Objectivist vs. Constructivist


The realms of philosophy and education have long been in a continuous debate about learning theories. One such debate revolves around the concepts of Objectivism and Constructivism. These two schools of thought represent different interpretations of how humans acquire knowledge and understand the world around them. In this article, we will explore the differences between Objectivist and Constructivist theories, as well as their implications for teaching and learning.


The term “Objectivism” was coined by Ayn Rand to describe her philosophical ideas; however, within the realm of educational philosophy, Objectivism refers to the theory that knowledge exists independently of individual perspectives. This means that objective reality or “truth” can be discovered, and learners are expected to adapt their understanding to this objective reality.

In an Objectivist approach to education, the teacher is considered an authority figure who imparts existing knowledge to learners. The focus is on facts and information, often favoring traditional classroom settings and methods like lectures, quizzes, and exams.


On the other end of the spectrum, Constructivism is rooted in the idea that knowledge construction occurs primarily through social interactions and personal experience. According to constructivist theories, there is no single objective reality; instead, each individual constructs their own unique understanding based on individual experiences.

In a constructivist learning environment, teachers act as mentors or facilitators rather than authoritative figures. They guide learners through a process of discovery and reflection in order to help them build their own understanding. Constructivist teaching methods rely more on active learning exercises like group projects, discussions, problem-solving tasks, or simulation activities.

Comparing Objectivism and Constructivism

When comparing these two theories in terms of education, we can observe some key differences:

1. Objective Reality: While Objectivism asserts that there exists an objective reality that learners must align themselves with, Constructivists believe that reality is subjective and varies from one individual to another.

2. Teacher’s Role: In an Objectivist approach, the teacher is seen as an authority figure to be imparted knowledge to the learners. In contrast, Constructivist instructors act as facilitators or guides in the learning process.

3. Methods of Teaching: Objectivists favor traditional methods of teaching, such as lectures and testing, while Constructivist methodologies generally lean towards experiential learning techniques that engage learners actively in their own learning process.

4.  Learner-Centeredness: While both theories ultimately aim for student learning, Objectivism tends to be more teacher-centered, focusing on the dissemination of facts and knowledge from teacher to student. On the other hand, Constructivism embraces a more learner-centered approach by allowing students to construct their own meaning through exploration and lived experiences.


There is no definitive answer as to which theory—Objectivist or Constructivist—should be favored in education. Each model contains merits and drawbacks, and each might be better suited for different educational contexts or goals.

Ultimately, educators must decide which perspective aligns better with their personal beliefs about learning and adapt their teaching practices accordingly. By staying informed about these philosophies and their implications on teaching and learning, educators can make more informed decisions that will ultimately benefit their students’ growth and development.

Choose your Reaction!