This paper examines two major epistemological frameworks — positivism and constructivism — and evaluates their relative merits as approaches to learning and inquiry. Beginning with Auguste Comte's foundational positivist claims that social phenomena can be studied through objective, empirical methods, the paper then explores the constructivist view that learners actively build knowledge through experience and reflection. A detailed comparison highlights their contrasting assumptions about truth, the role of the learner, and the nature of inquiry. The paper then considers special needs students and the role of assistive technology in inclusive education before concluding that constructivism better accommodates learners with physical and sensory disabilities by allowing individualized, teacher-guided knowledge construction.
In 1822, French philosopher Auguste Comte introduced the concept that social interactions, like physical science, could be investigated to draw universal rules to guide them (Kim, 2003). Until that time, religious beliefs and sentiments had explained social phenomena. Comte argued that the human world could be detached and analyzed in an objective way in order to find answers or explain phenomena. His concept of positivism could accomplish this through scientific objectivity and observation by means of the five senses. Religious beliefs and sentiments were, he argued, unnecessary and should be replaced. From this revolutionary idea of a social world — perceivable and measurable by experience and observation — grew the positivistic approach to research and learning (Kim, 2003).
Positivism assumes that the physical world and social events can be studied and examined in the same way as physical phenomena (Kim, 2003). The resulting theory, along with the principles and inferences drawn about human behavior and phenomena, are considered universal. Social researchers treat their subjects as separate from themselves and as having a distinct existence. The derived knowledge can be formalized by defining and applying different theories and variables, while quantified observations and statistical analyses are used to test hypotheses. Positivism sees knowledge as corresponding to truth, with both relating to an external reality: a given statement is true if it agrees with that external reality and false if it does not. Positivism also advocates the use of empirical verification methods, which are objective and therefore do not influence the process or direction of investigation. It requires the use of scientific language and the adoption of a value-neutral approach in arriving at universal and accurate statements and laws about the world. The knowledge distilled from independent reality thus becomes acceptable to reasonable minds (Kim, 2003).
Empirical methods reveal how the rational structure of scientific investigation is formally arrived at and tested (Kim, 2003). The study or investigation typically begins by identifying an inconsistency among already established theories. It then states a provisional finding as the question or problem to be investigated. A hypothesis is subsequently drawn to deduce predictions. If the predictions confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis is accepted as valid and as genuine knowledge. If rejected, the hypothesis is modified or replaced and the entire procedure repeated. Methodically generated knowledge accurately describes reality and is therefore accepted as truth — arduously achieved through the stringent empirical verification process (Kim, 2003).
Constructivism is another theory of investigation and learning, likewise based on observation and scientific study (Thirteen, 2004). It suggests that people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world through experience and reflection on experience. Each person creates his or her own knowledge. To achieve this, the learner needs to ask questions, explore, and evaluate his or her current stock of knowledge. In the classroom, the teacher encourages the student to use active techniques to create more knowledge. These techniques include experiments and real-life problem-solving. The student reflects on and discusses what he or she does and how it changes his or her understanding. The teacher remains aware of the student's preconceptions and prejudices, guides the learning activity, and works to address them by building on what is already there. Through this process of self-questioning and evaluation of learning strategies, the student becomes an "expert learner."
In the constructivist classroom, the teacher's role and the value of expert knowledge are reconceived. The teacher helps the student construct knowledge rather than simply assimilating and memorizing facts. The constructivist teacher makes available appropriate tools with which the student can formulate and test ideas, draw conclusions, make inferences, and collect and convey the knowledge gathered. The student changes from a passive recipient of prepared information to an active creator and constructor of his or her own knowledge, no longer required to mechanically absorb and memorize knowledge from a teacher or textbook (Thirteen, 2004).
Constructivism invigorates the student's natural curiosity about the world and how things work (Thirteen, 2004). The student applies existing knowledge and real-world experience in hypothesizing, testing theories, and drawing conclusions from his or her own findings. The teacher only guides, suggests, and ensures that the classroom remains conducive to experiment, inquiry, and scrutiny. It is a hands-on situation that demands full participation. The constructivist learner also reflects on his or her learning, discusses activities, helps set personal goals, and determines means of assessing them. By reflecting on what is learned, the student leads the way and becomes an expert in his or her own learning. Reflection is most deeply engaged in problem-solving, which is the primary activity in a constructivist classroom. The student uses inquiry methods to ask questions, examine a topic, and look for solutions. While doing so, he or she forms conclusions and continues to refer to them as exploration deepens. These conclusions are never truly final: more exploration only generates more questions to investigate (Thirteen, 2004).
The student in a constructivist class responds to new information in one of three ways (Thirteen, 2004). If the new information agrees with existing knowledge, the student incorporates it into his or her current stock. If it conflicts but seems more acceptable, the student may choose to revise existing knowledge and adopt the new information — an adjustment that may require considerable effort. If the new information does not fit and the student wishes to retain existing knowledge, the student may simply set the new information aside. Much new information remains in circulation: some unnoticed, some accepted, some rejected. At any point, the student may revisit overlooked or previously rejected information and decide to incorporate it into his or her store of knowledge (Thirteen, 2004).
Positivism and constructivism both seek truth and aim at gaining new knowledge, but in most other respects they stand opposed. Positivism assumes that truth and knowledge reside in external reality, accessible only through objective scientific analysis. The five senses deliver objective data, which are subjected to formal theories and variables, measured, demonstrated, and kept separate from the learner. These data are subjected to statistical analyses that lie beyond the influence or opinion of either researcher or learner. The process of inquiry uses scientific language and a value-neutral tone, testing previous knowledge through a rigorous verification process. The overall purpose is to arrive at universal laws about the problem under investigation. The decision-maker and verifier of knowledge is external reality itself, transmitted to the learner through the teacher and the textbook. The focus of the positivist classroom is that formatted external reality, which the student passively receives.
In contrast, constructivism assumes that the learner constructs his or her own knowledge from external inputs. Learning is subjective, personalized, and individualistic. The student perceives truth and knowledge as involving both external and internal realities, but it is individual reflection that determines what is accepted as truth and knowledge. The student asks questions pertinent to his or her unique circumstances and applies personal judgment to assess the value of the study or investigation. Personal language and personal values guide the exploration. The student can accept, modify, or discard any external information as it suits his or her circumstances. The learner is the sole, complete, and final decision-maker and verifier of his or her own learning and chosen knowledge.
"Policy, programs, and technology for disabled students"
"Argument for constructivism in special needs education"
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.