From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IPs of Rock5410

  • 122.161.165.63
  • 122.162.42.242
  • 122.173.182.70
  • 122.163.77.205
  • 122.161.164.217
  • 122.173.176.47
  • 122.161.164.136
  • 122.161.165.254 ( copyvio)
  • 122.162.110.187
  • 122.163.3.59
  • 122.163.3.136
  • 122.173.176.180
  • 122.161.63.92 (was used for NIOS in July)
  • 122.173.182.241
  • 122.173.182.168
  • 122.163.79.29 (used for NIIT copyvio in July)
  • 122.173.178.55
  • 122.162.42.73 (used to request NIIT name change through "missing info" template)
  • 122.173.178.2 (used to request NIIT name change through "missing info" template)
  • 122.161.164.140 (used for move request in wrong date heading)
  • 122.173.176.63 (used for poorly done move request)
  • 122.161.165.152
  • 122.173.178.52
  • 122.162.16.204
  • 122.163.77.16
  • 122.163.77.205
  • 122.173.176.211
  • 122.161.62.93
  • 122.173.184.250


Pretend edit summaries

Other edit summaries:

  • "removed stupid flag" [21]
  • general tag fixation [22]


Constructivism learning theory notes

I think what should determine the primary article content is the majority position. The majority opinion is that the constructivist learning theory is derived from or based on the constructivist epistemology; constructivism is both a learning theory and an epistemology. The idea that constructivism is only a philosophy or epistemology rather than also being a learning theory is a significant minority position and should be included in the controversies section. I don't think that the minority position should determine the entire framing of the article.
This isn't a question of who is right or wrong; we can't answer that question here. Experts in the field can't agree, so the best we can do is show the controversy. I hate to say it, but what you personally believe has no place in this discussion. It's just about what people in the field say and do. If you want to debate whether it's a learning theory or not, start a blog and host a debate there.
The quotes and references below are just to show the majority opinion and that calling constructivism a learning theory is commonplace.
  • Search results: This is a very rough measure of popularity of course, but it's relevant to the discussion of majority vs. minority opinions.
    • The phrase "Constructivism is a learning theory" gets 1720 hits on Google; 68 in Google Scholar.
    • "Constructivism is not a learning theory" gets 1 hit on Google, none in Google Scholar.
    • "Constructivist learning theory" returns 2130 hits on Google Scholar.
    • The ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) database has categories for "Constructivism (Learning)" and "Epistemology." The "Constructivism (Learning)" category has 3414 items in it total; only 273 of those also are in the category "Epistemology."
  • Textbooks referring to constructivism as a learning theory:
    • Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 5th ed, Schunk, 2008. Ch. 6: "Constructivist Theory"
    • Psychology of Learning for Instruction, 3rd ed, Driscoll, 2004. Ch. 11: "Constructivism: A Contrasting Theory"
    • Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, 7th ed, Slavin, 2003, Ch. 8: "Student-Centered and Constructivist Approaches to Instruction" (see quote below)
    • Educational Psychology, Active Learning Edition, 10th ed, Woolfolk, 2008. "Section IX: SOCIAL COGNITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEWS OF LEARNING" (Although it doesn't say "learning theory" anywhere, this text refers to the behaviorist and cognitivist theories as "Views of Learning" too.
  • Relevant quotes:
    • "Theories of learning that focus on how people work together, either at a single setting or over the course of many years, reflect a perspective known as social constructivism." [italics added] Human Learning, 4th ed, Jeanne Ellis Ormrod, p. 180
    • "A revolution is taking place in educational psychology. This revolution goes by many names, but the name that is most frequently used is constructivist theories of learning. 'Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice, 7th ed, Slavin, 2003, p. 257
    • "There is little discussion of constructivist learning theory guiding the design and practice of distance education beyond the need for active discussion among students. It is important to clarify that we do not think that a different theory of learning applies just because we have moved to a distance environment." [emphasis added] Designing Environments for Distributed Learning: Learning theory and practice. Thomas M. Duffy & Jamie Kirkley, 2004. p. 7.
    • "In the constructivist theory, learning takes place when a student actively constructs new ideas." [emphasis added] Learning Objects and Instructional Design, By Alex Koohang, Keith Harmanp. 7
    • "Relatively recently, the field has experienced the strong influence of constructivist learning theory and a shift from teacher-controlled to learner-centred instruction (Reigeluth, 1996; 1999)." [emphasis added] [23] A Review of What Instructional Designers Do: Questions Answered and Questions Not Asked. Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, & Campbell. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1) Winter 2005.
    • "The constructivist learning theory contends that learning is a proactive and goal-oriented process..." [emphasis added] [24]Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Hiltz, Goldman, 2005. p. 192
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:WeisheitSuchen/Sandbox&oldid=328383763"