Piaget and Vygotsky: Differences ίη Environmental Knowing...

of 13 /13
1996 Tcch. J. TCO, 1-2 7 Piaget and Vygotsky: Differences Environmental Knowing and Implications for Design K.TSOUKALA Dr. Architect, Assistant Professor, University of Thessaloniki. AbsIrIJct This paper has Iwo lIims: 10 out/ine the simJJarities and differences and Vygolsky 's theories llboul environmenlal cognilion contriburing ro 11 belfer comprehension rhe semllnlic make-up C()mmon conceprs' Second. 10 discuss Ihe imp/icsrions rhese rh80ries for research inro environmenrIJ/ YIJ/Ues which consrirure componenrs archirecrura! Bnd design. The srudy rhe fl/Jrure srrucrure and elemenrs rbsr compose env;ronmenra! values imporran/, mainly their mareri81 inscriprion in rhree dimensiona/ Which are these environmenta/ Vll/Ues and rhe facrors rhar condirion them? What is the impscr rhese va/ues on design? The answers these questions suggesr direcrions for further research environmenta/ ya/ues, rheir link 10 Rnd Vygotskian theories and architecruro/ / urban design. 1. INTRODUCTION The present paper has two aims. FirstIy, uutline the similarities and differences between Piaget's and Vigotsk.y's theories about environmental cognition contributing a better comprehension of the semantic make-up of common concepts. Secondly, discuss the implications of these for into environmental values and their material inscription three- dimensiunai space. the domain of environmental k.nowledge. research has been carried the of Piaget's theory of cognitive deveIopment buildscape qualitie!;. This line of research, the one hand, has involved general principles of design based the findings of Piaget's theory. its extension the domajn of macro- environmental knowing, and, the other hand, has reIated to of general principles of design special function spaces designed for child care, education JUJ. 11, 10, 1996 and 's well .s appIications objects "!;ed by the child the educarional process and rhe course of free Th.e influence theory this research is observed a stage, confined, at least present. 10 Ihe domain of gene,ral principIes of design. Given rhese facts, the fol1owing questions are posed: Which are these environmental values and the factors that condition them? Are they silllilar, complementary opposite values? What their impact design? Answers these questions are traced the literature 1 , published works either exclusively examining the of the two theories with planning, or general discussing the between cognitive development and design, with reference the theories question. 2. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES TWO THBORIBS begin with the borh theories belong the interacrionist approach. They borh argue for a subjecr-object through a system of dependencies and interactions, of balances and equivalences between the parties involved the Their difference lies that Piaget belongs individualistic interactionism, while Vygotsky belongs social interactionism. his book aQd the social formation of mind" Wertsch (1985) HThe nolion of inleraclionism prec/udes Ihe possibiJjty of reducing approach /0 Piager's. Even if one 8xpands the nolion deveJopment 10 encompass Piagel's anaJysis of sensorimolor the two approaches differ of BSSumption

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Piaget and Vygotsky: Differences ίη Environmental Knowing...

  • Τι::χν . Χρον. Επωτ. Έκδ. ΤE~, Π , τεύχ. Ι·2 1996 Tcch. Chωη . ~ί. J . TCO, ΙΤ , Νο 1-2 7

    Piaget and Vygotsky:

    Differences ίη Environmental Knowing

    and Implications for Design

    K.TSOUKALA

    Dr. Architect, Assistant Professor, ArisΙOιJe University of Thessaloniki.

    AbsIrIJct

    This paper has Iwo lIims: {ίπ/, 10 out/ine the simJJarities and

    differences ίπ Ρί8ΙΒl and Vygolsky's theories llboul

    environmenlal cognilion contriburing ro 11 belfer comprehension

    ο! rhe semllnlic make-up ο! C()mmon conceprs' Second. 10 discuss

    Ihe imp/icsrions ο! rhese rh80ries for research inro

    environmenrIJ/ YIJ/Ues which consrirure componenrs ο!

    archirecrura! Bnd υΓbιιπ design. The srudy οΙ rhe fl/Jrure ο!

    srrucrure and elemenrs rbsr compose env;ronmenra! values ίι

    imporran/, mainly their mareri81 inscriprion in rhree dimensiona/

    spιιce.. Which are these environmenta/ Vll/Ues and rhe facrors rhar

    condirion them? What is the impscr οΙ rhese va/ues on design?

    The answers Ιο these questions suggesr direcrions for further

    research ίπΙο environmenta/ ya/ues, rheir link 10 PJ~1geti8n Rnd

    Vygotskian theories and architecruro/ / urban design.

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The present paper has two aims. FirstIy, ιο uutline the

    similarities and differences between Piaget's and

    Vigotsk.y's theories about environmental cognition

    contributing Ιο a better comprehension of the semantic

    make-up of common concepts. Secondly, ιο discuss the

    implications of these theοrίes for re~earch into

    environmental values and their material inscription ίπ

    three- dimensiunai space.

    Ιπ the domain of environmental k.nowledge. research

    has been carried ουΙ ίπΙο the ΓεlΒιίοη of Piaget's theory of

    chίld cognitive deveIopment Ιο buildscape qualitie!;. This

    line of research, οπ the one hand, has involved general

    principles of design based οπ the findings of Piaget's

    theory. Οτ οη its extension ίηΙο the domajn of macro

    environmental knowing, and, οη the other hand, has ΟΟεη

    reIated to applίcations of general principles of design Ιο

    special function spaces designed for child care, education

    Submilttιd JUJ. 11, Ι996 AcctJpttκJ: ΜιιΥ 10, 1996

    and ΡΙΒΥ, 's well .s appIications Ιο objects "!;ed by the

    child ίπ the educarional process and ίπ rhe course of free

    ΡΙ'Υ. Th.e influence οΙ Vygoιsky's theory οη this Ιίηε οΙ

    research is οπlΥ observed βΙ a Ιβιετ stage, confined, at

    least θΙ present. 10 Ihe domain of gene,ral principIes of

    design. Given rhese facts, the fol1owing questions are

    posed: Which are these environmental values and the

    factors that condition them? Are they silllilar,

    complementary οτ opposite values? What ί5 their impact

    οπ design?

    Answers ιο these questions are traced ίπ the literature1,

    ιπ published works either exclusively examining the

    τεΙθιίοπ of the two theories with planning, or ίη general

    discussing the ΓεΙΒιίοη between cognitive development and

    design, with reference Ιο the theories ίπ question.

    2. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES ΟΡ ΤΗΕ TWO THBORIBS

    Το begin with the simίlarities, borh theories belong Ιο

    the interacrionist approach. They borh argue for a

    subjecr-object τεlΒιίοπ through a system of dependencies

    and interactions, of balances and equivalences between the

    parties involved ίη the relatίonship. Their difference lies ίη

    that Piaget belongs Ιο individualistic interactionism, while

    Vygotsky belongs ΙΟ social interactionism. Ιπ his book

    'ΎΥgοtskΥ aQd the social formation of mind" Wertsch

    (1985) obserνed:

    HThe nolion of inleraclionism prec/udes Ihe possibiJjty of

    reducing Vygo/sky~ approach /0 Piager's. Even if one

    8xpands the nolion ΟΙ ΠΒΙυΓΒ/ deveJopment 10 encompass

    Piagel's anaJysis of sensorimolor inte/lίgence, the two

    approaches sιΠΙ differ beαιuse of Vygo/sky~ BSSumption

  • Τεχν. ΧΡΩ\'. Επωτ. 'ΕΥ.δ. Τι2Ε.IΙ, τιιΤ,(. ]·2 ]1)46 Τcι: h . CΙHoη. Sci. J . ΤΙ;Ο , 11 , Nn 1-2

    that a fundamentaJly new set ο! explanatory principles is

    required when lhe chi1d enters into certain levels ο! social

    Jife ίπ a cuJιure" (ρ. 47).

    The difference Iies ίπ the egocentric perception that

    Piaget (1923, 1935, 1937) defines os • ΙΓοποίιίοπ.1 form of

    thought which constitutes the lίπk between autistic and

    ΓβιίΟΠΒΙ perceprion, from a genetic, functional and

    structural ροί πΙ of view. Ιπ other words, Piaget's

    fundamental theore tical assertion is that sensorimotor

    inteIIigence develops ιπ the cour.se of the child's

    interaction with physical realίty which arises from the

    child's individual physica I action ίπ the world of physicaI

    objects. The chiId's cognitive developrnent before he

    becomes 8 years of age has, ίη this sense. θΠ individual,

    ποι a social character.

    ΥΥισΙΟΧΥ (1978\ οπ the other hond, Ire.ts soci_1

    interaction as a forrnative factor ίη the deveIoprηent of 8

    nurnber of psychological functions. He argues that child

    cognition does ποΙ proceed from the individuai Ιο the

    social, but that ίι follows the reverse procedure. from

    social Ιο individual. According 10 his theory, the individua!

    does ποι merely find ίπ society the externa! conditions Ιο

    which he has Ιο adapt his activity to, but he 8150 finds the

    motives and the incentives, the means and the rnanner of

    action. Ιπ other words. society ίη itself determines and

    produces the activity of the individual to a great extent.

    None of the following precede society: consciousness,

    cognitive processes, personalίty. They are a11 crelιted

    through processes of materίal productiol1, throngh

    sociaHsation and civilisation, tJhrough language acquisitίon,

    the acquisition of habits, through Iearning the skilful use

    of [OOI~. ΑΙΙ of rhese concepts constitute and 8t the same

    time circumscribe sociai interactionism (Sehneuwly &

    Bronckart: 1985~

    Ιι is worth noting that the !\eCond difference between

    the two theories lίes ιη the fact that the egocentric

    language is considered by Piaget a transitional form of

    cognition, observed ιη tI,e secund stage of chίld

    deveIoprnent, whereas ίι is treated by V)gotsky us a

    transitional form of cognition passing from the externaI ιο

    the inner langu_ge, equ.IIy observed ίπ adnlts (Piaget: 1923;

    Vygotsky: 1986). Although ίι concerns laπguage, this

    difference rnust be stressed because, as Piaget argues, the

    egocentric stage also holds for the process of space

    perception, while Moore's research Οη cognitive

    representations of rnacro-environrnent has shown that

    , egocentric space ί5 81so observed ίπ adults under certain

    circumstances. This ροί"! wίll be futher eIaborated ίο the

    next secrion.

    The third difference belween the two theories observed

    relates to the meaning attached Ιο the concept of activity.

    Pi'get's (1969, 1974) focus οπ the young child's interaction

    wirh Iphysical reality led him Ιο examine the

    repre"entational systems required 10 manipulate objects. As

    a resuIt he viewed internalίsation ρτίαιθΓίlΥ ίη terms of

    schemata that refIect the regularities of βΠ individual's

    physic_1 .ction ΟΓ proctical octivity. Vygotsky (Vygotsky:

    1986; Stetsenko: 1993; Dovydov: 1993), οπ the other h.nd,

    considered 8Ctiviry ιο be related 10 the social environInent

    and argued that the process of internalization presupρoses

    8 goaI-directed ΟΤ tool-mediated activity which

    incorρorates the ~emantic make-up of the concept of

    octivity. Such θΠ activity takes place when a need arίse..ι;.

    The Iatter )s activuted only through the ex.istence of θη

    ubject. ]η other words. the object-need relation which will

    ίη this paper be ca lIed a rnοtίνe. focilίtates the c:ιppcara"ce

    οΙ the ~ctivity, ίη particular of socίσ-ροιitίcal activity. Let

    ΙΙ!oιi "ο Ι forget that for Vygotsky the object is historico

    culturalIy and socially defined. Activity is a, systematic

    formation with its own cu!turo! history and inner

    ueveIomentaI dynarnics. The rnain 'levels of activity are

    activity itself, actioll anu operation, os reiated 10 rnotives,

    goals and conditions respectively.

    Tl1is cornparison of the two theories can be sumIned

    ιφ ίπ the fol!owing differences:

    1. For Piaget social factors have πο constructive role ίη

    early rnenta! developrnent. Sensorimotor inteIligence has

    its origin οπlΥ ίπ the child's individual action οη physical

    reality. For Vygotsky, οη the other hand, the bosis for

    lnan's eognitive development is forrned by the qualίtative

    change ίη their sociai positions., (he change of their

    sociocuItural activities ΟΓ of their ιool-rnediated actions.

    2. For Piaget egocentric perception constitutes a stage of

    the process of cognition, while for Vygotsky ίι is a

    developmentaI stage ίη the transition from external Ιο

    ίηπεΓ situ8tion.

    3. For Piaget activity is related Ιο rhe physicaI

    environrnent and the individual's physical action, while for

    Vygotsky ίΙ is related ιο the social environment as a

    systemic formation with ίΙ5 own culturaI history and inner

    developmental dynamics.

  • Τε.χν. Χρον. Ε:ηοτ. 'Exh. Τf:Ξ.E, 11, τειίχ. 1-2 1996 T~Cll. C:hnJn. Sci. J. Τ(;(ί, 11, Νο 1-2 9

    3. ΡΙΑΟΕΤ AND IMPLICA TIONS FOR DESIGN

    According ιο Piaget (1947), the stages ίη the space

    perceprion of the child are the following:

    Stages Ι and ΙΙ ίη which the child has ηο coherent ΟΓ

    hoIistic view of its enνίrοnmenΙ The abiIity ιο waIk, that

    is autonomy of movement and abiliry Ιο expJore, as well as

    experience help the child ρerreive space Β! a primitive

    stage caIled sensori-motor. Α! this stage the chiId only

    perceives cert.ain characteristics of space that corresρond

    10 the primary 1OpologicaI relations of objects such as

    proximity and coηιίπυίΙΥ.

    Ιη the ηεχΙ stage of pre-oρerational cognition (stage Π),

    the appearance of symbolίc function allows. spatiaI

    representation. This representational space is static and

    irreversible. The system of reference is egocentric.

    The representational Euclidean space is formed ίπ the

    nex t stage (stage ΙΙΙ) and is characterised by a more

    sophisticated concepιuaJ handJίng of spatial objects and

    Iheir features., such as quantity preservation, categorJsation,

    metήc relations, etc. lndependent reference systems are

    co-ordinated. forming a unified system ίπ which the child

    ηο Jonger holds a central ρosition, but only holds one that

    is reIevant ιο other ob jects.

    Ιι is worth noting as Piaget himself has observed, that

    the recognition and knowledge of objects and of spatiaI

    characteristics is a consequence of the chίld's activity ίη

    space and of his exploration of the environment. Α

    considerable section of the research literaιure οπ the

    re]ation that exists between cognitive development and

    physica! environment has fed οη these two concepts. As

    ννίl1 be showh below, these ιννο concepts have led ιο the

    formulation of principles of space organiz.ation and

    structure.

    Piaget's views οη space perception devetopment and

    evolution, as set ουΙ ίπ his renowned "'Representations

    οροιίΟΙΒ' chez Ι' enfant'" (Ι947~ have influenced research

    οη the process of perception and macro-environmental

    knowing. Particularly significant ίη this lίπe of research

    has ΟΟεη the contribution of ΗΟΓΙ and Moore (1976),

    According Ιο them, ίη order 10 develop ίι coherent

    environmental represent.ation, the chiId goes through a

    succession of stages, each of which coπstitutes a partial

    environmental representation corresponding 10 the

    reference system used by the chίld for orient.ation. These

    differeπt reference systems as well as their coaesρoπding

    cognitive representation appear ίη the folIowing order:

    The egocenric syslem ο! reference. The child orient.ates

    himseIf according ιο the axes of his body an'd he has a

    sense of ρosition ίη space only through his movements. Αη

    equivalent cognitive representation can be considered βΠ

    imperfect and irregular radial pattern centered οη the

    chiId.

    Τhe next stage 1S that of the fixed syslem οΙ reference..

    The child orientates himself οη the basis of certain

    particular reference ρoints other than himself, unJike ίη

    the previous st.age. He can now relate objects but he

    cannot discover all of their interrelations. Focused οη

    every ροίηι of reference, the child sets υρ subdivisions of

    the eπνίrοnmeηι, the totaIity of which he stίll cannot cope

    with. Τhese are pafh represent8lions, formed through the

    child's personal experience with some elements of the

    enνίrοπmenι.

    The (ίηΒΙ stage ίη the deveJopment of cognitive

    representations of the macro-environment relates ιο the

    oompletion of a co-ordinated sysfem οΙ reference. Ιι is Φe

    stage of representatjons that Jink and correlate the specific

    environmentaI subdivision.

    Moore's exρeriments (1976) were ποι restricted 10

    chίldren ίη the fjrst three stages of cognitive deveIopmenL

    Similar exρeriments were carried ουι οπ chίldren of 15-19

    years of ag~ as well as οη adults. Τhe comparative study

    of their results led Ιο some very originaI conclusions. Path

    representations and survey representalions are ποι only

    stages of space representation in children but aIso ίη

    aduJts. Jη the case of adults path representations

    constitute the initial phase of their coming-to-know βΩ

    unfamilίar environment. lπ other words, both chίldren and

    adults organize their knowledge and images of the

    environment ίη line with major cognitive deveJopmental

    shifts from in(ancy through adolescence. There is a

    temporal parallel between the understanding of the order

    of spatial environment and that of the roles and activities

    played ου! ίnsίde ί1. There is a conceptuaJ paraJleI between

    on1Ogeneric developmental progressiQns through childhood.

    aduJt short-term microgenetic developmental progressions

    ίη coming ιο know a new environment, development.al

    differences between individuals of roughIy the same age

    and general intelligence, and deveIopmentaI variations ία

    the same individual wiιh regard ιο his Or her knowledge of

    different environments. According 10 Moore there exist

    http:development.al

  • IQ Τι::χν. X\!(1V, επιστ. -Ι::κδ. ΤΕΕ. ΙΙ τεύχ. 1-2 199f) Ί'Ι:C]l. Ι:Ιπο η. Sci. J. TCG. II, Νσ 1-2

    three essentia! leνeΙs of development ίπ each progression

    undifferenlj8Ied egocen/ric, differentillted and partillJ1y

    co-ordinated ίηΙο subgroups around fixed reference points,

    and ορεΓΒlίΟΠΙΙΠΥ co-ordinaled and hierarchictιIIy

    ίπ/εΚΓ8Ιed.

    This observation, that macro-environInenal knowing is

    simj)arIy organized ίη both children and adulιs is ο! great

    signiricance. Ιι is θΠ observation that has been verified by

    numerous other researchers, such as Shemyakin,

    AppJeyard, Follini, etc. These observations set υρ a further

    ΒΧί! of cognitive deveIopment, besides the vertical one, the

    horizontal axis, equivaIent 10 that of Vygotsky, as far as

    the transition from external 10 internal language is

    concerned. The difference is that Vygotsky'lI horizontai

    ΒΧί! concerns the invariabIe cognitive forms of the stages

    of this transition from the external ιο the internalίzed

    situation, whereas Moore's horizontal axis relates Ιο

    evolutionary stages ο! the process of pe rception of the

    environment. It should be noted that these forms are

    invariables as far a.!i the manner of the transition is

    concerned, but ΒΙ the same time they Qre also dynaInic ίη

    terms of their qualitative features, whicll depend ση

    various factors, such Β5 sociaIized Jίnguistic activity.

    Α diHerent interpretation of Moore's conc lusions could

    al50 be attempted. The (ΟΙΙΓ stages which Moore refers 10

    could be considered as quanfjtative variations 4.1Π the

    cognitive output (ίη terms of the coherence and co

    ordination of its components) which results froIn the

    internal ization of the socio-spatiaI uctivity of the

    individual. Age is, therefore, ηο 10nger the most significant

    factor ί π the nlanner ο! organization of the individuaI's

    knowledge and νθΓίου!) forms of activily. This subjective

    space can be re ferred Ιο Β!) egocentric. ίη the sense that ίl

    is fo rmed οπ the basis of the types of activity the

    individual ί!) engaged ίπ, that ί~ οη the basis ο! ίι!)

    necessity for movement and action ίη space. The

    interpretation of the aιιthοr of this paper ί~ that aclivaled

    space constitutes the transitiona! eIement between the

    external and internal situation (Tsoukala: 1994). Ιι is

    stressed, however, that θΙ this ροίηι the object of concern

    of the paper does πο ι lie ίη the quaHtative differentiation

    of activated spaee, but rather ίη the function of activated

    space as a place of organizing spatial knowIedge.

    The influence οΓ Piaget's theory οη environmentaI

    design research concerns both general principIes, such as

    the formulation of environ,roental values, β!) well θ!) more

    sρecific domains, such as the aplίcation of these qualities

    10 the meso- and micro- scale of architecture.

    Ulvund (1981~ ίη Ihis study of the role of physical

    environmenta! parameters ίη the child's cognitive

    development, examines buίltscaρe parameters οη the basis

    of Piaget's hyρothesis that the infant's manipulatίon and

    exploration of physical ol>jects are .fundamental ίη the

    deveIopment of early cognjtive competence. According to

    hίm, the physical environmental ρarameters, variety,

    compJexily, and responsiveness, have a ρositive correIation

    with cognitive development.

    CompJexily, defined as "the degree of spatial

    heterogeneity ίπ a stimulus pattern". or "the amount of

    diversity ίη a stimuIus pattern" is closely related to

    WohlwiII's ορlίlπ_1 "ίlπυlθlίοπ hypolhesis (Ulvund: 1981Χ

    According 10 him the physical environment presents a

    problem Ιοτ _ psychology of Slimulalion. DiHerenl

    dImension~ of stimulation constitute the optimaI

    stitnuiation hypothesis. The concept ο! the physical

    environment as a source of stimulation emerges from the

    ηοιίοη that the environment fun ctions as u context for the

    in(lividual's resρonses θ!; weII as a ροιεηιίθΙ feedba ck ίη the

    interaction between the individual and the environment2.

    The re~'P0nsiveness criterion conld be defined as ''' the

    object'~ capat ity ιο resρond contingentIy 10 the infant's

    InanipuIation. 50 that the infant receives feebac k ίη the

    form ο! changes ίη visual, auditory, or tactiIe stimulation"

    (Yarrow ει ιl: 1975~ Four dimensions of responsiveness are

    proposed: Ι. moving parts. 2. refIected image, 2. change ίη

    shaρe and contour and 4. noise product ion. Objects which

    are characterized by one σΓ more of the four

    resρonsiveness criteria may. through the infant's

    ΓηθηίρulθΙίοη, bring about changes ίη the environment

    V8riely is cIosely related both Ιο complexity and

    responsiveness. Referring Ιο variety as . "the ri chnes.!i and

    non-repetitive character of inanimate environment".

    Yarrow el -Ι. (1975) h_ve suggested Ihal ίl should be

    assessed according ιο the number of different play objects

    available to the ίηΙΒnι'

    Evans, Kliewer and MtιΓΙίη, ίη their article entitled "The

    role ο! the physical environment ίη the health and well

    being of children" (1991), consider variely and

    reιφοηsίνeness as the two principaI djmensions o f

    complexity:

    .. Variely referes 10 Ihe number of differenl

    charachterisliC5 of an objecl. Thus a fUnclionBlJy compJex

  • Tt:xv. Χρον , Eπιrπ. ·Εκδ. ΤΕ[';, ΙΤ , ΤEιJχ. 1-2 l/)96 Τcι.;Ιι . CΙπon , Sci. J. TC'G, 11. Νυ 1·2 ιι

    object might consist of muIIip/e coIors, shape,fO and

    IexΙUrtJS. Sti" greater comp/exiIy would lJe added by ΒΠ

    object that moves οτ ehanges ίπ some otJιθT way,

    Responsiveness is Ihe degree 10 which physicaI stimu/ί

    provide feedback ιο Ihe child about Ihe effects of his

    aeIions. When 8 young chiId manipuIales ΒΠ objecl Ihal

    responds differenIi8//y ιο variab/e ίπρυ( IhaI object ί.

    responsivιJ' (ρ. 137).

    Researchers Iike οιαι and Moore have sιudied the

    transfer of these concepts to the meso-scale of

    architecrure and ίη particular to day-care centers and

    oυtdoor play areas. Moore and his associates (1994) have

    proposed and developed a number of patterns for day~re

    centers and outdoor ΡΙθΥ areas based οπ the developmental

    theories of Piaget and Werner, Some of the concepts

    related ιο child care centers and ίη particular. the

    principles of the building's organiz8tion are; activity

    shaped spaces, modified οροη space, home bases for 8-16

    children, resource-rich activity pockets for 2-5 children,

    barrier-free environment., interior visibility, child-scaled

    environments, Bnd θπ environment that responds. Simίlarly,

    for the organization of play areas thcy have proposed the

    fol1owing general principles of design related Ιο Piaget's

    theory: ambiguous settings and objects. loose parts. paced

    alternatives. challenging environments, variety of three

    dimensionai spaces, baπίer free environment., repetition

    and muItiple coding. imageability and orient8tion, clear

    accomplishment ροίηι. 0Μ. (1968, 1989) places more

    emphasis οη variety as a principle of spatial organizatioD

    within the framework of Piage's theory. She suggests

    different scales fol' activity areas. different fIoor-ceiling

    and boundary height as varied leνels of stimυlation for the

    senses. Ιπ her view, the νΒΓίεΙΥ of things to do. the variety

    of places ίη which ιο do them and Ihe ΟΓΙθΩίΖβιίοη and

    acccssibHity of these things and spaces within the overaII

    space Cβn satisfy the chiId's basic needs ιο move, Ιο work

    comρetentIy and to control his environment ParaIIel to

    Vβriety, privacy, predictabiIity 8nd orientation are

    proposed as components of Ihe "bilίly of Ihe child 10

    control his immediate environment.

    The criticism received by these views relates to the

    distinctioD between physical and sociaJ environment One

    argument 8gainst such a distinction is that certain aspects

    ίη the physical environments which promote the

    development of cognitive competence may have a paraIIeI

    ίπ the sociai enviro~ment., while asρects of the physical

    environment may aIso, ίπ certain cases, promote

    deveIopment Another argument against making a

    distinction between the physical and (he socia!

    environment is that 'cognitive and social development are

    probably closely connecIed Uzgiris (19790, 1979b) argued

    for this interconnection between cognitive and' social

    development, for the superiority, even, of social

    experience. ίπ view of the fact that the infant's interaction

    with things takes place ίπ β social context Referring ιο

    Vygotsky who has stressed that man-made objects have a

    cultural significance, Uzgiris maintains that the infant's

    exρerience with objects is social ίη two senses: firstly.

    because the infant's way of dealing with objects is often

    closely referred to the way he interacts with people.

    SecondJy, because the infant deais with objects that have a

    cultura! significance,

    Βurneιιe (1972) "lso worked οη Ρί"ιοΙ'. Iheory and ίι.

    implίcations for design_ Ιπ his articIe "Design to reinforce

    the mental irnage" he writes that his intention is to

    formuJate pIanning values for a pre-school education

    environment that will support the chiId's cognitive

    development "as evidenced ίη the psychologicaI lίteraΙUre,

    partίcularly that of Piaget''. He argues that there Ίs a

    correlatjon between the stages of the chiJd's cognitive

    development and the forms recognised by Kevin Lynch ίη

    his study of macro-environmental representations (1960).

    Burnette maintains that these forms do ποι constitute

    prirnitive categories of 8 symbolic visual Ianguage. but

    elements of the sequence through which the child

    experiences his environment and ori'entates himself within

    ίι Ιη his framework the organization he proposes in,cludes

    the ''nesting place" scaled ιο the child, bounding the

    sensorimotor domain of the infant., and limiting the visual

    field ιο provide a stable background against which activity

    patterns and sense stimuli may be ρerceived. This bounding

    of environment a1so foreshadows the fίxed systems of

    reference which foIIow the egocentric stage ίη the sense

    that once the child has a coherent representation of his

    nesting place he is ίη a position to transfer the center, the

    node of his organization ιο some fixe.d reference object ΟΓ

    landmark. Later the child's own nest becomes the node οτ

    place ίπ the path of route presentation which the infant

    subsequently develops.. The Iearning . environment

    surrounding the node-cave of the chίld is comρosed of

    other distinct form-places which he απ visit and learπ as

    he did his origina1 nesting place. Thus, his universe is

  • 12 ΤΓχν . Χt_ον. Ε.:nιπ . ΊΞ)'1\. TlΞE, 11 , πυχ. 1-2 ΙΙ;

  • 1.1 T r. XV. Χρον. E:τL.(Π. Έκδ. ΤΕΕ, 11 , τεύχ. 1-2 1996 Τcch . Chloon. Sc ί . J . TCG. 11. ~o 1-2

    par1icular importance ίη the data analysis of a research are

    micro-strucιural characteristics of actjvity, 8crjons and

    operalions. Activity is related Ιο the motive, action is

    related to the objective and the ΟΡοτβιίοη ί. related ιο the

    par1icular circumst.ιιnce (Lektorsky: 1993~

    Now how can this analysis be related ιο the physical

    environment and ίη par1icuIar Ιο its representations? Ροτ

    οπε thing, ίι is common knowIedge that the ·builtscape is a

    resuIt of historico-socia! and culΙUraI processes and as such

    ίι is invested with meanings that determine to some extent

    the individuaI's spatial behavior. These meanings, however,

    are created by the individual through his activity ίο the

    par1icular space οτ ίη relation Ιο ίΙ As an object with

    symbolic value, space could be considered • tool, and, by

    extension, a psychologicaI Ιοοl that contributes Ιο the

    formation of cognitive representations. As was stressed

    earJier, this process can οπlΥ be achieved by the

    combination of the tool and the activity of the individuals.

    lη her research to date the coocept the author of the

    present paper has tried Ιο examine most closely has been

    that of activity.

    The basic iS8ue raised ίη such research is whether θηΥ

    activity ίπ space can at the same time be considered as

    spatial activity ίπ the sense attributed Ιο ίι ίπ the theory of

    the hίstοήcο-cultural approach. For instarιce. when a child

    arranges a space having as rnotive its ΡΓoρeΓ .fuoction, then

    this arrangement could be considered ΒΠ activity composed

    of many different 8ctions. If, however, the motive for this

    arrangement is the favourable assessment of the child by

    the teacher, then the organization of space does ποΙ

    constitute a child activity but ΒΠ actioo with a specific

    objective. subsumed under another activity. Τhe

    organization of space couId even be a means for the

    resolution of a geometric probIem. Ιπ this ca~ spatiaI

    organiz8tion is Βη operarion. Such fine differences ore

    significant for social interactionism. This ροίπι will be

    illustrsted with examples from research conducted by the

    author of this paper (Tsoukala: 1994, 1995). Before this is

    done. some more issues will be raised related ιο the

    previous one: what is the relation of all this dirrerentiation

    Ιο the formation of meso- ΟΤ macro=environmental

    representations? Does ίι affect the nature and number of

    the codes used by the individual ίη his attempt Ιο represent

    the environment?

    Ιπ a study of the representotions of school environment

    ίη chίldren of 10-11 yea" of "ge, a significanL difference

    was obserνed between teams of chίldren set υρ οη the

    b"sis of the ΙΥΡΟ and degree of the involvemenL of school

    space ίη the educ"tional process (Tsoukala: 1994). The

    grouping of the teams was facilitated by the selection of

    two pedagogic systems, diametric.ally opposed ίη terms of

    the position of the child ίη the school community and the

    τεlΒιίοη of the child to the educ.ationol tools. These two

    systems were the conventional one and the Freinet system.

    Their oppositions concern: (1) the child's roIe ίη the

    education"1 process (passive/active~ (2) the child's relation

    Ιο Lhe education"1 tools (observer/user), (3) the teacher's

    ΓοΙε ίη the organization of schoo! life (teacher-organized

    sch~ol Iife/seIf-organization of student groups). as well 8S

    (4) the pl"ce of space ίη the education"1 system (sp_ce as

    sheIl of activity/space as element of activities~

    The conclusions of the present paper, set forth ίη the

    form of hypotheses ίπ the introduction, refer to the

    positive correlation between the noture of the represented

    spatial element and the form of activity, as well as to the

    ρositive correlation between the structure of the image,

    and the social framework of the activities. The author WOs

    led ιο these conclusions through the qualitative analysis

    she odopted ίπ order to process and interpret the

    . topographic and verbal represent.ιιtions of the child She

    termed this representational space that deviates from

    objective space according ιο the degree of its involvement

    ΟΓ distance from the educatίonal process 8ctivated space,

    conceived as a transition betweeo the external objective

    space and the internalized one.

    The author of this paper seems Ιο be led 10 similar

    conciusions by her findings from research she has carried

    ουΙ οπ representations of public space, ranging from the

    scale of the city ιο th"L of the school-home path

    (Tsoukala: 1993; Tsoukala et _Ι: 1993). Of cours", ίη these

    later researches greater difficuJιy was encountered as 10

    the determination of the sampIe, as ίΙ is quite difficult ιο

    identify public spaces ίπ which spatial activity. ίπ the sense

    this has ίη Vygotsky's theory, ί. developed. Going through

    the international literature οη cognitive representations of

    urban space ίη children and adults, ίπ porticular the

    experimental research ίη the area, ίι became apparent that

    activity figures among the factors influencing the

    forrnation of representations β1 a much greater frequency.

    What remains ιο be examined is, then, the formation of

    representations ίη rel8tion ιο the finer differentiation of

  • 14 ΤΕχν. xvo\' . Eπ,nt.. ΕΥ-δ . ΤΕ.ιΖ, 11 , n: ι'οχ . 1·2 1 !J~() Tcch. Ωιrol1. Sci. J. τι:α 11. Νο 1-2

    activity, and ίπ particular ίπ relatίοn Ιο the sρatial activity

    of the individusl.

    From this anaIysis 8cIjy.Ied sρoce (TsoukaIa: Ι995)

    emerges as θΠ environmental vaIue simi1ar to

    responsivenes,s deveIoped above, but also different from ίι

    concerning the context within which both the action of the

    child and the response οΙ the physicaI environment take

    place. [π Ihis case, the action of Ihe child has a social aim,

    a constίtuent οΙ which is the physical environment, object

    οΙ the child's operation.

    s. DISCUSSION The comparison of the two theories of cognitive

    development attempted ίπ this paper can be summed υρ

    ίπ the fol1owing points:

    Ι According to Piaget's and Vygotsky's theories, chίldren

    develop by interacting with the environment and by

    observing the conseqence of their operations υροπ

    materials and events. [π this framework Ihe physical

    settίngs ΡΙθΥ θΠ imρortant role ίη Ihe chiId'~ cognitive

    develoρmenL

    2. While for Piagel lhe first deveIopmenlaI slages of

    cognition have their origin οπlΥ ίπ the child's individual

    action οη physicoI realiiy, Ιοτ Vygotsky the individual's

    cognitίve development is formed by the qualitative change

    ίπ its social position, the change ίπ it,s socio-cultural

    θcιίνίΙΥ οτ ίπ its tool-rnediated actions.. Ιπ the forIner ca~e

    the action is limited 10 its sensorimotor character, while ίπ

    the latιer case ίι is social, related Ιο the culιural

    significance of objects the ίΠΙΒΠΙ deais with, as weII as ιο

    the way the chiId interacts with peopIe during his contact

    with lhe Qbjecl.

    3. .The perccived word is considered by PiIIget a stage ίη

    the IIgc axis οΓ the development οΙ the individual, while

    for Vygotsky the represented environrnent ί5 Inainly the

    product οΓ the transition froIn the external social ιο the

    internalized individual environment.

    Τhese two theories have influenced reseach conducted

    ίπ the field of Environmental Design Research, concerning

    the relation of cognitive processes ιο the physical

    environment.

    Returning to the questions raised ίη the introduction, ίι

    is concluded rhat spatioI qualities formulated under the

    influence of Piagel's theory have been rendered with the

    Ierms complexiIy, variety and responsiveness,. further

    analysed ίηιο more specifίc parameters,. while the term

    activated space apρears 8S an extension of Vygotsky's

    theory οπ design. This latter term can be considered

    equivalent to the term responsiveness. though broader than

    that ίη the sense that ίt also includes socio-culturaI

    frameworks and the meanings of both the child's

    activίtίes and the physical environment wiIhin which the

    particuIar aCIivities take pIace. Activated space, therefore,

    ποι only signifies the ability οΙ the environment ιο

    mechanistically respond Ιο the action of the child οπ ίι.

    but ίι a..lso signifies the abilίty of the environment ιο be

    impIicated as socio-cultural object ίπ the motives and the

    aims of the child's activity ίπ a given socia! f ramework.

    It is also observed that these sp8tial qualities caηποt be

    considered opρosite. They have certain parameters ίπ

    common, whi1e others are complementary. The ability of

    the environment Ιο respond to the chi Id's action οη ίι is

    ποΙ entirely due Ιο ilS physicaI qualίties. but also 10 its

    socio--cuItural ones, as well as 10 the sociaI framework

    within the particular activity takes place. The

    reinforcement οΓ the sensorirnotor action of the child θΙ

    the expense οΙ his social action, as well as the

    reinforcement οΙ the physical quaJities of the environment

    ΒΙ the expense οΙ its cultural significance, rnay prove tn be

    ΗΠ impeditnent ίπ the cl1ild-physicoI environInel11

    interaction.

    M.knowIedg=

    Ι wish ιο aknnowIedge Prof. Moore's contribution Ιο Ihis

    paper, for addilions he offered Ιο lhe bibIiography, and for

    reviewing θΠ earlier version_

    RBFERBNCBS

    Ι. The sources οη which [ based the first section of the

    present paper entitled HSimilarities ΒΠι;!. differences οΓ the

    two theories" are, apart from Piaget's and Vygotsky's own

    translated work ίη English and Frence, Activity Theory

    Journal, Schneuwly and Bronckart publications., Valsiner's

    work, as well as Moore's ίπίΙίΒI studies published ίπ the

    voIume entitled EnvironInentaI Knowing. The work that

    WOS decisive is chapter ΙΙ οΙ Vygot~ky's '''Language and

    Thoughl" enlilled "The probIem of child Ianguage and

    cognition according Ιο the Iheory οΙ Jean Piaget" as weII as

    Piaget's HCommentaires sur les remarkes critiques de

    Vygotsky' Ιι ίο worlh noling lhal the I.tter had been

  • Τεχν . Χρο\' . Eπιtτt . Έκδ. τt:::ε. lI , τι::ύχ . Ι-2 191)6 Tcc.h. Chrnn. Sci. .1. TCG. 11. Νο 1-2 IS

    written before Piage1 had 1he chance 10 read the

    aforementioned critique by Vygoιsky.

    2. As a physicaI environmental parameter, complexity may

    represent a qua!ity of the physica! setting ίη which the

    individuaI lives, as well as of one of the objects contained

    wiιh ίι Relating the complexity of ΒΩ object Ιο "the

    amount of information ίι provides the infant through

    sensory modalities", some researchers have suggested

    basing the degree of complexity of an infant's toys οη the

    fol1owing criteria: a. the number of different colors, b_ the

    βαιουηΙ of visual and tactile pattern, c. the number of

    different shapes and the extent of νΒΓίΒιίοη ίη the

    COntours of the object, d the size (amount of the area ιο

    be looked 8t and touched), e. the extent of responsiveness

    of the object

    BIBLIOORAPHY

    Ι Blakey Κ ., Ιβηι ΜΑ and H.arι, R.. Oettίa, Ι. Tooc:h wlth ΡΙΙΥ:

    Croati.. ρlΙΥ Eovlroom.eot. Ιοι Chl1dre. w.ith Vi.DI.

    Impalrm.e.t., The Lighthouse Inc., United States, 1991.

    2. Burnette Ch.H., "'Oesignmg 10 reinforce Ihe mentBI image, ιιη

    infant learning environment", BDRA 3 Procoedia,•• Bavlroameatal

    DoIIp: Roιearch aad Pr.ctice, UniversiIY of Ca1ifornla, Ιαι AngeIes.,

    1972

    3. Davydof ν.ν., "The Ρerspec!ίveδ of acIiviIy theory", Activity

    Theory 13/14, 1993.

    4. Ενοαι 0., K1iewer W., and Μιιπίη J.. "The roIe of physicaJ

    environment ίη the health 3nd well-being of children" ίη Η.Ε. Schroeder

    (ed.), Ne., .Dlrectioo. Ιο tho Hea1th P.yc:hololy A.....meot,

    HemΊSphere Publishing Corp~ New York, 1991. ρρ. 127~S7 .

    5. GehJbach R.D., ~ InsIructional play: some theoreticai prerequΊSifes

    Το s)'stemIItic resδIIrch and development", Edocι.tioaal PaycholoJiIt

    15,2, 1980, ρρ. 112-24.

    6. Gehlbach R.D., "PJa)', Piaget and creaIiviI)': The promi.ιe of

    design", 'oorn_1 οΙ Creative Behavior 25:2, 1991, ρρ . 137-44.

    7. Hart R .. Ch.ildrea'a ExperIence οΙ 'Ι_ο., PubIΊSben' lοc., New

    York, I979.

    .8. Hart R. • Moore G., Le d.veIoppe.eDt de Ι. (:ou.t..aoco

    .pati_le et app1ic:atlOD. · ιaχ tyI.d. eavuoaaeaιeat.: ..evoe

    critiqoe, UniversitA de Montr&al: Ct:otre de Recherches eI dΊnnoνaιίοn

    Urbaine, 1976

    9. LekIonk)' ν.Α .. "Remarques 00 δOme phiJosophical probleπu of ac1ivity theory", Aotlvlty Theory 13/14. 1993.

    10. L)'nch Κ., The Im.,e οι the Clty, The Μ. Ι!. Preu, Loodon,

    1960.

    ΙΙ Moore ΟΤ, ~evolopmental νΟΓίιιιίΟΜ betwee.n and within

    individua1s ίο Ihe cognitive represeoUιtion of l.llrge sc;ι.Ιe SΡ;ι.tίa!

    environments~, MaD-EnvlroDmeat SyatoDII 4, 1974, ρρ. 55-57.

    12 Moore Ο,Τ, "Theory and Γesearch ίη the development of

    environmental knowing" ίn O.T.Moore, R. Colledge (eds.),

    Baviroamaatat Σaοwlaι, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Publishing

    Company, 1976. ρρ. 138-72

    13. Moore Ο.Τ. , 'Ί'he .ιate-o'-the-art ίο ΡΙΒΥ environment reseaγch

    and applicatίonι* ίο Ι.Ι. Frosl & Β. SuoderIio (eds..), Where oh11dreD

    ΡΙΙΥ: ProceaCΙJap froaι ισ Iateraatioa_l CoιιIereace ΟΩ ΡΙ_Υ ••d

    ΡΙΙΥ ΒσνiΙΟ.ΜΙΙΩΙΙ, MD Association for ChiIdhood I!ducatioo

    InternationaJ, WheatoD, 1985, ρρ . 171-9Ι

    14. Moore α.Τ.. "'The ,phys.ίcal environment and oognitive

    developmenr ίη chίld c.re cenIen~ ίη C,S. Weinstein and T.G. David

    (eds.). Spaoe. Ιοι Chίldrea: the Built Eaviroameat aad Ch.Ud

    Devetopmeat, PJenum Prcss, Ncw York, 1987.

    15. Moore α.Τ., Piwoni 1.Ι. and Keonedy 0., ~Designing child care

    cenIers w.ίηι the childrens' environments' pIIItern Ianguage: The

    Northern Michigan UniversiI)' chίldrens' center", Childreu'

    Boviroamoata Qoarterly 6:4, 1989, ρρ. 54-63.

    16. Moore α.Τ., Lane G.o., Ηίll A.B~ Cohen U. Rnd McGίnty Τ.. R,ecolDDIondatioΩl Ιοτ c:hίld care ceatera, University of Wisoonsin:

    Center for Architecture and υΓΝη ΡΙιιηηίηι Research, Milwaukee, 11)94.

    17. Moore G.T., Lane 0.0, Ηίll Α,Β.. Cohen U. and McGίnty Τ..

    R.cοαιαιο.d_ιiοu for c:hild ΡΙΙΥ ΙΙΟ_Ι, Universiry of Wi.sconsίn:

    Center for ArchitecIure and Urban ΡΙΒηηίπι Reseβ.rch, Milwaukee, Ι994.

    18. NicoΡOUlou Α .. "Play. oogailive deve)opment aad rhe sociIII worId:

    Ρίβ.geι, Vygotsky .IInd beyood", ΚσΜ.Ο Devalopmeat 36:1, 1993, ρρ . ι-χι

    19. 01& A.R .. "Desigaing 8ettings for ίΠ'ΒηΙΙ and toddlers" ίn C.S.

    WeiΙUΙlein. Th. G. D.IIvid (eds.). Sp.ce. Ιοι ChildreD, PIenum Presa. New

    York, 1988, ρρ. 117-38.

    20. 01& A,R.. "PsychoIogica! and physiologicaI harmony ίη child ca.re

    cenIer deBign", Chlldre..' BDviroa.meat.' Qa_rte.. Iy 6:4, 1989, ΡΡ. 8-16.

    2Ι Pi.set J~ Le Ιιaιuι,ιι et lι pena. c:hez l'eDfaat, DeI_chaux

    et NiesIIι!ι, ΡΙΓίι, 1923.

    22 PiageI 1., La aai••aace de l'JateW,e.C8 oheJ: l'eafaat,

    Delachaux eI NiesIlβ, Paris. 1935.

    23. Piager 1., La coaatraCΙloa da r",1 cheJ: l'aaΙιat, Detachaux er

    Niestliι, Paris, 1935.

    24. Pi.ιιget J., ΡΙΙΥI. Dream. aad Imitatioa 10 chlldhood,

    H.arcourt Brace, New York, 1951.

    . 25. Piaget 1., PIIycholoιie et pωιιoιiιι, Den.seL Paris, 1969,

    26. Piaget 1., Adaptatloa vlt_le et pιycholope de t'Jatel1iaeac:o ,

    Hermarm, ΡΙΓίΙ>, 1974.

    27. Piaget J. and Inheldr Β., La reΡr6ιοοtιtiοa de l'eap_co c:heZ Ι'

    eofa.t, PUF, PIIris., 1947.

    28. Schneuwly Β. Iίnd Bronckart J.P. (eds.), Vy,otaky aujoard' hni,

    DeIachaux et Niestl8, NeuchaIeL Ι985.

    29. SteIsenko Α., "V)'goIsky: RefIectioιu οη Ihe reoeptioo and furfber

    deveJopmeoI of tύs th

  • 16 Τεχν. Χιιον. ΕπIIΠ. Ί::;,κδ. Τ[,[" 11, τεύχ. 1-2 ΙΥ96 Tecll. 01Ton. Sci. .1. TCG. ΤΙ , Νο Ι 2

    33. Tsoukala Κ.., "La ville en ΙΜΙ qu' environncment d' exρeriences

    pour Ι' eώant", Achitectore _ι Cοιι:ι.ΡοrΙemeΩΙ 10:4 eI ll:l (numilro

    5pΘcial: la ville et I'enfant), 1995, ρρ. 6Ι-65.

    34. Tsoukal.a Κ. eI al.., "Children's menIa! meΙamorphoses of a

    famίJiac route" ίη Α. Mazis and KKaraIetsou (ed.s), EnviroDm.ental

    meΙamorpboIeI: boiltIcape, landIvape. etbnoIcape, 8oroIcape.

    AcI.. do Congreι ]nternatiooal do Ι" IAPS 12, Ατ! of Text,

    The&SaIonik~ 1993, ρρ. 359-66.

    3:5. Tudge J.R.H. and WinIerhoff ΡΑ, "'Vygotsky, PίageΙ llnd

    Bll[]dura: Perspeclives ση Ihe relaIions between Ihe socia! word and

    cognitive development", Human Development 36, 1993, ρρ. 611-81.

    36. UIvund S.E~ "The psychoIogical basis for Ihe indentification ο(

    physical environmenIaI parameIers ίη the developmenc of eorIy

    cognitίve competence/t, Scaodioavian Joora.al of Edocatiooal

    Reaearcb 253, 1981, ρρ. 125-40.

    37. Uzgiris I.C~ NExρerience and development during infancy",

    Invited address to the USC-UAP conference οη Piagetian Iheory and Ihe

    heIping professions, ΙΟδ Ange1es, 1979a.

    38. Uzgiris I.C., ''Experience ίη the socίil1 context: ΙlηίΙβιίοη and

    ρΙαΥ", Papet presented οι Ihe Conference οη language intervention, SΙUr-

    bridge, 1979b.

    39, νal5ίηCΓ J.. Cbi1d Development within C1ιltaral1y

    Stractared B.avironme.ata. Social Co-conatruction and

    Environme.atal Ooidance ίΩ Develpment, AbIex PubIΊShing

    Corρoration, Ne Yersey, 1988.

    40. Vaisiner 1., Haman Development and Colture. Tbe Soclal

    Natore οι Peraonality aod itI Stady, Lexington Books., Massachusetts,

    1989.

    41. Vygotsky L.S., Mia.d i.!l Society: Tbe Developmeot οι Hίgher

    PsychoIogicaI Prooe.a.I, Μ. Co1e, V.J. SIeiner, S. Scrihner and Ε.

    Souherman (eds.), ΜΑ: HarVilrd University Press, Cambrisge, 1978.

    42. Vygotsky L.S.. Tboogbt and Laagoage, ΜΑ: M.LT. Press.,

    Cambridge, 1986.

    43. Vygotsky L.S., The Col1ected Worb of L.S. Vygotsky: νοΙ 1

    Probl.m. of ΟοηΟΙΑΙ Psycbology, PIenum Press, New York, 1987.

    44. Wertsch J.V., Tbe Social Formation of Mind: λ Vygotιk1an

    Approacb, ΜΑ: Harvard University Press, New York, 1985.

    45. Yarrow L.J., Rubenstein 1.Ι. and Pedersen F-A., lnfaot and

    Ea.viroa.mea.t. εΑΓΙΥ Cogn.itive and MoιiνAιioηAΙ Developmeo~

    Wiley, New York, 1975.

    Kyria.ki TIIoukala,

    Assistant Professor, AristoUe UniverBity of Thessaloniki, School of Architecture, 540 06 ThessaIoniki.

    http:Kyria.kihttp:Joora.al

  • 17 Τεχ\'. ΧΙΜ )ν, [nHJt . Έκδ. ΤΕΕ, 11 . ιt"ύ)ι•. 1-2 1996 Tcch. ('Ιιωπ . SCI. J. TCU, 11.. l'ιI 1-2

    Εκτεταμένη πεpfληψη

    Piaget και Vygotsky:

    Οι Διαφορές των Δύο Θεωριών 1ια την

    Περιβαλλοντική Γνώση και οι Προεκτάσεις τους

    στο Σχεδιασμό

    Κ.ΤΣΟΥΚΑΛΑ

    Δρ. Αρχιτέκτων, Επίκ. Καθηγήτρια Α .Π.Θ.

    Πεpfληψη

    Το κεΙμενο αυτό έχει δύο στόχους: KaT'σρχή~ να υΠΟΥραμμΙσει

    τις ομοιότητες και διαφoρiς των θι:ωριών Τ((1ν PiageI και

    VygOlsky Υ,α την περιβαλλοντική Υνώση oυμβdλλoντας

    μΌυτόν τον τρόπο (Jίην καλύτερη κατανόηοη των νοηματικών

    διαφορών που παρουσιάζουν κοινές cvvotolorlKL; κατηΥορίες.

    Κατό &ύτεΡον. να θέσει υπd συζήτηση τις προεκτάσεις τους

    στην ΠεριβαλλΟΥΤΙκή ΨυχολΟΥΙα και την έρευνα Υια τον

    σχεδιασμό. Στον τoμiα της περιβαλλο ντικής yy(!Jσης ένας

    σημαΥτικός αριθμός ερευνητών μελέτησε τη θεωρι'α του Pi

  • 18 Τεχ\' . Χρυν. En:IU't , Ί~,κδ. ΤΕΕ, 11, τεύχ. J-2 Ι Ψ)() Tcch. ΟΠΙ1π , :χ. ί J. Tcιr , 11. Νο 1·2

    Moore με θέμα τις νοητικές αναπαραστάσεις του μακρο

    περιβάλλοντος δεΙχνουν ότι ο εγωκεντρικός χώρος

    παρατηρείται και στους ενήλικες και εξαρτάται από το

    βαθμό οικειοποίησης του περιβάλλοντος.

    3. Η έννοια της δραστηριότητας αποτελεί κοινή

    κατηγορία και αποκτά ιδιαίτερο βάρος και στις δύο

    θεωρίες. Αλλά, ο PiageI αναφέρεται κυρΙως στην

    πρακτική δραστηριότητα που συνδέει το παιδί με τη

    φυσική/τεχνητή πραγματικότητα, ενώ ο VygoL,ky

    συσχετίζει τη δραστηριότητα με το κοινωνικό

    περιβάλλον. ΣυγKεKριμtνα, ο Pi.get υποστηρίζει ότι τα

    αναπαριστώμενα σχήματα του αντικειμένου

    διαμορφώνονται μέσα από τη δράση που ασκεί το παιδί

    πάνω σ'αυτό. Με άλλα λόγια, η γνώση θεωρείται ως η

    εσωτερίκευση των χειρισμών του ανηκειμένου από το

    παιδί. Αντίθετα, ο VygoIsky υποστηρίζει ότι τα νοητικά

    αυτά σχήματα διαμορφώνονται μtσα από τη

    δραστηριότητα εκείνη που κατευθύνεται από

    συγκεκριμένο κοινωνικό στόχο και υλοποιείται με τη

    μεσολάβηση εργαλείων.

    Οι έρευνες που διεξήχθησαν στα πλαίσια της

    Περιβαλλοντικής ΨυχολογΙας με αντικείμενο τη

    διερεύνηση του ρόλου του KτισμtνOυ περιβάλλοντος στις

    γνωστtKές διαδικασίες και εμπνεύστηκαν από τη θεωρία

    του Piage~ στηρί'lθηκαν κυρίως σ'αυτό που ο Piaget

    τoνίζε~ στο ότ~ δηλαδή, η γνώση των αντικειμένων και

    των ιδωτήτων τους είναι το αποτέλεσμα της δράσης του

    παιδιού στον χώρο και της εξερεύνησης του

    περιβάλλοντος. Εξ άλλου, αποδείχθηκε από ερευνητές

    ότι η δραστηριότητα στο χώρο παίζει σημαντικό ρόλο

    στην κατασκευή συστημάτων αναφοράς, κι αυτό ισχύει

    για τα παιδιά και τους ενήλικες. Δηλαδή, αποδείχθηκε

    ότι οι "αναπαραστάσεις διαδρομήςι και οι "εποπτικές

    αναπαραστάσεις" δεν αποτελούν στάδια εξέλιξης της

    αναπαράστασης του χώρου μόνο στα παιδιά αλλά και στα

    άτομα μεγαλύτερης ηλικίας. Στους ενήλικες οι

    "αναπαραστάσεις διαδρομής' αποτελούν το αρχικό στάδιο

    γνωριμίας τους με ένα ανοίκειο περιβάλλον.

    Παρατηρήθηκε ότι η πολυπλοκότητα και η ακρίβεια της

    αναπαρόστασης αυξάνει ανάλογα με την κίνηση και τη

    δραστrριότητα του ατόμου στο συγKεKριμtνo περιβάλλον.

    Οι ερευνητές σ'αυτό το θεωρητικό πλαίσ\ο προτείνουν την

    "ποικιλία", "πολυπλοκότητα" και "ανταποκρισιμότητα" ως

    τις περιβαλλοντικές εκείνες αξΙες που συμβάλλουν στη

    νοητική ανάσττυξη του ατόμου. Η "πολυπλοκότητα"

    ορίζεται ως , η ποσότητα της διαφορετικότητας σε ένα

    σύστημα ερεθισμάτων ή ως ο βαθμός ετερογένειας του

    συστήματος ερεθισμάτων. Η "ανταποκρισιμότητα"

    ορίζεται ως η ικανότητα του αντικειμένου να αντιδρά στη

    δράση που ασκεί τό παιδί πάνω του, έτσι ώστε το παιδί

    να προσλαμβάνει την αντίδραση αυτή με τη μορφή

    αλλαγών στα οπτικά, ακουστικά και απτικά ερεθίσματα.

    Και τέλος η "ποιηλΙα" συνδέεται άμεΌα με την

    πολυπλοκότητα και την ανταποκρισιμότητα.. Μπορεί να

    οριστεί ως ο πλούτος και ο μη επαναληπτικός

    χαρακτήρας του περιβάλλοντος. Οι αρχές αυτές για

    συγκεκριμένους χιίφους οδηγούν σε ένα corpus εννοιών

    όπως είνα~ για παράδειγμα, στην περίπτωση των

    παιδικών κέντρων, οι έννοιες "περιοχές δραστηριοτήτων-,

    "ανοικτοί μετατρέψιμοι χώροι", "παιδική κλίμακα",

    "ελεύθερο περιβάλλον', "περιβάλλον που ανταποκρίνεται",

    Αυτές οι προτάσεις όμως για το χώρο αγνοούν την ισχύ

    των κοινωνικών παραγόντων στη διαντίδραση παιδιού

    KτισμtνOυ περιβάλλοντος.

    Τους κοινωνικούς αυτούς παράγοντες δεν αγνοεί ο

    Vygotsky που υποστηρίζει ότι η σχέση παιδιού

    ανΤΙKειμtνoυ ρυθμίζεται σε σημαντικό βαθμό από τον

    τρόπο που το παιδί διαντιδρά με τους ανθρώπους όπως

    επίσης και από τα μηνύματα που εKπtμπoυν τα

    .αντικείμενα ως προϊόντα ιστορικο-κοινωνικών και

    πολιτισμικών διαδικασιών. Οι ερευνητές που μελέτησαν

    τη σχέση παιδιού - κτισμένου περιβάλλοντος στα πλαίσια

    της θF.ωρίας του Vygot,ky, θεωρούν τον κτισμένο χώρο

    ως ανηκείμενο με ιστορικο-πολιτισμική αξία και ως

    στόχο της δραστηριότητας του παιδιού. Στην τελευταία

    αυτή περίπτωση, ο χώρος θεωρείται συστατικό στοιχείο

    της δραστηριότητας του παιδιού, εμπλέκεται στα κίνητρα

    και στους στόχους της δράσης του. Ο όρος που

    προτείνεται είναι η "χωρική δραστηριότητα" η οποία και

    θεωρείτα, σημαντικός διαμορφωτικός παράγοντας των

    αναπαραστάσεων του χώρου. Από την προσέγγιση αυτή

    προκύπτει ο όρος "ενεργησιμότητα του χώρου" που

    ορίζεται ως το περιβάλλον που δεν ανταποκρίνεται

    μηχανιστικά στη δράση που ασκεί το παιδί σ'αυτό αλλά,

    εμπλέκεται ως κοινωνικο-πολιτιστικό αντικείμενο στα

    κίνητρα και τους στόχους της ·δραστηριότητας του

    παιδιού.

    Οι ποιότητες αυτές του χώρου που συνδέονται με τη

    νοητική ανάπτυξη του παιδιού όπως αυτή ορίζεται και

    από τις δύο θεωρίες δεν μπορούμε να πούμε ότι είναι

    αντίθετες. Έχουν μερικές παραμέτρους κοινές ενώ άλλες

  • 19 Τεχν. Χουν. ε.,-Iσt. Έ)'.δ. ΤΕΕ., 11, ΤΕύχ. 1-2 "1 996 Τcι:Ιι. (]lron. Sci. J. TC~G, τι , ~:o 1-2

    μπορούν να θεωρηθούν συμπληρωματικές. Είναι

    αναμφισβήτητα δύσκολο να αποτιμηθεί το σχετικό βάρος

    των επί μέρους περιβαλλοντικών αξιών στο πλαίσιο του

    συνόλου των σχεδιαστικών αρχών που προτάθηκαν ή/και

    εφαρμόστηκαν σε oρισμtνες περιπτώσεις. Ωστόσο,

    φαίνεταΙ.. από την θεωρητική ανάλυση, να αποκτά

    μεγαλύτερο βάρος στις διαδικασίες αντίληψης και γνώσης

    του 'Χώρου 11 αξία της "ανταποκρισιμότητας" συνεπικου

    ρούμενη α"ό εκείνη της "ενεργησιμότητας" του χώρου. Η

    ενίσχυση, από τη μια, της αισθησιοκινητικής πράξης του

    παιδιού με κοινωνικούς στόχους και κίνητρα στα οποία

    θα εμπλέκεται και ο ίδιος ο χώρος και από την άλλτι της

    δυνατότητας του χώρου να μεταλλάσσεται και να

    "αντιδρά", μπορεί να αποδειχθεί καταλύτης της σχέσης

    παιδιού - κτισμένου mφιβάλλοντος.

    Kυριαιcή Tσoυιcαλά,

    Επ(κ. Καθηγήτρια Α.ηΘ.. Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο ΘεσσαλονΙκης. Πολυτεχνική Σχολή. Τμ.ήμα Αρχιτcκτόνων, 540 06 Θεσσαλον(κη.