Looking at the different ideologies Positivism, Constructivism, and Critical approaches. At first, they all felt a bit heavy in the videos. But the more I listened and did some research, I realized these are really just academic approaches to how we shape our thought processes and ways of thinking.
When self-reflecting on where I fall within these categories, I think I lean very heavily toward Constructivism. I resonate with the idea that sometimes things are deeper than just data analysis or numbers. I believe so much can be learned from lived experiences and looking at diverse perspectives, especially when it comes to research in education. Being a Constructivist really resonates with me in my role at work, where a main part of my job is to look at students who are first-generation or come from marginalized communities. These students might not necessarily be the stereotypical college applicants, but I get the honor and privilege of finding ways to advocate for them and create pathways for them to achieve higher education. Rather than just looking at GPAs and SAT scores, I am able to review students as whole people, taking into consideration their adversity, resilience, and strengths instead of reducing them to numbers.
Thinking about the different approaches and comparing them to one of the questions I raised last week, the one that stands out is: How can college admissions reps better advocate for students who do not meet typical academic profiles?
Constructivist approach: This is how I would naturally look at a non-traditional student. I would consider the barriers they may have faced and the adversity they’ve overcome, using that as a way to justify their potential to thrive in college. I’d highlight the successes and richness of their journeys rather than penalizing them for circumstances outside their control.
Positivist approach: This one leaves me a bit puzzled, because how do you quantify adversity or struggle? How do you rank lived experiences? A Positivist approach would probably look more at the historical data of non-traditional students, comparing success rates, retention, and graduation outcomes between stereotypical admits and students who came from less traditional paths. That data would then be used as the baseline for making decisions.
Critical approach: This one intrigues me most. From a Critical lense , I would challenge what “college readiness” really means. Do SAT or ACT scores actually equate to success in college? Are there areas we are overlooking or placing too much emphasis on? A critical lens reminds me that higher education wasn’t originally built for everyone it was built for wealthy, white men. That history matters, and it pushes us to think about how the definition of “college readiness” can and should evolve. Now again, I will say I am far more aligned with Constructivism than the others.
However, I do feel that in order to have healthy research, you need to have a mix of all three. As much as I would love to say that everything can function on emotions and feelings first, logically we know that isn’t true. At the same time, we also can’t rely only on data and numbers, because human beings, and the world itself, are so much more than just numbers.
CHATGPT:
During my research I used chat GPT to explain the three terms and to explain the differences between the three. I also asked for Chat to give me characters from shows and tvs I know to explain how people with these types of methods would interact with people. Similar to how the videos did it just with shows I know!
