# data[].attributes.body
Icon
Constructivism controversy
Made with charisma
Avatar of jwlaffey
jwlaffey
 + 1
●
1m
CANCEL

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz
POST

# data[].attributes.body
CANCEL

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz
POST

# data[].attributes.body
GR8

# data[].attributes.body
CANCEL

upload

link

search_web

camera

more_horiz
POST

# data[].attributes.body
Elkind feeling the double burn.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, the debate is quite extensive, but I have tried to spare you sentences like the following offering of Pegue's:  “…constructivism is a many faceted movement encumbered by a number of epistemological problems.  Interpretations span the paradigmatic spectrum from contextual to dialectical, pragmatic to empirical, moderate to radical, and from realist to sociohistorical.  To wit, more things in heaven and earth exist than are dreamt of in Elkind’s (2005) philosophy."

# data[].attributes.body
And the Constructivist approach to culture and ethics would create an untenable moral relativism, according to Huston who is discussing Kronman (2009):  Overly politically correct multiculturalism is an example of this...

# data[].attributes.body
The humanities may be able to embrace Constructivism more readily, but there are limits.

# data[].attributes.body
The sciences endorse the idea that there IS an objective truth, one that must be discovered, not constructed...

# data[].attributes.body
Others point out that Constructivism has a number of other problems...

# data[].attributes.body
Carson (2005) states that we clearly do have a social consensus, a readiness, based on general dissatisfaction with the results of the educational system, particularly its inability to educate students from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, but that readiness for change has not yet resulted in fundamental change.

# data[].attributes.body
Judging by perceptions of Constructivism, we may not be ready to embrace the philosophy...

# data[].attributes.body
The final point of contention is societal readiness.  Elkind (2004) says that a broad and energized social consensus must be in place for a Constructivist educational system to work.

# data[].attributes.body
Are you feeling the burn, Dr. Elkind?

# data[].attributes.body
Taking issue with Elkind's very verbiage, Carson says, “ the phrase ‘we would like them to acquire’ contradicts constructivist metaphysics and epistemology” because it “presupposes an objective philosophy which holds that, given a specific context, some knowledge is objectively superior to other knowledge”.  He elaborates, “…if one views reality, reason, knowledge and truth as subjective and relative to the perceiver, then what is the basis for arguing for any knowledge at all, let alone one over the other? Any curricular choice…should be as valid as any other" (2005).

# data[].attributes.body
On the subject of curricular readiness, Elkind asserts, “...only when we successfully match children’s ability levels with the demands of the task can we expect them to reconstruct the knowledge we would like them to acquire,” indicating that we are not employing Constructivism correctly in our curricular design (2004).

# data[].attributes.body
Carson refutes this notion (that teachers are not properly prepared) and responds, “Though education is not a true science, teachers generally are taught one unique body of knowledge” (2005).  He also argues that most teacher preparation programs teach the same/similar information, much of it constructivist in nature or a variant of it, implying that teachers are in a state of readiness, and possibly implying that Constructivism has, in fact, had its chance if it is really going to work when broadly applied.

# data[].attributes.body
In regard to teacher readiness, Elkind states:  "Teaching will become a true profession only when we have a genuine science of education," indicating that Constructivism is a key to this science (2004).

# data[].attributes.body
And the debate continued to rage...

# data[].attributes.body
Carson then takes issue with Elkind's other assertions:  He observes that Elkind offers no explanation of the causal relationship between these states of readiness and the implementation of constructivism, and that there is “no reason to believe that a relationship exists or that any state of readiness would lead to a specific philosophy of education” (2005).

# data[].attributes.body
Carson summarizes the Constructivist philosophy this way:  "Constructivism is the theory that students learn by individually or socially transforming information (Slavin 1997). This theory necessarily entails certain metaphysical and epistemological assumptions.  To accept constructivism one must believe that:

·         reality is dependent upon the perceiver, and thus constructed;

·         reason or logic is not the only means of understanding reality, but one of many, and

·         knowledge or truth is subjective and relative to the individual or community"

# data[].attributes.body
Jamin Carson (2005) elucidates his understanding of Constructivism and deconstructs Elkind's arguments point by point.

# data[].attributes.body
Elkind contends that Constructivism is the right philosophy for education:  “A middle ground does exist between the idealistic philosophy that suggests all reality is in our heads [rationalism] and the realistic philosophy that says all knowledge of reality comes from the senses [empiricism]. Costructivism is the middle ground—the widely accepted answer to the nature/nurture controversy” (2005).

# data[].attributes.body
Constructivist David Elkind (2004) contends that the Constructivist philosophy has not been more broadly successful in America because of our lack of readiness on three fronts:  teacher, curricular, and societal.  These three elements have never aligned to foment the changes needed in our education system.