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 Carson Pegues

As a high school English

teacher, Carson
practiced constructivism
Elkind is a child by allowing his students
development to define and construct
professor. what an English class is.
The objectivist view of
reality, that reality is not
at all subject to one's
Teaching as a perceptions, beliefs,
Values profession. biases, etc.
"In fact, the theory of
relativity states that the
passage of time is relative to
the velocity of the observer"
(Pegues, 2007).
The objecivist point of view.

Believes that
children are Believes that teachers
active must accept the
participants in assumptions of a
learning and not particular teaching
just recorders of strategy or "pedagogical
facts. practice" before the Believes that constructivism
Beliefs (constructivism) teacher can utilize it. is based on fallacies.
Positive attitude
toward
educational Negative attitude toward Negative attitude toward
Attitudes technology. constructivism. constructivism.
 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.