| Course | INHE 2003 Human Development |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Theory comparison |
| Length | About 550 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 2003 Week 2
A Stalled Puzzle and a Parent's Hint About Edges: A Theory Comparison Asking Piaget and Vygotsky the Same Four Questions About One Scene, What Drives Development, What Other People Do, What Language Does and Whether Change Comes in Stages
Student Name
Walden University
INHE 2003: Human Development
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Stalled Puzzle and a Parent's Hint About Edges: A Theory Comparison Asking Piaget and Vygotsky the Same Four Questions About One Scene, What Drives Development, What Other People Do, What Language Does and Whether Change Comes in Stages
The Scene
A composite four-year-old sits on the floor with a 24-piece jigsaw puzzle. For several minutes they try pieces at random, forcing some that do not fit, and then stop, saying "It's broken." Their parent sits down and says, "Let's find all the pieces with a straight side first," and helps sort two or three. The child begins sorting the rest, builds the border, and with a few more hints about colors completes the puzzle. Afterward the child is heard saying to themselves, "Straight ones first," while starting a second puzzle alone.
The Comparison
Table 1
Piaget and Vygotsky Asked the Same Four Questions
| Question | Piaget | Vygotsky |
|---|---|---|
| What drives development? | The child's own action on the world, building understanding by trying things and adjusting | Social interaction, through which children take on ways of thinking from more skilled people |
| What role do other people play? | Mainly supplying materials and situations; understanding is built by the child | Central: a more skilled partner supports what the child cannot yet do alone |
| What does language do? | Reflects thinking that is already in place; private speech is a sign of immature thought | Shapes thinking; private speech is a tool the child uses to guide action |
| Does change come in stages? | Yes, in broad stages with characteristic ways of thinking | Less emphasis on stages; change happens within supported activity |
Cells summarize each theorist as applied to this scene.
What Each Theory Sees
Piaget's account, as summarized by Piaget and Inhelder (1969), would read the random trying as the child acting on the problem and the eventual success as the child building a better strategy. The parent's role is to set up the situation, and the child's understanding is their own construction.
Vygotsky (1978) would read the scene differently. The parent's hint works inside what he called the zone of proximal development: tasks just past what a child can do unaided, yet within reach with help. The edge strategy was beyond the child's solo ability but within reach with support. Wood et al. (1976), describing what they called scaffolding, showed how a tutor's well-timed help can let a child complete a task and gradually take over more of it.
The private speech, "Straight ones first," is where the two theories part most clearly. For Piaget, talking aloud to oneself was a sign of thinking not yet fully social or internal. For Vygotsky, it is the child using the parent's words as a tool to guide their own action, the step between help from outside and thinking done inside. The scene fits Vygotsky's reading closely: the parent's exact phrase reappears as the child's own plan.
A Verdict for This Scene
Both theories explain part of what happened. Piaget explains the child's active trying and the sense that the final strategy belongs to them. Vygotsky explains why the parent's hint mattered so much and what the private speech was doing. For this particular scene, with a hint that turned into self-guidance, Vygotsky's account explains more. The textbook presents the two as complementary views of cognitive development (Lally & Valentine-French, 2019).
References
Lally, M., & Valentine-French, S. (2019). Lifespan development: A psychological perspective (2nd ed.). College of the Canyons.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
The Walden INHE 2003 Week 2 instructions
This assignment asks you to compare two theories of cognitive development by applying both to the same short scene. Describe the scene in neutral terms first, without theory words. Build a table that asks each theorist the same set of questions, so the comparison runs row by row rather than in two separate summaries. Then explain how each theory would read the scene, naming its key concepts and citing a source for each. Reach a verdict about which theory explains more of this particular scene, and say what the other still explains. Draw on the textbook plus two or more further scholarly sources, cited in APA format, and keep the brief within about a page and a half.
Inside the INHE 2003 Week 2 example
The puzzle brief starts with the scene: random tries, a stall, the parent's hint about edges, sorting, the border, completion and the overheard phrase. Table 1 sets Piaget against Vygotsky on four questions, with each cell describing the theorist as applied to this child. The analysis section gives Piaget's reading, the child's own action building a strategy, then Vygotsky's, the hint working inside the zone of proximal development, supported by Wood et al. on scaffolding. A separate paragraph handles private speech, which Piaget read as immature thought and Vygotsky as a tool for guiding action, and notes that the parent's words return as the child's plan. The verdict credits both and finds Vygotsky stronger for this scene.
INHE 2003 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders weigh whether the two theories are compared on the same terms. A table that asks both the same questions, with cells tied to the scene, is the clearest way to show that. Each theory's concepts should be named accurately and supported by a source, and the analysis should show what each one notices in the scene rather than restating definitions. A verdict scores well when the analysis leads to it and it admits what the other theory still explains. A neutral scene description, written before any theory is applied, shows the reader the evidence is fair. Briefs that summarize each theory separately and never apply them tend to score in the middle.
INHE 2003 Week 2 help from the desk
Choose a short, ordinary scene with an adult helping a child, and write down only what you would see and hear. Then pick three or four questions both theories answer, such as what drives development and what language does, and fill in a two-column table. Look for the moment in the scene where the theories disagree most; for many scenes it is the child talking aloud while working. Write each theory's reading of the scene in its own paragraph, then decide which explains more and why. Check that your verdict is about this scene, not about which theory is better overall. A tutor can review your table, and the puzzle brief above models each part.
Get a INHE 2003 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Where your prompt pairs other theories, such as Erikson and Freud or attachment and learning accounts, the comparison is built on one scene that both can explain. Send the prompt and the grading rubric; the worked comparison returns inside 24-48h, and the first carries no charge. Say whether your section supplies the scene.
More INHE 2003 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 2003 Week 1: Discussion Post
- INHE 2003 Week 3: Observation Write-Up
- INHE 2003 Week 4: Stage Analysis
- INHE 2003 Week 5: Discussion Post
- INHE 2003 Week 6: Case Application
- INHE 2003 Week 7: Developmental Profile
- INHE 2003 Week 8: Article Summary
- INHE 2003 Week 9: Interview Write-Up
- INHE 2003 Week 10: Applied Paper
- INHE 2003 Week 11: Reflection
- INHE 2320 Week 2: Nutrient Density Comparison
- INHE 2002 Week 2: Scope Memo
- INHE 3001 Week 2: Program Profile
- INHE 2001 Week 2: Theory Application
INHE 2003 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 2003 Week 2 sample paper?
The puzzle theory comparison, with its four-question table, is shown in full above.
Which theories does the INHE 2003 Week 2 sample compare?
Piaget's constructivist account and Vygotsky's sociocultural account of cognitive development.
What does the parent's hint illustrate?
Help given inside the zone of proximal development, the kind of support Wood, Bruner and Ross called scaffolding.
Why does the private speech matter?
It is where the theories part: Piaget saw immature thought, while Vygotsky saw a tool the child uses to guide action.
Which theory does the brief favor?
Vygotsky's, for this scene, while crediting Piaget for the child's active trying.