Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Unit Seven Reflective Paper
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Unit Seven Reflective Paper


Published on

Published in: Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Running Head: UNIT SEVEN 1 Unit Seven: Reflective Paper Constructivist’s Perspective Lauren Fowler-Carter University of Houston – Clear Lake
  • 2. UNIT SEVEN 2 Unit Seven: Reflective Paper Constructivist’s Perspective As far as criticism towards constructivism, there are various issues that critics suggest.One criticism that critics charge is that constructivism is elitist, suggesting that this theory ismore successful with students from “privileged backgrounds who are fortunate in havingoutstanding teachers, committed parents, and rich home environments” (EducationalBroadcasting Corporation, 2004). This is an arguable suggestion, because depending on one’sviews and opinions about constructivism, this suggestion could be elitist itself. To counter thestatement about privileged backgrounds, the drive or motivation of the students should be takeninto consideration. One could argue that those from privileged backgrounds are more motivatedto learn than others, or vice versa. I believe that there are a lot of factors that can and should betaken into consideration before suggesting that constructivism is elitist. Another issue that critics have with constructivism is that when group think is involved,dominate students will have their voices and interpretations lead other students to conform to thegroup (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). The last issue that critics have withconstructivism that I will mention, is that by eliminating evaluation through formal testing,leaves constructivists to be “unaccountable for their students’ progress” (EducationalBroadcasting Corporation, 2004). The suggestion that the teachers that follow constructivism areunaccountable for the progression of their students could be argued to be a falsified suggestion. Ican see the points from both perspectives, but in a way, those who implement constructivism intheir classroom become more accountable for their learners progress. Though there isn’t formalevaluation for the learners, when they advance on to more intense courses and do not havenecessary skills that should have be gained with the constructivist instructor, then that instructor
  • 3. UNIT SEVEN 3is accountable. Also if there are many students advancing on that do not have appropriate skillsthat should have been learned in the constructivist’s course, then this instructor’s teaching stylesneed to be re-evaluated by a superior. Regardless of if an instructor decides to implementconstructivism in their class, they must equip their students with specific knowledge and skills inorder to advance on in their education without being hindered.
  • 4. UNIT SEVEN 4 ReferencesEducational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved November 16, 2011, from Thirteen: