Fall 2000
Objectivism
to Constructivism: Transforming
the Model
Gladys Giebler
For
centuries, the objectivist (teacher-centered) model of instruction has
weathered scientific, social, and behavioral investigation to endure as
the primary approach to teaching students.
Instructors impart endless facts about different subjects and
students diligently record notes from lectures to prepare for standardized
objective tests that, in theory, validate learning has taken place.
However, do they really learn?
Can students apply facts and theorems to unknown problems presented
in a context that they have never encountered?
Or, are students merely programmed to memorize endless lists of
facts to successfully complete standardized exams that panels of
“experts” have constructed? Does
successful recall of factual information determine mastery of the subject?
Does
a student-centered model (constructivism) bear investigation as an
alternative for enriching students with meaningful learning and
facilitating lifelong learning? By
examining both theories of learning, one can see the weaknesses of the objectivist
approach and the strengths of constructivist theory as a possible alternative to traditional methods of teaching.
An
objectivist approach to teaching approaches instruction in a passive
student environment. .
It holds that “knowledge is outside of the learner: truths exist and learners must memorize them”
(Constructivism, No Date) and that “the world is completely and
correctly structured in terms of entities, properties, and relations”
(Duffy and Jonassen, 1991).The instructor’s role
in an objectivist world is to prescribe the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of education to previously determined outcomes.
In this scenario, the student mirrors the reality as it has been
taught and is evaluated by comparison to predefined norms (Jonassen,
1991b). The goal of the teacher is to have the student receive,
memorize, and repeat the subject matter to ascertain whether, or not,
“learning" has occurred (Constructivism, No Date).
Most textbooks and conceptual materials are constructed in such a
manner.
Traditional
classrooms are based on the “instructor’s view of the subject and the
instructor’s perception of the student. Teachers tend to “teach from
the top down”—from generalizations to particulars—instead of
building generalizations from a foundation of particulars (McDermott,
1993, p.1). Therefore,
students are not required to inductively reason to reach generalizations.
Reasoning remains deductive in nature.
The passive form of participation by the student does not require
higher-order thinking skills and problem-solving abilities; nor does it
motivate and challenge students to further inquiry as a means of obtaining
additional knowledge (McDermott, 1993).
McDermott
(1993, pp. 1-5) generalizes on conclusions she has made in her experience
in teaching physics. However, these generalizations need not be considered as
subject-specific. They can be
applied to all disciplines being taught to students in our schools.
She enumerates her conclusions as follows:
“Facility
in solving standard quantitative problems is not an adequate criterion for
functional understanding”
(p.1). Students are perfectly capable of memorizing formulas.
However, their ability to apply standard formulas is not present
when in a situation outside of those demonstrated in the classroom.
“A
coherent conceptual framework is not typically an outcome of traditional
instruction” (p.2).
Students are
typically incapable of integrating memorized concepts into different
contexts. The framework of
relating concepts is absent in the rote memorization of facts, formulas,
and theories. Memorized
axioms do not mesh together to create a conceptual framework of knowledge
that leads to application of the framework in different contexts.
Problem-solving skills are not present.
“Certain
conceptual difficulties are not overcome by traditional instruction” (p.3).
Students may find it
difficult to absorb and apply concepts as they are being taught in a
traditional classroom. Quantitative
performance may not always indicate that students have failed to grasp
concepts because quantitative performances are generally required in
known, or previously encountered, contexts.
However, the problem becomes apparent in qualitative contexts when
students must apply concepts in an unknown context and reason to draw
conclusions from the conceptual framework for analysis.
“Growth
in reasoning ability does not usually result from traditional instruction
(p.4).
Traditional
instruction encourages the assessment in quantitative terms.
Qualitative reasoning is not addressed as a criterion for problem
solving. In teaching to the
test, instructors often concentrate on those concepts that are needed to
demonstrate proficiency on known, standardized assessments and fail to
incorporate reasoning strategies that allow students to adapt conceptual
information to qualitative reasoning contexts.
“Connections
among concepts, formal representations, and the real world are often
lacking after traditional instruction (p.4).
Students find
themselves unable to apply the classroom concepts to real-world
applications and to reason and problem-solve these applications to
resolution. The failure to equate the “book knowledge” to real-world
scenarios is a serious problem in traditional instruction.
Often, the problem is compounded due to the students’ inability
to relate models, diagrams, and graphs to real-life scenarios.
“Teaching
by telling is an ineffective mode of instruction for most students
(p.5).
Students’ minds are not dormant receptacles of information
passively awaiting, like the corner mailbox, a daily drop of facts.
In the traditional model, where the delivery method consists of
lecturing, students become lazy and lack motivation to actively grasp
conceptual information. Students learn by
doing. Applying concepts
and actively participating in the learning experience reinforces the
factual material presented in lecture.
However, these activities are noticeably lacking in the traditional
classroom. This is not to say that some concepts and theories must be
presented didactically; but students must also actively grasp the didactic
information and be allowed to apply and challenge it in an effort to
reinforce those very facts that we ask them to memorize.
If
the goal of education is for students to use higher-order thinking skills,
to become problem-solvers, to understand cause-and-effect, and to
understand deeply, a model other than objectivism is mandated for the
instructional environment. Another
approach to learning must be implemented in order to challenge a
student’s skills to learn. Zahorik
(1995) defined such a model as constructivism and asserts that:
“Knowledge
is constructed by humans.
Knowledge is not a set of facts, concepts, or laws waiting to be
discovered. It is not
something existing independently of a knower. Humans create or construct knowledge as they attempt to bring
meaning to their experience. Everything
that we know, we have made.
Knowledge
is conjectural and fallible.
Since knowledge is a construction of humans and humans are
constantly undergoing new experiences, knowledge can never be stable.
The understandings that we invent are always tentative and
incomplete.
Knowledge
grows through experience. Understanding
becomes deeper and stronger if one tests it against new encounters”
(pp.11-12).
Such
a model provides opportunities for educators to implement open-ended,
active learning into the classroom and to challenge learners in seeking
further knowledge in the learning environment.
“Learners actively take knowledge, connect it to previously
assimilated knowledge and make it theirs by constructing their own
interpretation” (Hanley, 1994, pp.1-2).
Although
Jean Piaget’s psychological research is generally credited as being the
foundation of constructivism, the theory is not new. Constructivism has its foundation in philosophy and was
alluded to as early as 1710 when Giambatista Vico observed that “one
only knows something if one can explain it” (Yager, 1991, p.53).
Immanual Kant also asserted that human beings are not passive
recipients of information. Tracings of constructivist theory can also be
found within the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and John Locke (Crowther,
1997).
Constructivism
allows students to take ownership in acquiring their knowledge.
Therefore, it rejects objectivist tradition (Molenda, 1991). Constructivism is concerned with how a learner constructs
knowledge (Jonassen, 1991a, 1991b). That knowledge is a portfolio created from the student’s
personal experiences. Hence,
the student becomes the central focus and replaces the
teacher-centered model of objectivism.
Feng
(1995) advocates three
principles of constructivism that apply to all levels of instruction
regardless of the subject in question. “Teachers must
teach
from where the students are.
build
a supportive learning environment to capitalize on students’ ability
to construct knowledge
must
have the power and strength to make instructional decisions based on
students’ changing needs” (p.3).
“Meaningful
learning, which connotes the ability to interpret and use knowledge in
situations different from those in which it was initially acquired,
requires that students be intellectually active.
Development of a functional understanding cannot take place unless
students themselves go through the reasoning involved in the development
and application of concepts. Students need multiple opportunities to use that same skill
in different contexts” (McDermott, 1993, p.6).
Hirumi
(No Date, p.2) compares the instructional variables associated with
teacher-centered (objectivist) and student-centered (constructivist)
environments when presenting his Student-Centered, Technology-Rich
Learning Environment (SCenTRLE) Model.
The variables that Hirumi compares range from the learning outcome
to strategies to the student/teacher role in the environment and
illustrate the differences in the central philosophies between the two
theories and are summarized in Table
1 .
According
to Zahorik (1995, pp.14-22), in constructivist teaching practice, five
elements need to be taken into account:
activating knowledge, acquiring knowledge, understanding knowledge,
using knowledge, and reflecting on knowledge.
Prior
knowledge of the student must be realized before the student can learn new
material. Existing knowledge
must be ascertained and these structures must be active before new
information can be learned. Knowledge
must be acquired in whole, not in bits and pieces.
After the whole has been learned, then the individual modules
making up the whole may be disseminated and examined at length.
In other words, students must see the whole picture before that
picture can be disassembled and investigated in parts.
The
new knowledge must be thoroughly examined by students and shared with
others to synthesize and refine the newly acquired, enhanced knowledge
structure. In order for
students to expand and fine-tune their knowledge of the particular
subject, knowledge structures must be actively used in authentic
problem-solving applications. The
specific learning context must be removed from the knowledge structure in
order for the knowledge to be fully understood and useful to the learner.
“If knowledge is to be fully understood and widely applicable
both in and out of school, they need to decontextualize it. This requires reflection” (Zahorik, 1995, p.21).
Unfortunately,
teachers must transform their paradigm of objectivist lecturer to that of
a constructivist facilitator. To
achieve their new role, it is helpful to review Brooks and Brooks (as
cited in Hanley, 1994, pp.2) suggested characteristics of a constructivist
teacher:
Becoming
one of many resources available to a student--not the primary source
of information.
Engaging
students in experiences that challenge their previous conceptions of
their existing knowledge.
Allowing
student responses to drive lessons and seeking elaboration of
students' initial responses.
Encouraging
questioning by asking open-ended questions to encourage thoughtful
discussion.
Using
terminology such as "classify", "analyze", and
"create."
Encouraging
and accepting student autonomy and initiative by relinquishing the
role of "classroom cop."
Using
raw data and primary sources along with interactive physical
materials.
Insisting
on clear expression in communication from students to ascertain they
have truly learned.
Given
the two theories of imparting knowledge to today's students, who are
tomorrow's life-long learners, progressive instructors attempt to create
an open-ended learning environment in the classroom.
They create an environment to accommodate an active, dynamic
process of insights into connecting newly processed knowledge with that
knowledge already in place. Students
are motivated to question and seek their own conclusions in a classroom
that encourages higher-order thinking and problem solving.
Although
an objectivist approach to teaching does not actively involve the student
in the process of learning, some knowledge, such as multiplication tables
and verb tenses must be memorized. However,
this type of learning does little to stimulate higher-order thinking
skills and problem-solving behaviors among students and does even less to
motivate a learner to seek new knowledge with which to increase the
knowledge base. Lifelong
learners need problem-solving and critical thinking skills in order to
remain competitive in the job market.
“Book knowledge” must have the ability to be drawn upon and
adapted to different contexts when students find themselves in a
problem-solving situation.
A
constructivist teacher creates a classroom environment that is open,
challenging, questioning, flexible, and dynamic. In this manner, students are encouraged to become
higher-order thinkers and problem-solvers -- the characteristics of
lifelong learners.
References
Constructivism. (No date). [Online]. Available:
Crowther,
D.T. (1997, December). The constructivist zone. Electronic
Journal of Science Education,
2(2).
[Online]. Available:
http://unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejserv2n2ed.html
[1999, October 22].
Duffy,
T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. (1991, May).
Constructivism: New implications for instructional
Feng,
Y. (1995). Some thoughts
about applying constructivist theories of learning to guide instruction.
Hanley,
S. (1994).
On constructivism. [Online].
Available:
http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+Stat…cts/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt
[1999, October 22].
Hirumi,
A. (No Date).
Student-centered, technology-rich learning environment (SCenTRE):
Jonassen,
D.H. (1991a, September).
Evaluating constructivistic learning.
Educational Technology,
Jonassen,
D.H. (1991b, March).
Objectivism versus constructivism:
Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?
Journal of Education Research, 39(3),
5-14.
McDermott,
L. (1993).
How we teach and how students learn - a mismatch?
American Journal of
Molenda,
M. (1991, September).
A philosophical critique of the claims of
"constructivism". Educational
Yager,
R. (1991).
The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science
education. The
Zahorik,
J.A. (1995).
Constructivist Teaching (Fastback 390).
Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
