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.