Constructivist teaching methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:27, 20 December 2007

Revision as of 22:36, 21 December 2007

Line 51:

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 these educators produce materials that require the learning to be behaviorally active and not be "cognitively active." That is although they are engaged in the activity, ratherthey thanmay thinkingnot aboutbe whatlearning they(Sweller, are doing1988). Finally Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) suggestcite Mayer to conclude fifty years of empirical results do not support those who use this type of instruction.

==See also==