Issue 4 Week 3

Almassy 1 Constructivism versus Objectivism The topic of discussion this week is whether or not constructivism is the best philosophy of education. Three articles were reviewed by the student, the two presented in Noll (2009) and another by Harvey Pegues (2007). The article by Pegues was discovered at the end of issue four, within the Noll text. Generally, the two positions of this discussion represent the constructivist view point and the objectivist viewpoint. Peikoff (1993) in Noll’s text indicated that the objectivist point of view holds that one reality exists whether or not there is anyone involved in interpreting it. We can think of this another way when we consider the timeless question, “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, did the tree really fall?” The objectivist would contend that naturally the tree fell, we as humans can know and understand that trees fall in the woods regularly with or without a human’s presence. The constructivist, however, might not agree, believing that individuals construct their reality based upon experiences, biases, and perceptions among other factors. The objectivists believe that constructivism has failed because it is genuinely a flawed and false theory of education. However, Elkind (2004) believes that constructivism has failed because of three factors independent of the theory itself. Review of Literature As mentioned above, three articles were reviewed for this discussion. Comparisons between Carson’s (2005) work and Pegues’ (2007) work can be drawn. The two works are connected because of their denouncement of constructivism. Both authors agree that the theory is fundamentally flawed and contains a number of fallacies. Elkind

Almassy 2 (2004) contends that constructivism as a widespread, nationally accepted theory of education has failed because of three reasons. Elkind describes these as failures of readiness, and include teacher readiness, curricular readiness, and societal readiness. Elkind believes that teacher readiness refers to individuals who are first child development specialists and are also trained in curricular and instructional disciplines. Curricular readiness refers to courses of study that have been examined and has been determined as to what, when, and how the subject matter should be taught (Elkind). Finally, societal readiness means we must have a nation willing and ready to accept educational change (Elkind). Carson (2005) refutes each of these issues individually within his work. Carson pointed out that Elkind did not make clear what the causal relationship is between readiness and implementation of constructivism in schools, only that there is one. Carson went on to explain his issues with Elkind’s definitions of each form of readiness. Pegues (2007) critiques a different article written by Elkind, and yet presents very similar arguments to those of Carson. Pegues finds a number of problems with Elkind’s work as well. For example, Pegues indicated that Elkind misinterpreted and misrepresented the definition of constructivism, the very issue he advocates for. Furthermore, Pegues asserts that Elkind has misrepresented the very nature of objectivism as well. Pegues stated that Elkind used the “fallacy of the stolen concept” (2007, 325). Pegues (2007) paraphrases Rand, “In the fallacy of the stolen concept, one uses a concept to refute those concepts on which it depends” (p.325).

Almassy 3 The Position of the Student In my opinion, there is really no way to prove once and for all which of the two theories is right, correct, or better than the other. In my opinion, there are obviously some things in this world that cannot be refuted. We know that if we let go of an object that is heavier than the air itself it will return to the ground—the law of gravity. We know that humans require oxygen in order to breathe and that breathing is necessary to sustain life. There are other beliefs or paradigms that we hold as truths until we discover new paradigms. We encounter examples of this regularly in medicine and nursing. “Normal” blood pressure measurements are reviewed, reconsidered, and changed over time due to the attainment of new knowledge and the acceptance of new paradigms. I think it really comes down to the age old question of “What is truth?” I do believe that individuals perceive things differently and therefore each individual has his or her own version of reality. I’ve seen examples of this demonstrated on the television show “COPS.” An automobile accident occurs and there are a number of witnesses at the scene, each person’s rendition of what occurred is slightly different. Each person is conveying “the truth” however it is “the truth” from the individual’s point of view. As another example, before I studied healthcare disparities between African Americans and Caucasians in the US, I did not believe it existed. I work across the hall from a Caucasian woman who still does not believe that there is a disparity in the access or delivery of healthcare services between whites and blacks. I have shown her examples of studies that I have read where my point is clearly sustained. However, she points to flawed researchers or flawed results rather than accept “the reality” of the situation. Is she

Almassy 4 wrong? I would say, yes, because I believe in the studies I have read and other information which corroborates those studies. However, this is not how she interprets “reality.” In her reality everyone in America has equal access to and equal utilization of healthcare services. I sorely wish this were the case. To sum up my position, again, we need to blend the two theories and realize that there are certain undeniable facts, the rest of what we learn and discover is subject to change, and change it does—frequently. Five Questions Based on Pegues’ Work The student compiled five questions while reading Pegues’ (2007) work. Pegues indicated that “Prior to Kant (1933), a qualitative versus quantitative research methodological paradigm war did not exist” (2007, 317). The question of the student is, “Why would there even need to be a paradigm war in the first place?” As we have studied in the MSN program, there is a need for both types of research. Both types of research are equally useful depending on the subject matter and what the point of the study is. The second question the student asked was based on the following quote from Pegues. The process of concept formation and perforce of all proper scientific methodology is objective. The colloquial phrase “objective reality” is a misnomer—a misapplication of the term objective. Reality is not objective. Existence simply exists. The process of conceptual cognition must be objective (Pegues, 2007, 318).

Almassy 5 The question was “How can that be?” From what the student has studied about this issue, he believes that reality in order to be reality must be true in every instance. Therefore, reality is objective, it cannot be subjective. The next question the student derived from the reading was based on the premise that education was mainly epistemological and not psychological. “Education presupposes a properly functioning and developing psychological being. In this sense, psychology is beyond the province of education” (Pegues, 2007, 321). The student’s question was “How can education be independent of psychology?” The fourth question developed by the student, was based on the argument that a school cannot teach a child to be socially adept and teach the child reasoning abilities and factual knowledge just as well. The student wonders if this end result—one or more facets of the child’s education will be deficient whereas the others will be proficient. Finally, as above, “What is my definition of truth?” In conclusion, the student believes that the two theories of objectivism and constructivism should somehow be blended together to form a more workable theory. The student reviewed the articles written by Carson (2005), Elkind (2004), and Pegues (2007) and made comparisons between the works. The student then presented his opinion of the topic in greater detail. Five questions were developed by the student based on the readings. The student believes that the experiences, characteristics, biases, and opinions of individuals will help to shape their respective versions of reality.

Almassy 6

Elkind

Values

Beliefs

Attitudes

Carson

Pegues

Elkind is a child development professor.

As a high school English teacher, Carson practiced constructivism by allowing his students to define and construct what an English class is.

"In fact, the theory of relativity states that the passage of time is relative to the velocity of the observer" (Pegues, 2007).

Teaching as a profession.

The objectivist view of reality, that reality is not at all subject to one's perceptions, beliefs, biases, etc.

The objecivist point of view.

Believes that teachers must accept the assumptions of a particular teaching strategy or "pedagogical practice" before the teacher can utilize it.

Believes that constructivism is based on fallacies.

Negative attitude toward constructivism.

Negative attitude toward constructivism.

Believes that children are active participants in learning and not just recorders of facts. (constructivism) Positive attitude toward educational technology.

Almassy 7 References: Carson, J. (2005). Objectivism and Education: A Response to David Elkind’s ‘The Problem with Constructivism’. In J.W. Noll, Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (15th ed.). (p. 57-62). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Elkind, D. (2004). The Problem with Constructivism. In J.W. Noll, Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (15th ed.). (p. 50-56). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Noll, J.W. (2009). Taking sides clashing views on educational issues. (15th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Pegues, H. (2007). Of paradigm wars: Constructivism, objectivism, and postmodern stratagem. The Educational Forum, 71(4), 316-330. Retrieved from ERIC database.