Comparison and Contrast Essay: Positivist and Constructionist Theories
The positivism theory is an approach to understanding knowledge that bases its concepts on mathematics and science. He nineteenth century French philosopher Auguste Comte developed the theory in a bid to come up with an approach that he could test. Positivism includes the use of experiments, logical proof, statistics, and qualitative results to reveal and back up whatever exists. The theorists also tend to believe that with the development and advancement in scientific methods and way of life, they will find a solution to all the problems that face mankind. According to Whitsell & Shields (2015), the theory has developed from the 1800s to encompass such aspects as the unison in science, the authentication standard of meaning, and the pragmatist observation language. Constructionism, on the other hand, denotes an approach that holds that one cannot directly understand reality but they can acquire it from consensus or convention. A Belarusian psychologist Lev Vygotsky developed the approach in a bid to grasp child development and psychology. It believes that one should be able to build ideas rather than making observations or analyzing already existing ideas.
Both theories make sense although the constructionism approach is more plausible. In the learning environment, the theory denotes a teaching style where the teacher is more concerned with the process rather than the product. Such methods believe that everyone in the learning environment has some knowledge and the teacher’s role is to help them achieve such knowledge. The theory also expounds that various fields base on social construction. The scientific truths or even moral philosophy all base on what the specific community constructs as their realities. Some of the fields that elaborate on the theory include sociology and anthropology. Both believe that humans create all forms of social reality (Gunduz & Hursen, 2015). These could range from structures such as race, gender, and sexuality.
There are several differences that exist between the positivist and constructionist views. First, the basis of the positivist approach is the belief behind science as the sole generator of knowledge. The theory supposes that science explains everything that exists and what it cannot explain does not exist. Positivism believes that knowledge exists independent of the learner. The constructionist theory disagrees with this view and suggest that humans conceive and come up with the ideas in a bid to explain most occurrences. They further argue that even the idea of scientists and mathematical processes are all part of what people have construed. They, therefore, contend that there is not single excellent methodology to any form of knowledge. Second, while considering the learning example, constructionism believes that students have some basic information and teachers only assist them to grasp their understanding and applicability. Positivism, on the other hand, takes a traditional stand where it views the teacher as the sole holder of information and therefore, passes it on to the students. Teachers therefore, invest in the students and hope that they learn from them in the process.
The other difference between the two theories is that while positivism thrives in quantitative research, constructionism believes in a qualitative approach. The methods that the positivism applies includes predetermined approaches, close-ended questions, and numerical data. This instance differs from constructionism that uses such instances as open-ended questions, text and image data, and also emerging approaches. The research practises in positivism comprises relating variables in questions or hypotheses, using unbiased approaches, and testing or verifying information (Major, 2017). Constructionism takes a different stance by placing the researcher in the context of the work, focusing on single concepts, and interpreting their findings. They have an open approach and understand that some ideas may require the introduction of their value system.
References
Gunduz, N., & Hursen, C. (2015). Constructivism in teaching and learning; content analysis evaluation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(392), 526-533.
Major, M. J. (2017). Positivism and “alternative” accounting research. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 28(74), 173-178.
Whetsell, T. A., & Shields, P. M. (2015). The dynamics of positivism in the study of public administration: A brief intellectual history and reappraisal. Administration & Society, 47(4), 416-446.