Constructivist teaching methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:33, 9 November 2007

Revision as of 19:55, 15 December 2007

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]] based instruction is often suggested by those subscribing to this philosophy. In developing this instruction theythese ofteneducators produce materials that require the learning to be behaviorally active and not be "cognitively active." That is they are engaged in the activity, rather than thinking about what they are doing. Finally Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) suggest fifty years of empirical results do not support those who use this type of instruction.

==See also==