This includes a fundamental degree of flexibility that allows students to express idiosyncratic preferences, because experimental analyses suggest very strongly that doing so promotes more efficient learning across the board (Jensen 1998). Unlike, the constructivist approaches, the brain-based concept might include music, but as a background stimulant rather than as an actual vehicle for assisting the study of mathematics concepts such as the way Gardner (1999) might. Objectivist Approach:

Objectivism relates more to the process of thinking and learning how to process information to support logically valid conclusions than it does to specific subject matter or to its mode of transmission (Adams & Hamm 1994). In principle, objectivism emphasizes that intellectual processes are capable of deducing the objective truth or reality of any situation about which sufficient information is available to undertake a meaningful analysis.

Objectivism sometimes inspires criticism suggesting that it extinguishes creativity or intellectual flexibility by its conceptual supposition that every question necessarily has one, and only one, correct answer. However, this reflects more of a misunderstanding about objectivism than an inherent flaw in the philosophy. While objectivism does certainly promote that any set of facts and circumstances lends itself to a particular conclusion through analysis, it does not suggest that doing so requires the exclusion of any means of alternate analytical approach. Rather, objectivism welcomes all possible means of logically consistent and factually relevant analysis (Adams & Hamm 1994); it only rejects methods of analysis that are (1) logically inconsistent, (2) factually unrelated to the issue, and (3) dependent on unknown information. Furthermore, objectivism absolutely accepts the proposition that certain things are presently unknown for want of sufficient data or information.

Indeed, the message inherent in the objectivist approach actually emphasizes not developing false conclusions at least as much as arriving at correct answers (Adams & Hamm 1994). In fact, rather than contradicting any of the other modern education theories, the objectivist approach might include many (even all) of the elements utilized within the constructivism and brain-based designs, but always within the overall context of demonstrating the objective logical relationships between information and data and any purported conclusions their examination and analysis support.

Selective Implementation...

The ideal approach, therefore, would incorporate elements of all in manner most suitable and practical for the circumstances.
Objectivism is a particularly useful perspective, even in primary education, because it enables teachers to convey the crucial message that the mind is a tool capable of deducing the truth given sufficient information. Likewise, its incorporation into the educational field actually transcends academics in that it offers a perspective useful to students beyond the confines of the classroom, particularly as they mature into adolescence and adulthood when they must distinguish logically valid positions beliefs from those that are logically flawed.

Brain-based concepts may provide useful techniques of stimulating a positive learning atmosphere, and constructivist methods recognize intellectual talents often overlooked by traditional education methods. While full implementation of multiple intelligence methods may be impractical, especially within budgetary limits, the implementation of its essential components is possible to achieve on many different levels. Ultimately, the optimal learning environment emphasizes logical objectivism as an intellectual perspective, active, hands-on learning as a method of effective instruction, and multiple intelligence theory as a mechanism of benefiting all students more equally, instead of rewarding only those students whose academic talents lie within linguistics and quantitative reasoning. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, D. & Hamm, M. (1994). New Designs for Teaching and Learning: Promoting Active Learning in Tomorrow's Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Forgary, R. (1997) Brain Compatible Classrooms. Andover, MA: Skylight Publishing.

Gardner, H. (1991) the Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books. Huber, R.A., & Moore, C.J. (2001). A Model for Extending Hands-on Science to Be Inquiry Based. School Science and Mathematics, 101(1), 32. Jensen, E. (1998) Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Schroeder, U. & Spannagel, C. (2006). Supporting the Active Learning Process. International Journal on Elearning, 5(2), 245.