Comparative Analysis Of Constructivism And Pragmatism
There are several commonalities and differences between the experientially-based philosophies of pragmatism and constructivism, especially those revolving around the perspectives of Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Axiology. How truth, reality and knowledge are acquired and utilized, are very important concepts to both philosophies, who place great emphasis on the individual’s experience, as key to knowledge of truth and reality.
First of all, when it comes to truth and reality, both pragmatism and constructivism gain it experientially, instead of through ideas. Ontologically speaking, in pragmatism truth and reality are warranted assertions and justified beliefs that are held until new evidence comes up rendering them untrustworthy. In constructivism, reality is experiential based, constructed through the interaction of the creative and interpretive work of the human mind with the physical world and temporal world of experiences. Thus for constructivists, reality as a construct of the human mind, is relative to the perceptions and activities of human mind and encounter with the world objects.
In the area of epistemology, where pragmatism sees thinking and acting to be indissolubly connected into one process, knowledge, truth and reality, who are not static, are acquired and constructed, then undergo questioning, refinement, then broken down and encoded. Truth and knowledge, which are kinetic in nature, are then promoted through the power structures and contested ideas of community social groups for trustworthiness. In research, the pragmatist inquirer recognizes the effectiveness of the scientific method, but at the same time realistic about its intrinsic doubts. In pragmatism knowledge intersects with the method of inquiry, where knowledge guides method, while in return, method also guides knowledge. In this vein, it is crucial for constructivism to be seen as the process where the structures of knowledge can be stored in memory and retrieved when needed, but the important learning happens inside the head of the individual through the mental activity of consciousness; thus in constructivism, the inquirer seeks to understand meaning within a given context by seeking a broad range of feedbacks and interpretations to uncover beliefs that generate personal and group constructions.
In the area of axiology, pragmatism places more emphasis on material things, versus spiritual and cultural values, whereas, in contrast, constructionism places value on both subjective and objective things and experiences. I believe that pragmatism is not conducive to learning, given its placement of values on material objects and personal learning experiences, while disregarding spiritual and cultural values. Moreover, in the field of education, there are similarities between Dewey’s pragmatist experiential/contextual ‘learning by doing’ approach and Piaget’s constructivist learning by reflecting and constructing our understanding based on our experiences in/out of the world and social interaction with others. In both philosophies, learning is seen as a contextual experience and a proactive process of social activity, where the teacher’s role is to guide and stimulate students into thinking and developing new insights by reflecting and connecting their previous knowledge and experiences toward their growth and learning processes.
Interviews with participants, observations, review of documents, interviews and data analysis. Several implications can be inferred from the analysis and comparison of pragmatism with constructivism, which used together can elicit a plethora of applications in education and several other fields. Therefore, few rhetorical questions that require thinking and action arise:
What holistic educational best practices that combine the pragmatist ‘hands-on’ experiential and contextual learning with the constructivist personalized learning experience can be employed together with sound academics to improve our K-12 and higher education curriculum?
Which philosophy, pragmatism or constructivism, offers the most effective and practical knowledge-acquisition and research methodology?
What is would be the best strategies educational professionals can promote the constructivist concept of verstehen, for students to develop a deep understanding of the meaning-making processes to allow them to forge shared knowledge and meaning in their lives?
