[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-603234-105":59,"doc-detail-603234-en":129},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":122,"head_meta":124,"extra_data":126,"updated_unix":128},105,"en","objectivism-and-education-a-response-to-david-elkinds-the-problem-with-constructivism","Objectivism and Education - A Response to David Elkind’s ‘The Problem with Constructivism’","","This paper responds to David Elkind’s “The Problem with Constructivism” from the Summer 2004 issue of The Educational Forum. It challenges Elkind’s thesis that implementation of constructivism depends on teacher, curricular, and societal readiness. The argument critiques constructivism’s underlying metaphysical and epistemological assumptions and defends objectivism as a viable philosophy of education, presenting counterarguments to each of Elkind’s claims and examining failures of readiness.",{"@graph":69,"@context":121},[70,84,104],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":15,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/literature/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/objectivism-and-education-a-response-to-david-elkinds-the-problem-with-constructivism/603234/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":98,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":99,"interactionStatistic":100},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/objectivism-and-education-a-response-to-david-elkinds-the-problem-with-constructivism/603234.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"moss~","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":101,"interactionType":102,"userInteractionCount":4},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":103},"ViewAction",{"@type":105,"mainEntity":106},"FAQPage",[107,113,117],{"name":108,"@type":109,"acceptedAnswer":110},"What is the central dispute between the author and David Elkind?","Question",{"text":111,"@type":112},"The author argues that Elkind’s thesis about why constructivism is not implemented is conceptually problematic, and that constructivism’s assumptions should be rejected in favor of objectivism.","Answer",{"name":114,"@type":109,"acceptedAnswer":115},"How does the paper assess Elkind’s claim about teacher readiness?",{"text":116,"@type":112},"It argues that Elkind links teacher readiness to scientific education, but education is not truly a science and teacher preparation typically teaches a body of knowledge that may already include constructivist elements.",{"name":118,"@type":109,"acceptedAnswer":119},"Why does the author critique constructivism’s curricular readiness argument?",{"text":120,"@type":112},"The author says Elkind’s language about “what we would like them to acquire” contradicts constructivist views, since constructivism treats knowledge and truth as subjective and relative, making objective ranking of knowledge inconsistent.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":123,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":125,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":127,"site_id":62},603234,1792095939,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":130},{"doc_id":127,"user_id":131,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":132,"doc_module":4,"category_id":14,"category_name":15,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":133,"file_id":134,"file_url":135,"file_type":136,"file_size":137,"view_count":4,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":138,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":139,"faqs":140,"seo_title":141,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":128,"read_time":142},962090895452,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Objectivism and Education:  \nA Response to David Elkind’s ‘The Problem with Constructivism’  \nby Jamin Carson  \nAbstract  \nThis paper responds to David Elkind’s article “The Problem with Constructivism,”published in the Summer 2004 issue of TheEducational Forum. It argues that Elkind’s thesis—teacher, curricular, and societal readiness leadtothe implementationofconstructivism—isconceptually problematic. This paper also critiques constructivism andsupports objectivismasaviable philosophyofeducation.  \nIn “The Problem with Constructivism,” David Elkind (2004) made several claims about why constructivism has not been implemented in schools. He argued that constructivism will be implemented only when we have teacher, curricular, and societal readiness; that teaching needs to become a science before it can be a true profession; and that constructivism is the only philosophy that will reform education. In this essay, I present counterarguments for each of these claims.  \nConstructivism is the theory that students learn by individually or socially transforming information (Slavin 1997) . This theory necessarily entails certain metaphysical and epistemological assumptions. To accept constructivism, one must believe that:  \n• reality is dependent upon the perceiver, and thus constructed;  \n• reason or logic is not the only means of understanding reality, but one of many; and  \n• knowledge or truth is subjective and relative to the individual or community.  \nOne philosophy of education that challenges this theory is objectivism, which asserts that students must be engaged actively in the subject matter to learn. This theory does not advocate, however, that students “transform” or “construct” reality, reason, knowledge, or truth. Objectivism holds that one reality exists indepen-  \n232  \nOpen Forum  \ndent 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) . I argue against Elkind’s claims primarily from an objectivist viewpoint.  \nFailures of Readiness  \nElkind’s main thesis was that constructivism has not been implemented in schools because of failures of teacher, curricular, and societal readiness. Teacher readiness requires that a teacher be educated in a science of education such as child development. Curricular readiness involves knowing exactly when and how students are developmentally ready to learn specific information. Societal readiness is when society is eager for educational reform or change.  \nElkind did not explain the causal relationship between these states of readiness and the implementation of constructivism. He only implied that a causal relationship exists. There is no reason to believe that a relationship exists or that any state of readiness would lead to a specific philosophy of education. A teacher must accept the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions of a pedagogic practice before he or she can imple-  \nment it.  \nElkind’s definitions of readiness also were problematic. When defining teacher readiness as having good teacher “training”—which comes only from scientific knowledge (e.g., child development)—he stated (2004, 308),“Teaching will become a true profession only when we have a genuine science of education.” Though education is not a true science, teachers generally are taught one unique body of knowledge. Most college and university teacher preparation programs, al-  \nOne philosophy of  \neducation that challenges this theory is objectivism, which asserts that students must be engaged actively in the subject matter to learn.  \nternative certification programs, and professional development seminars teach the same information, and a great deal of it is constructivist in nature or a variant of it.  \nElkind’s definition of curricular readiness also has problems. He (2004, 307–08) defined curricular readiness as knowledge of “what, when, and how the subject matter should be taught” and then claime","cbCaioFouq3a9PB8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioFouq3a9PB8","pdf",81878,"English","# Failures of Readiness\n## Teacher readiness\n## Curricular readiness\n## Societal readiness","[{\"question\":\"What is the central dispute between the author and David Elkind?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues that Elkind’s thesis about why constructivism is not implemented is conceptually problematic, and that constructivism’s assumptions should be rejected in favor of objectivism.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper assess Elkind’s claim about teacher readiness?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that Elkind links teacher readiness to scientific education, but education is not truly a science and teacher preparation typically teaches a body of knowledge that may already include constructivist elements.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the author critique constructivism’s curricular readiness argument?\",\"answer\":\"The author says Elkind’s language about “what we would like them to acquire” contradicts constructivist views, since constructivism treats knowledge and truth as subjective and relative, making objective ranking of knowledge inconsistent.\"}]","Objectivism and Education - A Response to David Elkind’s ‘The Problem with Constructivism’ | PDF",11]