Response to Objectivism and Education

Abstract

This paper continues the dialogue between David Elkind (2004) and Jamin Carson (2005) on constructivism. The opinions of both writers on this educational theory have been published in recent issues of The Educational Forum.

I would like to thank Jamin Carson for his careful reading and critique of my paper "The Problem with Constructivism" (Elkind 2004). Responsible criticism is always welcome and can lead to useful, meaningful dialogue. That is the spirit in which I respond to Carson's (2005) "Objectivism and Education: A Rebuttal to David Elkind's 'The Problem with Constructivism'."

The Meaning of Constructivism

The major issue raised by Carson is the meaning of constructivism. I indeed was remiss in not making clear the relation of constructivism to the real world. I don't know of any constructivist who denies that a physical world exists outside of our sensory experiences. One of Piaget's (1954) most important discoveries was to demonstrate how a child progressively constructs the idea of permanent objects that continue to exist outside of his or her experience. That construction depends upon the properties of the object and the mental activities of the infant. It is not that an external reality does not exist, only that we have to reconstruct it to know it. As Kant (2002) made clear, we can never know the "ding am selbst"(the thing in and of itself), because we have to understand it within our innate categories of knowing. This is in no way a denial that a real world exists outside of our experience. Perhaps reconstruction would help clear up some of these misunderstandings.

What constructivists argue is that the basis for accepting what is real and independent of our cognitions is dependent upon social consensus. Some social consensus is guaranteed by our species' characteristics. The adaptive range of hearing, seeing, feeling, fasting, and smelling is common to all humans. A hard-of-hearing American would be hard of hearing if he or she lived in another country and spoke a different language. A short-sighted person needs the same glasses in any society. There is agreement across cultures on what are good and bad wines. At another level, we can all agree that Shakespeare was a great writer and Mozart a great composer even though no metrics exist for measuring these things. As humans, we share interpretive as well as sensory adaptive ranges. Carson was incorrect, therefore, when he stated that, for a constructivist, reality is dependent upon the perceiver and that all knowledge is relative. There is a real world independent of our experience. Otherwise, we would not have the shared commonalities of experience just described.

The Meaning of Objectivism

Let us look at the definition of objectivism that Carson (2005, 232) cited: "Objectivism holds that one reality exists independent of anyone perceiving it, humankind is capable of knowing this reality only by the faculty of reason, and objective knowledge and truth is possible" (Peikoff 1993). This definition states that we know reality by virtue of reason, rather than through our senses. Yet, as I argued previously, it is because humans share a common sensory apparatus that we can agree upon an external reality existing outside our experience. Certainly, our senses can be mistaken and have to be corrected by reason-the perception of the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth are good examples. But, reason is highly fallible as well. One can reason correctly from false premises. For example:

Major Premise: All flies are bigger than elephants.

Minor Premise: All elephants are bigger than dogs.

Conclusion: Therefore, all flies are bigger than all dogs.

The reasoning is correct, but the conclusion is not in keeping with what we know about the real world. Disagreements in science and politics come from faulty premises as often as they come from faulty reasoning. True knowledge, therefore, cannot come from the faculty of reason alone, but only from social consensus as to the truth of the reasoning process. Objectivism, as defined here, presupposes social consensus-the basis of the constructivist position.

Critique of Teacher Readiness

In critiquing my three readiness propositions, Carson argued that I imply a causal relationship between readiness and the implementation of a constructivist educational system. However, he implied a causal relation when he (2005,233) argued that "a teacher must accept the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of a constructivist position before he can implement it." That is exactly the point I was making.

Carson also challenged my argument (2004, 308) that "teaching will become a true profession when it is based upon science of education" by contending that this statement is analogous to saying "teaching will only be a profession when it becomes an art" (Carson 2005, 234). That statement equates art and science, which are not the same. Science involves established procedures for arriving at new, verifiable knowledge. Observation, classification, and experimentation are the methods of science, not of art. My point is simply that we don't have a scientifically based body of knowledge that we can impart to all teachers which gives them skills and abilities that the untrained do not have. Carson (2005,233) argued that such a body of knowledge and skills does exist and is embodied in "most certification programs, professional development programs, and seminars. All of these presumably teach the same information and a great deal of it is of the constructionist variety."