Comparison between Vygotsky's and Core Knowledge Sociological Theories
Compare and contrast Vygoysky and Core knowledge theories
Vygotsky’s theory and the core-knowledge theories are both theories that contain information about children acquiring the ability of language and thought. Yet, the greatest difference lies in the effort that both theories attribute to the process at which children achieve their ability of language. In the core-knowledge theory, there is the belief that thinking in areas that are essential to evolution, such as understanding other people’s goals and intentions, recognizing the difference between living and nonliving things, identifying human faces, finding one’s way around the environment, and learning language, are actually very developed. Children are born with specialized learning mechanisms that allow them to easily obtain information that is essential for evolution. These basic understanding are domain specifics. Domain specifics are necessary for survival. Specifically, Noam Chomsky proposed that there are specialized language-learning mechanisms that allow for children to easily master grammatical rules in all human languages. Evidence is that children from all cultures easily master their native language yet understanding of things like geometry requires great effort from children to acquire. Further evidence is that there are areas in the middle of the left hemisphere which are active during the processing of grammar and damage to these areas will harm grammatical ability. Yet Vygotsky believe that social and cultural contexts shape children. Children are seen as social beings in which people in the environment help them understand and gain skills. According to him, children go through a process in order to achieve thought. First, their behavior is controlled by others and then it is controlled by their own private speech. Finally they can internalize speech. In addition, Vygotsky proposed theories of intersubjectivity and joint attention. Intersubjectivity and join attention both point out that
Vygotsky’s theory and the core-knowledge theories are both theories that contain information about children acquiring the ability of language and thought. Yet, the greatest difference lies in the effort that both theories attribute to the process at which children achieve their ability of language. In the core-knowledge theory, there is the belief that thinking in areas that are essential to evolution, such as understanding other people’s goals and intentions, recognizing the difference between living and nonliving things, identifying human faces, finding one’s way around the environment, and learning language, are actually very developed. Children are born with specialized learning mechanisms that allow them to easily obtain information that is essential for evolution. These basic understanding are domain specifics. Domain specifics are necessary for survival. Specifically, Noam Chomsky proposed that there are specialized language-learning mechanisms that allow for children to easily master grammatical rules in all human languages. Evidence is that children from all cultures easily master their native language yet understanding of things like geometry requires great effort from children to acquire. Further evidence is that there are areas in the middle of the left hemisphere which are active during the processing of grammar and damage to these areas will harm grammatical ability. Yet Vygotsky believe that social and cultural contexts shape children. Children are seen as social beings in which people in the environment help them understand and gain skills. According to him, children go through a process in order to achieve thought. First, their behavior is controlled by others and then it is controlled by their own private speech. Finally they can internalize speech. In addition, Vygotsky proposed theories of intersubjectivity and joint attention. Intersubjectivity and join attention both point out that