Paradigms Lost

Towards Integrating Objectivism and Constructivism

by

Johannes Cronje


SEE ITFORUM POLL #3 RELATED TO THIS PAPER

Abstract

This article proposes a model to integrate the traditionally conflicting objectivism and constructivist approaches to curriculum design.It is argued that these two are not opposing paradigms, but complementing approaches.A number of analyses of learning programs are discussed to show that learning events contain both objectivist and constructivist elements. Plotting the two approaches at right angles to one another produces four quadrants of conditions of learning. These four quadrants are discussed together with the rationales for each. Finally a challenge is issued to members of ITForum to identify learning events that are high in both instances.

Introduction

The traditional division of approaches to learning into objectivist/behaviourist and constructivist/cognitivist has led to a perception that the two are opposites, and can be plotted on a straight line. (c/f Reeves and Harmon 1994, 475-487). This would mean that any given learning experience would either be objectivist or constructivist, or anywhere between the two, but, essentially, as the one goes up, the other has to go down.
figure 1 – Objectivism opposite to Constructivism

Behaviourism
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Constructivism
The problem with this approach is that, while it may place learning that is low on both careful behaviourist stimulus-response methodology and well-scaffolded constructivism, it does not accommodate events that may be high on both.

If, however, these two approaches are seen as complementary rather than opposing, then they could be placed at right angles to one another.

figure 2 – Objectivism complementary to Constructivism 

Objectivism
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Constructivism
This integrative approach allows a learning event to be seen as both highly constructivist and highly behaviourist, without the one reducing the other.

Background

Objectivism and Constructivism are traditionally seen as opposites to each other and authors often speak of a ‘pendulum’ that swings from the one extreme to the other (Kilfoil and Van Der Walt 19__). Depending on their stance they may then either plead for support for one side or the other, or they may advocate taking a middle path.
Once the division has been made, it is often refined in a way similar to Reigeluth 1996.

 
Table 1 – Shift from an industrial age to an information age (Reigeluth, 1996)
INDUSTRIAL AGE
INFORMATION AGE
Standardisation
Customisation
Centralised control
Autonomy with accountability
Adversarial relationships
Co-operative relationships
Autocratic decision making
Shared decision making
Compliance
Initiative
Conformity
Diversity
One-way communications
Networking
Compartmentalism
Holism
Parts-oriented
Process-oriented
Teacher as “king”
Learner (customer) as “king”

As can be seen from Reigeluth’s (1996) table, the two opposites are often linked to time, and one is refereed to as the ‘old’ and the other the ‘new’ ‘paradigm’.

Reeves and Harmon (1994) make a similar divison.
 
Table 2 - Old and new pedagogical dimensions (extracted from Reeves and Harmon, 1994)
Category
Old
New
Epistemology
Objectivism
Constructivism
Pedagogical philosophy
Instructionist
Constructivist
Underlying philosophy
Behaviourist
Cognitivist
Instructional sequencing
Reductionist
Constructivist
Role of instructor
Authoritarian
Egalitarian
Value of errors
Errorless learning
Learning from experience
Motivation
Extrinsic
Intrinsic
Structure
High
Low
Learner control
Non existent
Unrestricted
User-activity
Mathemagenic
Generative
Accommodation of individual differences
Non-existent
Multi-faceted
Co-operative learning
Unsupported
Integral

This division also finds its way into the writing of government educational departments.
 
Table 3 Shift in government focus (South Africa, 1997a:29 ; 1997b:6-7)
Old
New
Passive learners
Active learners
Exam-driven
Learners are assessed on an on-going basis
Rote-learning
critical thinking, reasoning, reflection and action
Syllabus is content-based and broken down into subjects
An integration of knowledge; learning relevant and connected to real-life situations
Sees syllabus as rigid and non-negotiable
Learning programmes seen as guides that allow teachers to be innovative and creative in designing programmes
Emphasis on what the teacher hopes to achieve
Emphasis on outcomes – what learner becomes and understands
Behavioural approach to learning and assessment
Cognitive approach to learning and assessment
Assessment of isolated knowledge or discrete skills
Knowledge, abilities, thinking processes, metacognition and affect assessed.
Individual learning and products
Collaborative learning and products

The tension between the two approaches has led to frequent debate (Cook 1993:62-77; Phillips 1995:5-12;von Glasersfeld, 1996:19; Lebow, 1993, 4-15).

The problem

The problem with debate is that one side has to win.That means the other side has to lose. Educators fear that when one side is emphasized, it will lead to the eradication of the other. 
The same debate has been raging in the field of research theory. Burrel and Morgan (1979) point out that undue emphasis on the one or the other can lead to reduced effectiveness.

The question, therefore, is
 
How can objectivism and constructivism be integrated into a complementary whole?

The main sub-question to this would be 
 
Can it be shown that some learning events are high in both objectivist and constructivist characteristics?

If it can be shown, then it holds that the two cannot be opposites.

Towards integration

Burrel and Morgan (1979) divide the assumptions about the nature of social science into an ontological dimension that ranges from regulation to radical change, and an epistemological dimension ranging from subjective to objective. They then integrate the two dimensions into four quadrants as shown in figure 3.

 
figure 3 - Four paradigms for the analysis of social theory. (Burrell and Morgan 1979:22)
SOCIOLOGY OF RADICAL CHANGE

SUBJECTIVE
Radical humanist
Radical structuralist
OBJECTIVE
Interpretevist
Funtionalist
SOCIOLOGY OF REGULATION

If the same approach is applied to the objectivist/constructivist dichotomy, four quadrants emerge as shown in figure 4.

<
figure 4 – Four quadrants of teaching and learning

 

Objectivism
10
9