Objectivism vs. Constructivism in Special Education Philosophy

Introduction: What Education Is and Is Not

What is institutional education supposed to do for people in the future? Education is something that happens now and should continue to happen throughout a lifetime. Institutional education cannot service every need or prepare a person for every life experience. It happens in the classroom through material and teachers, but it also occurs in everyday interactions with classmates, teachers, and other staff. Because institutional education is, by nature, an institution, the scope of experience it permits is defined and therefore limited. Education can help prepare us for life outside of it, but it is not a substitute for real life.

The purpose of this paper is to scrutinize objectivism and constructivism as they apply to educational philosophy. Any educator aiming to transform the ideal educational experience into a real one must incorporate both perspectives and practices into their philosophy of education and their teaching practice.

Objectivism in Education: Structure, Control, and Limits

Because school is an institution, there are rules. When parents enroll their children in this institution — and children have little choice in the matter, as school attendance is legally required — children must agree to abide by certain rules. I believe this is the origin of objectivism in educational settings. Objectivism is fundamentally about following instructions. In objectivist classroom settings, the teacher is entirely in charge and in control. The teacher determines what material is presented, how it is presented, how it is applied, and how students are expected to demonstrate mastery of the curriculum. Students are relatively passive and receptive in an objectivist environment.

In its most extreme form, objectivism in education produces something resembling an assembly line. Students become drones to be programmed rather than individuals to be developed. Independent thought is neither required nor cultivated. Creativity, curiosity, and other expressions of spontaneity and humanity are suppressed. As the saying goes, "If you don't use it, you lose it." This is painfully applicable in an extremely objectivist educational environment. That said, it would be wrong to conclude that objectivism is without value or entirely unnecessary.

For education to be truly effective, the classroom cannot be objectivist all the time — children will become disengaged on the inside. They will grow to hate school and associate it with the destruction of spirit and individuality. This is a reality in many classrooms around the world right now. For many students, locally and globally, extreme objectivism is their educational reality. There are multiple reasons for this. On an individual level, some teachers may simply dislike children, or they may be under pressure from administrators to maintain certain performance statistics or risk losing their jobs. On a larger scale, extreme objectivism in education can function as a mechanism for social control — preparing students to be compliant in a workforce that similarly demands obedience and discourages independent thought.

As Objectivists understand it, reliable knowledge exists independently of the learner, and the teaching approach relies on transmission — an instructionist model that is largely passive, teacher-directed, and controlled. Learners are expected to receive and assimilate this objective reality, and it is assumed that all learners gain the same understanding from what is transmitted (Lewis, 2001). Over the course of my studies, I came to realize that this is not the ideal atmosphere for a special education classroom. It is not practical, because the nature of students' disabilities may prevent the teacher from maintaining such an environment realistically. Furthermore, an excess of this kind of approach does not constitute education in any meaningful sense to me — it is instruction, but not education. This distinction became clearer to me over the course of my graduate program.

Objectivism in the Real World and Special Education

Objectivism in the workplace is most pronounced in corporate environments, the military, administration, business, and government at all levels. These industries make up a substantial portion of the workforce. They are strong and dependable, and credentials from institutional education have historically been sufficient to gain entry into these fields. So objectivism in education does have a valid place in preparing students for the real world.

Through my studies, I also learned that students with special needs may face challenges and disabilities, but it is unwise to underestimate them. Lowering my expectations to the point of not believing in their capacity to assimilate — to moderate or high degrees — within society does them a disservice and also fails to push me as a special education professional. I have learned that teachers must moderate and individualize their expectations and goals for each student. Some of those goals should include helping students learn how to navigate the social norms and practices that their non-disabled peers would encounter in school.

This objectivist dimension of an educational philosophy does prepare students for the workforce and for life — particularly for those who are inclined to follow direction across different areas of their lives. However, the control inherent in objectivism also makes individuals more susceptible to being directed by advertisers, corporations, and other external forces. It becomes easier for companies to dictate tastes, consumption habits, and choices when individuals have been conditioned not to think independently.

Objectivism in the extreme is bleak. It is, however, necessary to a degree. For society to function — especially a society as complex as the United States — everyone must agree to follow certain rules. Certain levels of obedience are absolutely necessary. We all agree to stop at stop signs, to pay for goods, and so on. I raise the extreme because extremes provide stark clarification. Objectivism and constructivism represent opposite extremes on the spectrum of educational practice. If we imagine an epistemological continuum, these two philosophies would occupy opposite poles in the philosophy of education (Lewis, 2001). If a teacher exercises an objectivist point of view, that teacher believes learners passively receive information, and instruction prioritizes knowledge transmission. I, on the other hand, believe that learners actively construct knowledge in their attempts to make sense of their worlds, and that learning and teaching should emphasize the development of meaning and comprehension (Hein, 1991).

Constructivism: Humanist Philosophy and Individual Growth

Blind, sustained obedience is not the goal of every industry, nor does it fully align with American culture. Americans argue and disagree. They are industrious, resourceful, and independent. We are inventive, creative, spontaneous, and collaborative. We value individual uniqueness highly. I believe this is where constructivism finds its roots. Constructivism genuinely values the individual. It is a deeply humanist philosophy that places emphasis on creativity, sharing, and the authenticity of lived experience. This seemed to be a necessity for the philosophy of education of a special education professional — without this perspective as part of teaching practice, teachers would experience far more frustration than necessary. I want to enjoy my work, or at the very least, not be endlessly frustrated by it. This is how my preference for constructivism developed as part of my philosophy of education over the course of my graduate degree.

Constructivism creates an ideal atmosphere for people to develop naturally and organically. It fosters self-esteem and self-reliance. It helps people believe in themselves and develops the whole person more fully. This philosophy engages both hemispheres of the brain. Students educated within a constructivist framework tend to be more well-rounded, and constructivism develops all nine types of intelligence far more effectively than objectivism alone (Hein, 1991).

Some educators speak of various forms of constructivism — radical, social, physical, postmodern, information-processing — each with its own emphases. What they share is a commitment to learner agency and the active construction of knowledge, as opposed to the passive reception assumed by objectivist models. For special education in particular, this emphasis on individual meaning-making is not merely a philosophical preference but a practical necessity.

References

Hein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Paper presented at the International Committee of Museum Educators Conference, Israel. Retrieved from http://www.exploratorium.edu/IFI/resources/constructivistlearning.html

Lewis, D. (2001). Objectivism vs. constructivism: The origins of this debate and the implications for instructional designers. University of South Florida, College of Education. Retrieved from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/agents/dlewis/publications/Objectivism_vs_Constructivism.htm