Considering Constructivism
The reading material for Learning Theories and Instruction this week described three basic approaches to learning: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. These were new to me, and I’m trying to get a handle on them–especially constructivism.
I did initially take some issue with the constructivist approach and its apparent de-emphasis of the external world. While one would agree that everything we know about the world has come to us through the filter of our minds, I suppose I was somewhat put off by the suggestions of subjectivity and imprecision. According to the article, cognitivists “contend that what we know of the world stems from our own interpretations of our experiences” and believe that “since there are many possible meanings to glean from any experience, we cannot achieve a predetermined ‘correct’ meaning” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 62-63).
This is true; however, the world is not therefore entirely subjective: if several people witness an automobile accident, no one questions that there are certain steps that need to be taken, that there may be injuries, etc.
The article also noted that, from a constructivist perspective, just as a person’s current understanding of a word continually evolves, likewise concepts “continually evolve with each new use” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 63).
I agree with this, and I would think of it as a refining process. One’s understanding of a word, once the standard meaning has been learned, is not likely to undergo radical change. In the same way, a concept may be honed but will likely retain the basic principles. As an analogy, one can approximate the value of phi by taking the ratio of an element in the Fibonacci series to the previous element. So 5/3 is 1.67, 8/5 is 1.6, 13/8 is 1.625, etc. The standard approximation is 1.618, and this is reached at about the 13th element of the Fibonacci series. Progressing further through the series does indeed produce closer approximations of phi; however, these never alter the basic approximation of 1.618.
I read with a modicum of incredulity the perspective of Radical Social Constructivism: in particular, “objects in the natural world are not part of an external preexisting reality… Therefore, atoms, molecules, and quarks are entirely human constructions.” (Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M., 2009, p. 16). I was gratified to find in the Criticisms section that scholars have noted various problems with this, including that basic scientific principles may have been radically altered in a different society.
Reference list
Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4).
Hello Rick,
Let’s talk about Constructivism. (please) Talking (actually, typing – ha ha) about it I will help me understand it on a deeper level.
You made this reference in your post:
According to the article, cognitivists “contend that what we know of the world stems from our own interpretations of our experiences” and believe that “since there are many possible meanings to glean from any experience, we cannot achieve a predetermined ‘correct’ meaning” (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 62-63).
My comment is:
The discussion of “correct”-ness as it relates to constructivism is part of what makes me appreciate it as a learning theory. I posted a YouTube video on my blog in which John Abbott says that constructivists do not see anything as being objective – it is all subjective. I take this to mean that most things can be known only in a “grey area” not as either pure white or pure black.
Your example:
. . . the world is not therefore entirely subjective: if several people witness an automobile accident, no one questions that there are certain steps that need to be taken, that there may be injuries, etc.
My reply:
The steps to be taken by a witness to an automobile accident is a very subjective. I would argue that the word “should” is used to create objective analysis, so, if we ask the question “what steps should be taken by a witness to an automobile accident?”, to be an objective situation, the answer would always be the same. I contend that the answer differs widely, even among medical professionals, or among highway officials, or among automobile accident specialists, and other experts in this area. So, if skilled people cannot agree on a single approach to a situation, it most certainly is subjective. And, we have not begun to examine all of the complications such as; is the witness medically qualified, would the witness be placing his/herself in danger, etc; all of which rely on subjective interpretation by the witness.
Have I convinced you? Have I at least created an interesting argument?
Andrea Hildreth
Thanks for your comment, Andrea. The concept of learning theories is new to me; and, as I do believe in objective reality, Constructivism is naturally going to be challenging. Yet I know it’s important and that I need to come to terms with it. Moreover, although my knee-jerk reaction is to raise objections, I suppose I’d say I’m trying to find my way out of a maze–not denying that there is a way out.
Yes, you certainly presented an interesting argument. You are, of course, quite correct that there may be wide disagreement regarding what course of action to take and that this indicates subjectivity.
After doing a bit more thinking about this, I began to wonder if my understanding of “subjective” was entirely accurate. After all, no one would deny the need to see that a badly injured person received medical treatment, whether or not they agreed on the details.
A definition I found for “subjective” is “proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.” So I suppose that to say everything is subjective simply means that each person perceives through the medium of his or her own mind. And obviously that’s correct.
I accept the abundance of grey areas. It’s easy in a thing like music, in which a musician perhaps never plays a piece in exactly the same way twice, even though it’s always recognizably the same piece.
Yet how would grey areas apply to, say, a basic historical fact–such as who the 16th president of the United States was? Or perhaps a math problem, such as how many miles one will travel in 30 minutes at a rate of 50 mph? If nothing is objective, on what basis would a teacher determine that one student had answered such a question correctly while another had not? What would make one answer more or less valid than another?