
activity. Matusov (1996) also discussed the privileged role given to mastery of solo
activity in Vygotsky's model and notes its dualistic conception of the social and the
individual..
1.2.1 How the implementation of Piaget and Vygotsky theory for young
learner?
learning?
In line with the statement in problem of research, the purpose of this research
1.3.1 to find out how the Implementation of Piaget and Vygotsky theory for
young learner.
foregin language using Piaget and Vygotsky theory. The subject in this research is
1.5 Hypothesis
The result of this study has some benefits especially to the researcher, the readers,
1.6.2 To know the implementation of Piaget and Vygotsky theory for young
learner
learning
It has been with some surprise that I have taken note of Vygotskians' criticisms
of Piaget for not emphasizing social processes in development. I have been surprised
(DeVries & Zan, 1994; Kamii & DeVries, 1978/1993, 1980). I have found myself
understand the similarities and di!erences between Vygotsky and Piaget, both in theory
are behavioristic, and others draw implications that are constructivist. It is important to
look at speci"c educational practices drawn by theorists and their followers because
these applications of theory give us insights into the theory itself, at least as it is
educational practices that he saw as consistent with his theory. In one lecture given in
1933 or 1934, and published in French, Vygotsky (1935/1978) speci"ed the necessity
to take into account the fact that the child up to the age of three years `learns while
following his own programa (p. 35) and that by school age (7 years in Russia) he is
able to learn according to the teacher's wishes. The preschool age, according to
but that he wishes what the guide wishesa (p. 36). From the age of three years, `the
child of preschool age is capable of learning to the degree that the program of the
teacher becomes his own programa(p. 36) [translations from this source the
expressed as follows: What we call the zone of proximal development2is the distance
In their discussion of how the Vygotskian teacher orchestrates the whole group,
TharpeandGallimore(1988)notethatinthekindergartenyearchildrenaresocialized into
One of the teacher's responsibilities in the "rst few days of school is to teach
children`the rules and the rest of the social system that make up the classroom and
schoola (p. 167). This contrasts sharply with the constructivist approach to establishing
classroom rules on the basis of the needs they experience (see DeVries & Zan, 1994).
Like other animals, humans are endowed with certain innate capacities. Humans are
unique, however, in their use of culture to create tools that transform their activities
and their relation to the world. Just as humans rely on physical tools to transform
physical activities, Vygotsky reasoned, so they similarly create symbolic tools that can
objects, images, and, ultimately, representations, humans are able to exercise control
over such basic cognitive functions as perceiving, paying attention, and remembering.
Human cultures have produced many complex symbolic systems that have allowed for
new understandings of the world and, by extension, action in the world. Examples of
symbolic tools include counting systems, abstract conceptual knowledge, and, most
important, language. Through verbal thinking, humans are able to engage in reasoning,
individuals, and this is essential to how human societies pass on and continue to
1.8.1 population
1.82. Sample
1.9 Research Methodology
Qualitative approach is the research method that will be used to obtain the data
deeply and the data gained from the research will be written and explained.
To decide the research method will be used in the research, the researcher has
to match the research method with the research problem. The problem of this
research already stated above that this research will be focus on the Language
research is the research method to describe the information based on the data
In this research, the researcher will use interview and questionnaire to obtain
the data. Therefore, the researcher will get the data completely and systematically.
1.9.3 Data Collection Procedure
Do the observation.
Make questionnaire.
The data which is obtained from the data collection procedures will be analyse
by the researcher. First, the researcher will analyse the syllabus design of
English subject use which is given by school with the research instrument to
find out the suitability of English Language teaching principles used in teaching
will analyse the data which is obtained by the interview with the student.
This research is organized into five chapters, those are: introduction, theoretical
framework, research method, findings and analysis and the final is conclusion and
suggestion.
Chapter one is the background of study, problem of study, purpose of study,
Chapter two will be explain about the principles of language teaching and how
Chapter three is about research design, population and sample, source of data,
Chapter five is the last one that consists of conclusions and suggestions.
Refferences
Delachaux et Niestlé.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical
classroom education. In B. Steirer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning
DeVries, R. (1997). Piaget's social theory. Educational Researcher, 26(2), 4}17. DeVries, R.,
13(1), 12}19. DeVries, R., Haney, J., & Zan, B. (1991). Sociomoral atmosphere in direct-
instruction, eclectic, and constructivist kindergartens: A study of teachers' enacted
interpersonal understanding.
Piaget, J. (1928/1995). Genetic logic and sociology. In J. Piaget, Sociological studies (pp.
184}214). New York: Routledge. Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgement of the child (M.
Gabain, Trans.) London: Free Press. Piaget, J. (1936/1952). The origins of intelligence in
children (M. Cook, Trans.) New York: International Universities Press. Piaget, J., (1937/1954).
The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.) New York: Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1929/1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van der
Veer, J. Valsiner, & M. Cole, ¹he <ygotsky reader (pp. 99}174). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. (1930a/1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch, The concept
(1934/1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum. Vygotsky, L. (1935/1978). Interaction
between learning and development. In L. Vygotsky, Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Societe Francaise, 52(2), 35}45. Vygotsky, L., (1935/1978). Mind in society: The development
At the heart of this based on is the Piagetian ideas that ‘l’intelligence organise le
monde en s’organisant elle-même’ ‘intelligence organizes the world by organising
itself ( Piaget 1937, p.92).
The opus of human effloresce theorists as well as as Jean Piaget As the case (1896–
1980) or, in our own time, psychologists such as Jerome Bruner and Michael
Tomasello (Esteban- Guitart, 2012a; Lázaro & Esteban-Guitart, 2014,p.157),
“Constructivism posits that in the process of learning, learners do not simply acquire
new knowledge but they use various tools that include their personal experiences and
skills, to assign meaning to ‘new’ information and, thereby, construct their own
knowledge” (White, 2011; Blake & Pope, 2008,p.1525).
Muthivhi & Broom (2009) define cognition as; the input structuration of thought
driven by subject’s own activity in the world of experience
Piaget, J.: 1937, La construction du réel chez l’enfant, Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Delachaux et
Niestlé.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014a). Funds of identity: A new concept based on funds of
knowledge
approach. Culture & Psychology, 20, 31–48.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014b). Lived experiences, funds of identity and education.
Culture &
Psychology, 20, 70–81.
.
White, H.C. (2011). Constructivism. In Newman J. & Robbins, P. (Eds.), Green Education:
An A to Z Guide (pp. 90 – 91). Los Angeles: SAGE.Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008).
Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms.
Journal of Cross–disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 1(1), 59 – 67.
Gordon, A.M. & Browne, K.W. (2011). Beginnings and beyond: Foundations in early
childhood education (8th ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Muthivhi, A. & Broom, Y. (2009). School as cultural practice: Piaget and Vygotsky on
learning and concept development in post–apartheid South Africa. Journal of Education, 47,
1 – 18.
Simatwa, E.M.W. (2010). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development and its implication for
instructional management at pre–secondary school level. Educational Research and Reviews,
5(7), 366 – 371.
JURNAL
contexts and practices of science education are diverse, the majority of resources
in science education are put into schooling. The purpose of this paper is therefore
to consider how the theoretical tools that are available in the literature might be
drawn upon to provide a perspective on learning science in classrooms, with a
view to improving the effectiveness of science teaching in enhancing students’
learning. We agree with Millar (1989) that theories of science learning do not
have inevitable consequences for science teaching. In this paper, however, we will
develop an account of science learning that aims to inform our understanding of
how learning might follow from teaching, and consider the implications of this
view for future research and practice in science education.
In recent years, a number of critiques of views of learning collectively labelled
as ‘constructivist’ have been published. Our own work has been focused upon in
some of these critiques, and we therefore conclude with some reflections on these,
in the light of the perspective on teaching and learning science developed in this
paper.
Such a definition of identity artefact is purposefully very broad. My concern is less the definition
of an identity artefact as a precise thing, as tracing how artefacts-in-use function to make identity
itself thing-like. Stated otherwise, How do processes of artefactualization or reification give
form to experience by congealing this experience into identity-shaping ‘thingness’? (Leander,
2002, p. 199)
Rather than concentrating on the production of identity in a space of social interaction, our
precise aim here is, in contrast, to take up the concept, to redefine it within more precise
limits and link it to the teaching and learning processes.
To this end, this article is organised into four main sections. First, we shall contextualise
the notion of mediation and cultural artefact within the framework of Vygotskian cultural,
or socio-cultural, psychology. Second, we present the idea of using identity artefacts (IAs) as
an educational resource, which can facilitate the processes of contextualised teaching and
meaningful learning. Third, we provide a description and critical analysis of the use of IAs in
a number of different projects and educational contexts. Finally, in our concluding discussion,
we explore the potential of the concept and the likely developments for future research
linked to this notion.
Introduction
Piaget and Vygotsky’s respective theories of cognitive development have contributed
immeasurably to the field of education. One quintessential example worth citing, among
many others, is the contribution towards the conceptualization of the interminably
burgeoning tenet universally known as constructivism. Constructivism posits that in the
process of learning, learners do not simply acquire new knowledge but they use various
tools that include their personal experiences and skills, to assign meaning to ‘new’
information and, thereby, construct their own knowledge (White, 2011; Blake & Pope,
2008). Hence, White (2011) argues that “constructivism puts the individual at the centre
of learning, forming meaning through experience” (p. 90), and that it
CORRESPONDENCE Headman N Hebe herbzhn@yahoo.com © 2017 H. N. Hebe Open Access terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition
that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any
changes. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
v 1526 H. N. HEBE.
(constructivism) is based on the “belief that people can only understand what they have
themselves constructed” (ibid). Constructivism continues to shed light and is, thus,
invaluable in enabling scholars, teachers and a myriad of practitioners from various
fields to make sense of how learning takes place.
Furthermore, numerous authors have sought to elucidate the applicability of the theories
by the two reputable thinkers, both collectively and individually, in the teaching and
learning of various subjects. For example, scholars have written about the utilization of
these theories in mathematics pedagogy across different levels of education (e.g.
Denhere, Chinyoka & Mambeu, 2013; Ojose, 2008; Phillips, 1995). Others have reflected
on how these paradigms facilitate instructional management and assessment (e.g.
Simatwa, 2010; Lutz & Huitt, 2004). Likewise, some scholars have highlighted the role of
Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories in play–based learning and cognitive development in
Early Childhood Education (e.g. Bodrova, Germeroth & Leong, 2013; Gordon & Browne,
2011; Nicolopoulou, 1993). Indeed, owing to the monumental scholarship of these great
minds, any attempt to exhaust Piaget and Vygotsky’s influences in the field of education
would be futile.
Notwithstanding the immense contribution by the two theorists to the field of education,
it seems very little (if anything) has been written about the applicability of Piaget and
Vygotsky in the integration of Environmental Education (EE) in Early Childhood
Education (ECE). In my considered view this could be, partly, attributed to the general
‘neglect’ of the field of ECE. In her paper entitled, revealing the Research ‘hole’ of Early
Childhood Education for Sustainability: a Preliminary Survey of the Literature, Davis
(2009) does not only highlight the dearth of research that focuses on EE in ECE but she
also laments the universal abandonment of ECE. Accordingly, Davis (2009) writes that;
“the early years are those that traditionally have received the least attention from the
education world” (p. 241). Furthermore, she asserts that, “this pattern of neglect extends
to the field of environmental education/education for sustainability” (ibid.). Apart from
Davis (2009), there are other authors who also underscore the ‘neglect’ of ECE (e.g.
Adegbami & Adewole, 2013; Kamerman, 2006; Calman & Tarr–Whelan, 2005). Thus, to
some extent, the need to contribute towards addressing this ‘neglect’ prompted the
penning of this paper.
Therefore, this paper seeks to demonstrate how Jean Piaget’s theory on the Stages of
Cognitive Development and Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Perspective could be applied in
the integration of Environmental Education in Grade R – Grade R refers to the South
African equivalent of the class known as the Preschool or Kindergarten class in other
parts of the world. In this discussion, I commence by briefly presenting some basic
assumptions of each of the two theories. Thereafter, I provide an illustration on how the
two theories could be used, simultaneously, in the integration of EE in Grade R. By way
of illustration, I use the mathematics theme; “numbers, operations and relations”
(Department of Basic Education, 2011, pp. 19 – 22) prescribed in the Grade R National
Curriculum Statement (NCS), also referred to as the Curriculum and Assessment Policy
Statement (CAPS), implemented in South African public schools. However, in view of the
fact that, a typical Grade R learner falls within the age–group of 4 – 6 years, my
discussion of Piaget’s stages of cognitive development is confined to the first two stages,
namely; the sensori–motor and INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
& SCIENCE EDUCATION 1527
the pre–operational stages. Therefore, any reference to the other two stages by Piaget
will be cursory. The following is, thus, a reflection on Piaget’s theory of cognitive
development.
Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
Piaget posits that learning and intellectual development occur due to continuous
interaction between a child and the environment (Gordon & Browne, 2011). Central to
learning and development is cognition. Muthivhi & Broom (2009) define cognition as;
“the internal structuration of thought driven by subject’s own activity in the world of
experience” (p. 14) in a perpetual quest to acclimatize to the surroundings. Through
cognition, information about the world is acquired, transformed, stored and regularly
retrieved by the cognising subject in order to interact with the environment
(Brandimonte, Bruno & Collina, 2006; Greeno, Collins & Resnick, 1996). Inherent in
cognition are cognitive structures and several dynamic and interdependent processes
that include assimilation, accommodation and organization, all of which assist a
developing child to adapt to the environment (Simatwa, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009;
Blake & Pope, 2008).
Although cognition is, from childhood through adulthood, an intrinsic element of
learning, intellectual development and other human actions; humans are not born
cognizing. This point is underlined by Berk (2009) who writes that, “according to Piaget
human infants do not start out as cognitive beings. Instead, out of their perceptual and
motor activities, they build and refine psychological structures – organised ways of
making sense of experience that permit them to adapt more effectively to the
environment. Children develop these structures actively; using current structures to
select and interpret experiences, then modify those structures to take into account more
subtle aspects of reality” (p. 224). Furthermore, cognition is fundamentally predicated on
interplay between several factors. These elements include; heredity of the child,
maturation of the nervous and endocrine systems, action–oriented experience, regular
social interaction and sharing of knowledge and the internal regulatory mechanism
(Woolfolk, 2010; Muthivhi & Broom, 2009; Louw, van Ede & Louw, 1998; Webb, 1980). In
addition to the preceding factors, Piaget (1952) argues that human actions are
precipitated by the “two most general biological functions: organization and adaptation”
(p. 5). As I try to demonstrate in this discussion, adaptation and organisation are
inseparable. The same applies to related processes of assimilation and accommodation.
Piaget (1952) conceives adaptation as a reciprocal process wherein the organism, in the
context of this discussion a cognizing child, and the environment have a mutual influence
on each other. Hence, according to him; “there is adaptation when the organism is
transformed by the environment” (ibid.) and this transformation leads to more interaction
between the organism and the environment, culminating in auspicious preservation of the
latter. Furthermore, Piaget (1952) argues that the transactions between the organism and
the environment are centred on two interconnected processes: assimilation and
accommodation. There are numerous examples that could be presented to highlight how
adaptation might occur in a developing preschool child. However, in the interest of this
discussion a single illustration should suffice.