Category: Theories That Transform Classrooms

The idea of giving every student a device sounds fantastic—until you realize half the class is playing games or watching cat videos instead of paying attention. But does that mean one-to-one programs should be scrapped? Not necessarily. When implemented well, these programs can be game changers, especially for students who wouldn’t otherwise have access to technology.

Research shows that one-to-one programs can enhance student engagement and boost academic performance. A meta-analysis by Islam and Grönlund (2016) found that when properly integrated, personal devices improved learning outcomes in English, writing, math, and science. That’s great—except when students start treating their laptops like a high-tech doodle pad during class.

One major concern, though, is that without clear structure and guidance, these devices can quickly become distractions. Teachers who envisioned lively, tech-enhanced discussions often find themselves competing with YouTube, social media, and whatever new viral game is trending. Studies suggest that excessive screen time can reduce attention spans (Bennett, 2020), and let’s be honest—when given the choice between an algebra lesson and a quick round of Fortnite, most kids aren’t picking algebra.

The Swedish government is taking a different approach to student technology use, proposing legislation to ban personal digital devices in schools up to the 9th grade due to concerns about excessive screen time leading to decreased physical activity, sleep deprivation, and increased anxiety (DW, 2024). This move aligns with Sweden’s National Digitalisation Strategy for the School System 2023-2027, which emphasizes ensuring digital tools are used effectively without compromising student well-being. While Sweden aims to rebalance students’ real-life interactions and digital engagement, it also recognizes that digital literacy remains essential for future success (Digital-Skills-Jobs.europa.eu, 2024).

Grade level matters, too. Younger students, for example, might need more structured use, as their impulse control isn’t quite there yet (anyone who’s tried to keep a first grader focused on Zoom can relate). On the other hand, high school students can benefit from the autonomy that comes with personal devices—assuming they don’t turn every assignment into an AI-generated essay. Subject area also plays a role; history and science classes may thrive with tech, while a hands-on art class might find screens more limiting.

From a constructivist perspective, Vygotsky would probably argue that these devices, when used collaboratively, can enhance social learning. However, without proper teacher training and structured guidelines, technology can easily become a double-edged sword—full of potential but just as capable of leading students down a rabbit hole of endless TikTok scrolling.

Ultimately, one-to-one programs aren’t a magic bullet for education, but they’re also not the enemy. When paired with strong instructional strategies, digital literacy training, and maybe a few well-placed firewalls, they can make learning more accessible and engaging. The key is balance—because let’s face it, even the best technology can’t replace a great teacher (or keep students from pretending their Wi-Fi is down when they don’t feel like participating).

 

References:

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One-to-one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2).

Bennett, P. W. (2020, July 20). The educational experience has been substandard for students during COVID-19. Policy Options.(2024).

Back to basics: Sweden aims to de-digitalize youth. Retrieved from
https://www.dw.com/en/back-to-basics-sweden-aims-to-de-digitalize-youth/a-70228600

Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191–222.

 

 

 

Criticisms of Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development has been highly influential but has also faced various criticisms. Lourenço and Machado (1996) address ten common critiques, including:

1. Underestimating Children’s Abilities – Critics argue that Piaget underestimated the cognitive abilities of young children. Research using modified experimental methods has shown that children can achieve certain cognitive milestones earlier than Piaget suggested. This is evident in experiments where infants show object permanence much earlier than Piaget theorized. (Turns out toddlers are sharper than we thought!)
2. Stage-Like Development vs. Continuity – Piaget’s theory proposes that cognitive development occurs in distinct stages, but some researchers suggest that development is more continuous and influenced by experience and education. The concept of scaffolding, emphasized by Vygotsky, suggests that children learn better when supported by more knowledgeable individuals, indicating that development isn’t always a rigid, stage-by-stage process.
3. Cultural and Social Factors – Piaget focused on biological maturation and individual discovery, often underemphasizing the role of social and cultural influences. However, as the “Still Face Experiment” in developmental psychology demonstrates, even infants are highly responsive to social interactions, reinforcing Vygotsky’s idea that learning happens within social contexts.
4. Mechanisms of Development – Critics argue that Piaget did not clearly explain how children transition from one stage to another beyond the process of equilibration. The role of external guidance, as seen in studies of parent-child interaction, challenges the idea that children are purely self-directed learners.
5. Lack of Emphasis on Language – Piaget considered language as a reflection of cognitive development rather than a fundamental driver, whereas Vygotsky emphasized its central role in shaping thought. The second video highlights how children use private speech to regulate behavior, supporting Vygotsky’s claim that language is an active tool in cognitive development.

While these criticisms challenge Piaget’s framework, they do not necessarily render it obsolete. Instead, they highlight the need for a more integrated approach that combines Piaget’s insights on cognitive structures with external influences such as culture and social interaction, as emphasized by Vygotsky.

Language Acquisition (Vygotsky) and Equilibration (Piaget) in Cognitive Development

Vygotsky and Piaget both acknowledged the importance of language in cognitive development but viewed its role differently:

• Vygotsky’s Perspective: Vygotsky believed that language is the primary tool for cognitive development. Through social interaction, children internalize knowledge, and language facilitates higher mental functions. The video on Vygotsky explains how children use self-talk (private speech) as a way to process thoughts and guide themselves through tasks—something Piaget viewed as egocentric speech but Vygotsky saw as essential for development.
• Piaget’s Perspective: Piaget saw language as a byproduct of cognitive development rather than a primary driver. He emphasized the process of equilibration, where children balance assimilation (incorporating new experiences into existing schemas) and accommodation (modifying schemas to incorporate new information).

A child learning to classify animals might initially believe that all four-legged animals are “dogs” (assimilation). Through social interactions, such as conversations with parents or teachers, they learn to differentiate between cats, dogs, and other animals (accommodation). This linguistic interaction helps them achieve cognitive equilibrium as they refine their understanding of categories. (No more calling every furry creature “doggo”—progress!)

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Piaget’s Stages of Development

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Piaget’s stages of cognitive development provide different but complementary perspectives:

• Complementary Aspects:
  • ZPD highlights the role of guidance and social interaction in advancing a child’s cognitive abilities. This aligns with Piaget’s idea that children are active learners but expands on the notion by emphasizing the support of knowledgeable others.
  • The video on Vygotsky explains how a child learning to ride a bike benefits from parental encouragement, step-by-step guidance, and practice before fully mastering the skill—demonstrating ZPD in action.
  • Vygotsky’s theory suggests that with scaffolding, children can reach cognitive abilities beyond what they would achieve alone, while Piaget focused on self-initiated discovery within biological constraints.
• Challenges to Piaget’s Stages:
  • Piaget’s rigid stage-based theory assumes that children progress through cognitive stages in a linear manner. However, Vygotsky’s ZPD suggests that cognitive development can be nonlinear, as learning is influenced by external factors such as teaching strategies and social interactions.

A child struggling with math concepts might be unable to solve problems independently (Piaget’s preoperational stage). However, with a teacher’s guidance using verbal instructions and problem-solving strategies (ZPD), the child can grasp the concept and eventually internalize it.

In summary, integrating Vygotsky’s social emphasis with Piaget’s developmental structure provides a more holistic understanding of cognitive development. While Piaget’s framework offers valuable insights into the stages of thinking, Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach explains the mechanisms that drive children through these stages more dynamically.

Piaget gave us the roadmap, and Vygotsky added the GPS.

 

References

Lourenço, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defence of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, 103(1), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.143

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206.

Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14, 186–214.

DeVries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: A reciprocal assimilation of theories and educational practices. New Ideas in Psychology, 18(2–3), 187–213.

“Still Face Experiment” video. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhcgYgx7aAA

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development video. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I2hrSRbmHE

 

 

 

Social Cognitive Theory, as outlined by Bandura (2011), deeply resonates with me when I reflect on how social media has influenced my life. The idea of reciprocal determinism—where our thoughts, behaviours, and environment interact and shape one another—perfectly captures the role social media plays in shaping my perspectives and habits.

For me, LinkedIn has been both empowering and challenging. On one hand, it has connected me with incredible people around the world who share similar passions and goals. These connections inspire me and open new opportunities for growth. But on the other hand, I’ve experienced anxiety and self-doubt when I see others achieving milestones like certifications, new roles, or workshop completions. It’s easy to feel like I’m falling behind. Over time, I’ve learned to honour my own pace and see these moments as inspiration rather than competition. Orey’s (2002) discussion on the role of memory and information processing aligns with this realization—what we repeatedly expose ourselves to on social media becomes ingrained in how we perceive ourselves. With more mindfulness, I now approach these experiences with self-compassion, though it’s still a work in progress.

Image Source: Instagram feed

Social media also profoundly influences how behaviours are modelled. Bandura’s (2001) concept of observational learning resonates here, as we constantly witness influencers showcasing curated lives. Personally, I’ve noticed how this affects my expectations for success or perfection. I’ve also seen the negative impacts, such as how idealized content can erode confidence or self-efficacy when comparisons creep in. Orey’s emphasis on cognitive processing further explains how this influx of information can overwhelm and create biases in how we evaluate our own worth.

Reflecting on all of this, SCT has given me a framework to better understand my relationship with social media. It has made me more conscious of how I process and respond to the flood of information I encounter daily. This perspective has encouraged me to prioritize authenticity in my online interactions and embrace a healthier, more balanced relationship with social media.

 

References:

Bandura, A. (2011). Chapter 17: Social cognitive theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychological Theories (pp. 349-373). London: Sage.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299.

Orey, M. (2002). Information Processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology (pp. 25-34). A Global Text.