Adamhuntgradportfolio.weebly.com



Constructivism and Objectivism in the Classroom:Building Meaning TogetherAdam HuntMarshall UniversityAbstractIn the last thirty years, constructivism has risen in prominence to become the major pedagogical canon of our time. Yet, when the concept of constructivism is looked at with a critical eye, it soon seems to fail the requirements that would allow it to be labeled as pedagogy. At the same time, objectivism—constructivism’s long-since-vanquished rival pedagogy—is experiencing resurgence as standardized curriculum and no-nonsense educational styles return to fashion. Should constructivism’s failure to meet the logic of modern pedagogical studies undermine the use of constructivism in our classrooms? Does objectivism’s ability to serve-up an education efficiently serve as an equal and adequate replacement for a practice that takes individual interests and educational pursuits into account?This paper draws on the research and teachings of some of the foremost minds on the subject of education, pedagogy, constructivism, and objectivism, finding that—as with many areas of study where empirical data is difficult to achieve—moderation and wisdom lead most teachers to find a happy medium between antipodal philosophies so as to best serve the widest array of students and learning styles. Keywords: constructivism, objectivism, pedagogy, education Constructivism is the platform upon which many teachers’ undergraduate training stands. The theories of Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget permeate Education buildings on every university campus; Skinner is usually only taught in discussions of classroom management or early childhood development. It is clear from this intensive focus on certain perspectives that constructivism is on the rise in modern education, while the diametrically opposed philosophies of objectivism and reductionism are waning in popularity. While exploring academic opinions about each viewpoint, this paper will attempt to address the following questions: What are the benefits of following each as a pedagogical philosophy? Do the two ideologies have to be mutually exclusive? Is there not a use for each under the same schoolhouse roof?The ConflictOne of the biggest issues that critics of constructivism raise is that despite its being the guiding paradigm in modern public education, it still has no set definition as pedagogy. David Elkind, one of constructivism’s greatest proponents, admits to its imprecise incarnation even as he defines it, saying, “What the various interpretations of constructivism have in common is the proposition that the child is an active participant in constructing reality and not just a passive recorder of it” (2004)—a definition which was later called “a panoply of logical fallacy with culpable error and prevarication” (Pegues, 2007). Elkind even admits that constructivism has largely failed in the schools as a pedagogy, which leaves the reader with the question, “Then why support it?” Elkind responds to the argument that he has created by noting that constructivism began from an epistemological foundation, unlike many other pedagogies that have been recently implemented (2004). What this means is that unlike practices that were designed to meet the needs of political or social agendas, constructivism was reverse-engineered from scientifically-qualified theories about how people learn. He goes on to say that “the lack of success in implementing this widely accepted educational epistemology into the schools can be attributed to…failures of readiness” (2004). Elkind believes that there were three fronts that were unprepared for constructivism to be moved from the realm of epistemology to pedagogy: teacher readiness (teachers aren’t properly trained for constructivist classrooms), curricular readiness (there isn’t enough science on the proper sequencing of curriculum), and societal readiness (constructivism lacks backing social consensus) (2004). It must be noted that student readiness is not in question. In a study conducted in 2004 by Ian Kinchin of King’s College, it was found that up to 88% of a student population showed a preference for constructivist classrooms when given the opportunity to choose. Additionally, Kinchin points out in his paper another study that found “that children are more ready to formulate sophisticated (=constructivist) epistemological views than many have previously thought” (as sited in Kinchin, 2004, p. 306). So, apparently, in cases that are not spelled out within the citation, students are just waiting around for education to catch up with their abilities. What the reader ends up with at the end of Elkind’s article is a sense that, though the pedagogical theory seems sound (since it was produced directly from knowledge of how humans learn), something isn’t working and excuses are being made. An apologist for objectivism, Jamin Carson, jumps on Elkind’s quilted logic and tears it to shreds:In ‘The Problem with Constructivism,’ David Elkind (2004) made several claims about why constructivism has not been implemented in schools. He argued that constructivism will be implemented only when we have teacher, curricular, and societal readiness; that teaching needs to become a science before it can be a true profession; and that constructivism is the only philosophy that will reform education. (2005)The disdain for Elkind’s “logic” is made readily clear in Carson’s writing. In fact, academics who labor under the flag of The Sciences often show a certain acerbic dislike for constructivism. The eloquent and very-well-respected Dr. E.O. Wilson (1998) writes:The philosophical postmodernists, a rebel crew milling about the black flag of anarchy, challenge the very foundations of science and traditional philosophy. Reality, they propose, is a state constructed by the mind, not perceived by it. In the most extravagant version of this constructivism, there is no “real” reality, no objective truths external to mental activity, only prevailing versions disseminated by ruling social groups (p. 44).If this was the way that constructivism was used in the classroom, it wouldn’t be hard to see the flaws in its organization as a teaching method. However, it is not usually taught to such radical ends. Nevertheless, Jamin Carson points out that even covert use of constructivism could potentially corrode respect for Known Fact, and he further undermines the scientific credentials of constructivism by pointing out that constructivism believes in the subjectivity of reality, knowledge, and truth (2005). Between this definition of constructivism and Elkind’s own excuses, everything that Carson requires to create an argument against the use of constructivism as a pedagogy have already been strung out for him. All that’s left is for him to connect the dots, which he does by pointing out that Elkind’s whole pro-constructivist argument is formed as: if the world was ready for constructivism, then constructivism would run perfectly. Once that non-argument has been combined with the constructivist philosophy that all knowledge is subjective, all that remains is an unsupportable theory that can’t even be bolstered with logic, since all logic is also fallible (being subjective). Objectivism simply states that knowledge is objective—that we can all share the same reality—and, once we have a natural law figured out, it should be transmitted as truth from an expert to a learner. This set-up is simple and easy to administer. The draw-backs are that objective realities have correct and incorrect answers, and if the expert teacher believes that they are the holder of the correct answer, dissent is difficult to make public. Moreover, there are many questions that are not suited to the binary responses of “yes” and “no”; some questions are answered in value statements that may vary greatly from person to person, depending on such things as upbringing, natural temperament, cultural inculcation, and socialization. For this reason, objectivity might not be the pedagogy best suited for many lessons—especially those that require a Gestalt image of a complex situation, or those focus on the humanities rather than the sciences.Bringing It All TogetherBecause of constructivism’s wide use, let’s for a moment concede to it the title of “Pedagogy”. Constructivist theory states that constructivism is a reverse-engineered pedagogical approach that is based on a theory of learning, and if implemented properly in the classroom, it can provide learners a broad basis of actual experiential skill. Constructivism is student-centered, utilizing the teacher as a facilitator, rather than an instructor. Constructivist approaches are probably best suited to working with complex systems/problems/issues that have subjective outcomes, making it an excellent pedagogy for working in non-expert groups to make new meanings. Theoretically students taught in a constructivist classroom retain learning longer due to the fact that each student created his or her own meaning, rather than simply absorbing the definition of someone else’s understanding; however, it is criticized as being too qualitative, making number-producing scientific studies difficult to design. Objectivism is a more traditional, teacher-centered approach of feeding students information and interpreted data in order to instill in the students the proper structure of knowledge as understood by the expert teacher. This format allows for a more smooth communication of information from teacher to student, from student to student, and—as students grow up, go to college, and start careers—from expert to expert. Because content is presented with already-provided meaning, objectivism is less time-consuming and can allow a class to get through much more content than a constructivist classroom. Objectivism is a great tool for beginning units that require new vocabularies and understandings, and because of its linear phrasing, it is a favored pedagogy for scientific or technical curriculum. Because all the students are working on the same timeline, with the same information, using traditional assessment methods, objectivism is well-suited to quantitative data-gathering. It is not well-geared to content that is subjective or has no defined meaning, since it is the teacher’s opinion in this case that is disseminated as truth.There is a major issue being missed in this whole ideological argument, and that is that there are two kinds of problem solving that humans participate in: complex and technical. These two kinds of problems require rather different approaches to problem solving—approaches that are met satisfactorily by constructivism and objectivity. So, why the argument? Why can’t we moderate our need to be “right” and our inclination to apply ideology to such a complex issue as education? As Charalambos Vrasidas said, “…there are times when a more objectivist approach is appropriate and there are other times that a more constructivist approach is appropriate” (as sited in Cronjé, 2006, p. 393). Clearly each pedagogical stance has its own strengths and failings, just as it is equally clear that maintaining ideological purity on the issue leaves learning incomplete through either a lack of breadth or depth in understanding. When considering all of this, the obvious question becomes “Why not use both in tandem, alternating between constructivism and objectivism?” The latter could be used as a method of gaining knowledge, comprehension, and the ability to apply what has been learned; then constructivism could be brought in as the system of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. And this is only one, definitely over-simplified, possible model for use in the classroom. Johannes Cronjé suggests that “such a model would allow practitioners to draw freely from both extremes without being accused of having taken up a philosophically untenable position” (2006); unlikely as such an accusation would be unless one taught AP students. ConclusionWhen forced with decisions to be made in the classroom, it is rarely appropriate to choose the most radical, ideologically pure view. The classroom is a place that can offer many roadblocks to a teacher whose chosen path lacks the pliability required to meet the needs of diverse learners while covering a wide variety of content. The classroom requires moderation and good planning for each situation as it arises, encouraging teachers and students alike to take advantage of every opportunity and tool that is presented. A good teacher should not shun objectivism for its “old-school” connotations, just as they shouldn’t turn his or her nose up at some of the best practices inherent in constructivism just because it is an epistemology and doesn’t quite hold up as pedagogy. As the Roman playwright Terence once wrote, “Moderation in all things.” ReferencesBrooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of Understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Carson, J. (2005). Objectivism and Education: A Response to David Elkind’s “The Problem with Constructivism”. Educational Forum, The. 69, 232-238.Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms Regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design and the Learning Sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387-416.Elkind, D. (2011). The Problem with Constructivism. In James Wm. Noll (Ed.),?Taking Sides: Clashing views on educational issues?(pp. 50-56). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Kinchin, I. (2004). Investigating Students’ Beliefs about Their Preferred Role as Learners. Short Reports. Educational Research, 46(3), 301-312.Pegues, H. (2007). Of Paradigm Wars: Constructivism, objectivism, and post-modern stratagem. The Educational Forum. 71(4), 316-330.Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York, NY: Vintage Books. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download