I confess! I’m a hands-on person. I like the comfort zone that objective, skills based, competency based teaching provides. Everything is as close to black and white as is possible and my role in the learning process is pretty clear.

However, I’m also a thinker. I like conundrums, dilemmas and questions without answers. I like being able to construct my own meanings and I also like the notion that multiple versions of truth and knowledge can co-exist.

“Geeeez!” I hear you say. Where’s this leading? Well, the following discussion arose from my own observation that those grappling with constructivism and objectivism tend to think of these frameworks as dichotomies – mutually exclusive. I wonder if they are and if so, is that OK?

It seems to me that the objectivists view knowledge as something that can be transferred from teacher to student or from some form of technology (including books) to student. On the other hand, the constructivist camp appears to think of knowledge as something individuals construct based on their interpretations of their experiences in the world. 

I appreciate that the above is a simplistic interpretation of these two views however, it provides a usable beginning for a discussion.

Before going much further, I’d like to recount a conversation between two colleagues, each being strong advocates of technology as a vehicle for learning. The discussion arose when one challenged the other’s choice of online activities. The constructivist was unconvinced that basic plant characteristics should be learnt through simple labelling and match-it exercises. The objectivist argued that facts were facts and it wasn’t appropriate for students to “construct” their own.

Listening in the background, it seemed quite clear to me that both had legitimate points of view (that’s the constructivist in me) however, some learning seemed to fit into one framework more comfortably than the other and vice versa.

This led me to think back to my teacher-training days and Bloom’s taxonomy. [Refer to http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.html and http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html.]

The following table (http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.html) shows Bloom’s categories of level of abstraction.

I wondered if a link could be made between the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy and the appropriateness of either the objectivist or constructivist methods. To explore this further I referred to a study in the late 1990s that examined the effectiveness of different types of learning activities for the same outcome.

Wiedenbeck and Zila used the terms "exercise" and "exploration" to distinguish between what appear to be objectivist and constructivist approaches. Following are their examples of learning activities where the goal was to learn to use a particular software program.

Assuming agreement that Wiedenbeck and Zila’s “exercises” and “explorations” are representative of objectivist and constructivist approaches, I posit that they’re seeking different outcomes – or different levels of outcome (as per Bloom’s taxonomy).

The exercise would result in the learner knowing how to move graphics but arguably, nothing more than that. On the other hand, the exploration would lead to deeper learning about what happens, why and how might this be useful in other situations. Both are legitimate outcomes. The first is typical of the first level of Bloom’s taxonomy and the other more typical of the second level or possibly higher.

So, is it worth arguing objectivist vs constructivist, or should we be concentrating on the level of outcome the learner needs to achieve and construct learning activities to suit. By doing this, we would likely end up with a blend of both objectivist and constructivist type activities. Simply combining Wiedenbeck and Zila’s “exercises” and “explorations” would likely lead to a higher level of learning while ensuring the basic skills are acquired.

Is this appropriate? As with most educational questions the answer is “it depends.” I suggest that the learning outcome itself should be the most influential determiner of the type of learning activity and where it lies on the scale from objectivist to constructivist (see how neatly I have shifted from a dichotomy view to a continuum). A properly thought out and well constructed learning outcome should reflect the level of skill/understanding required and therefore strongly influence the type of learning activities.

Referring back to the title of this article - Constructivism and Objectivism – are they mutually exclusive? – I respond by saying “no”. I believe they are merely opposing ends on a continuum and, when used as a frame for designing learning activities, need to be considered in conjunction with a learning hierarchy such as Bloom’s taxonomy.