Jump to content

Talk:Constructivist teaching methods

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations Lack Sanity (2024)

[edit]

I fixed and linked the citation for the final paragraph, only to realize the entire article is filled and cited in a crazy manner. If anyone can help out with these, that would be great. I also have a sneaking suspicion that some of these are either ripped from the abstracts or somewhere in the article (or a derivative article?)... only reason I could think of as to why someone would use such a massively overzealous manner of citing. If so, I believe it needs some formatting changes or additional framing text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislees (talk • contribs) 20:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Constructivism (learning theory)

[edit]

Should'nt these 2 articles be merged ? Chrisdel 07:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it should. Tneumark 16:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should remain separate because this section refers to the application of the theory versus the other one being the theory itself. The application of Constructivist Learning theory has a range beyond that of which is described in this section, and if they are merged it could be unintentionally implied that the only logical application of the theory is that which is described in this section.

No, if you read the articles you will see that constructivism is a theory of how people learn that does not relate to a specific pedagogy, whereas the teaching methods acticle suggests "learning by doing." -rachelss 24.7.158.213 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Any teaching method can claim to be constructivist. Ausubel is a very well known constructivist and his teaching method is based on the exposition of "finished knowledge" (i.e. traditional lecturing). It´s like calling an engeneering technique "atomic" because it is based on the atomic theory of matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.152.222 (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References?

[edit]

What research supports the idea that "As emphasis is not based on acquiring and practicing basic skills, students in constructivist classrooms tend to lag behind those in traditional classrooms in these areas" as claimed in the article? There needs to be a reference.

Yikes. The whole section that starts, "Current Confusion is an Accidental Paradox", is someone's personal diatribe. This is original research without sources. Dolsson5 (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly appear to be original research. If it is not original research, someone may restore it with appropriate citations. The second paragraph appears to be an advertisement. I have deleted both paragraphs. --seberle (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu & Simon

[edit]

I have deleted the following sentence: "* Zhu and Simon (1987) state that because the emphasis is not based on acquiring and practicing basic skills, students in constructivist classrooms tend to lag behind those in traditional classrooms in these areas." I will also delete the reference. I obtained the article and there is no mention of constructivism anywhere in the article. The authors propose a new method of teaching by example without instruction and claim it works better than traditional instruction. The word "constructivist" or "constructivism" occurs nowhere. seberle (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

The section on "Arguments against constructivist teaching techniques" needs work, though it looks much better than I remember seeing it a couple of years ago. Start with the opening paragraph:

Critics have voiced the following arguments against constructivist based teaching instruction:
  • A group of cognitive scientists has also questioned the central claims of constructivism, saying that they are either misleading or contradict known findings.[8]
  • One possible deterrent for this teaching method is that, due to the emphasis on group work, the ideas of the more active students may dominate the group’s conclusions.[1]

A few problems with this opening paragraph:

  1. What group of cognitive scientists? There is a citation, but you cannot tell from just reading the section what group is being referred to. If this is the lead sentence, why isn't this criticism explained in the section?
  2. What does the word "also" refer to?
  3. The expression "this teaching method" is wrong: there is no one constructivist teaching method, nor do all methods emphasize group work. (The subsequent section lists 14 types of methods.)

I suggest a deletion or rewrite of this opening paragraph, either more correctly reflecting the citations, or better yet, summarizing the subsequent arguments in the rest of the section. --seberle (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory information

[edit]

The inclusion of Piaget's work here seems to fall into the trap which is distinguished on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education) Whichever you way you look at it, they're contradictory. It would be nice if the two could be made consistent.109.147.42.177 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Constructivist teaching methods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Constructivist teaching methods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constructivist_teaching_methods&oldid=1241190395"