This document discusses criticisms of the constructivist perspective in education. It outlines three main criticisms that critics have with constructivism: 1) That it is elitist and only benefits students from privileged backgrounds, 2) That dominant students can influence others in group settings, and 3) That without formal testing, teachers cannot be held accountable for student progress. The document argues against the first two criticisms, stating that student motivation and multiple factors should be considered, and dominant voices do not necessarily lead others. It acknowledges the third criticism but argues teachers still become accountable through student performance in subsequent courses.

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 is
more successful with students from “privileged backgrounds who are fortunate in having
outstanding teachers, committed parents, and rich home environments” (Educational
Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). This is an arguable suggestion, because depending on one’s
views and opinions about constructivism, this suggestion could be elitist itself. To counter the
statement about privileged backgrounds, the drive or motivation of the students should be taken
into consideration. One could argue that those from privileged backgrounds are more motivated
to learn than others, or vice versa. I believe that there are a lot of factors that can and should be
taken 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 the
group (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). The last issue that critics have with
constructivism that I will mention, is that by eliminating evaluation through formal testing,
leaves constructivists to be “unaccountable for their students’ progress” (Educational
Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). The suggestion that the teachers that follow constructivism are
unaccountable for the progression of their students could be argued to be a falsified suggestion. I
can see the points from both perspectives, but in a way, those who implement constructivism in
their classroom become more accountable for their learners progress. Though there isn’t formal
evaluation for the learners, when they advance on to more intense courses and do not have
necessary skills that should have be gained with the constructivist instructor, then that instructor

3. UNIT SEVEN 3
is accountable. Also if there are many students advancing on that do not have appropriate skills
that should have been learned in the constructivist’s course, then this instructor’s teaching styles
need to be re-evaluated by a superior. Regardless of if an instructor decides to implement
constructivism in their class, they must equip their students with specific knowledge and skills in
order to advance on in their education without being hindered.

4. UNIT SEVEN 4
References
Educational Broadcasting Corporation. (2004). Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and
Learning. Retrieved November 16, 2011, from Thirteen:
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index.html