Constructivist teaching methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:30, 31 October 2007

Revision as of 17:32, 31 October 2007

Line 36:

==Arguments against constructivist teaching==

A wide variety of authors from variousmany field have voicevoiced the following arguments against constructivist teaching models:

* Because constructivism in the classroom depends greatly on student [[motivation]] as well as on teacher training, it has been argued that this technique would not be successful in schools lacking these resources.

Line 47:

A prominent group of cognitive scientists has also questioned the central claims of constructivism, saying that they are either misleading or contradict known findings.<ref>[http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/papers/misapplied.html Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education]</ref>

Mayer (2004) suggested "The research in this brief review shows that the formula constructivism = hands-on activity is a formula for educational disaster." His argument is that [[active learning]] instruction is often suggested by those subscribing to this philoshpyphilosophy. In developing this instruction they often produce materials thathat trequirerequire the learning to be behaviorally activieactive and not be "cognitivlycognitively active." That is they are engaged in the actiivityactivity, rather than thinking about what they are doing. Finally Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) suggest fifty ersyears of empricalempirical results do not support those who use this type of instruction.

==See also==