Each week’s learning theory always triggers some sort of connection to my own sociology course and our focus on the interactions amongst people in society. This week’s reading on Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories of cognitive development may work a little more directly with a psychology course, but I can’t help but think how we use these concepts indirectly within my course intro. Piaget cites that children are motivated by adapting to their physical and social worlds through assimilation and accommodation (Ormrod 311). While Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory lends itself to the importance and specific roles of society and culture in promoting learning and cognitive development (Ormrod 350). In sociology, we celebrate this concept.

Our first concept is C. Wright Mill’s Sociological Imagination, where history and biography are essential to one’s connection to society. Each year I introduce this using the example of the Beloit Mindset List, an idea suggested by a fellow sociology teacher to explain how cultural experiences have shaped an individual’s viewpoints since birth. Beloit College puts this out to incoming freshmen to illustrate what they have been exposed to. What’s interesting about it is that it sheds some light on the realities of society. For example, #1 for the class of 2018 is,“During their initial weeks of kindergarten, they were upset by endlessly repeated images of planes blasting into the World Trade Center” (Beloit). It’s interesting for my students to use this example for our introductory to SI because it uses real-life experiences and connections to culture to understand why they are who they are, and that perhaps their understandings of the world may not be directly related just to their own selves, but to where they are placed in society.

Now, when I look into this week’s task on Piagetian and Vygotskian cognitive development theories, I can’t help but think how their theoretical approach is quite similar to our introductory sociological theories. I guess it would make sense because Sociology truly does piggy-back psychological concepts from a more wide-scale angle. Piaget’s theories suggest that learning is connected to a child’s independent, self-motivated explorations of their physical world, while Vygotsky argued that a child’s learning is facilitated and interpreted by guided exploration and instruction (Ormrod 320). But can’t one say that one’s development is built upon by the individual’s interpretations of their experiences and interactions that they have with others either directly or indirectly? Ormrod is right in stating, “neither Piaget nor Vygotsky was completely right or completely wrong….Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories complement each other” (321). I think I found this to be particularly interesting because while in sociology we focus on the group and not the individual, we emphasize that the relationship between individuals in conjunction with groups is foundational to how society functions overall. Piaget and Vygotsky may both agree that the child’s development is shaped by interpreting their surroundings both through assimilation (individual interpretation) and through the guidance of others and culture(appropriation) (Ormrod 292, 317), and I couldn't agree more, sociologically speaking!