<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Constructivist Versus Instructionist Approach to Teaching by Jennifer McAllister</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2018-11-05 05:28:00 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2021-07-10 19:55:04 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>hellojmca</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/300324386</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Welcome to our ETEC 512 Constructivism Padlet! Please use this online forum to explore the constructivist/instructionist controversy. Here are some questions to consider: Would you consider constructivism as a minimal guidance approach to teaching and learning? What are your thoughts on how novel information should be presented/transferred to students? What role does Cognitive Load Theory play in this controversy? What does guidance refer to?</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-05 06:20:19 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/300324386</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>hellojmca</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/300813248</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Remember to support your arguments using your knowledge of Constructivist Learning Theory.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-06 03:59:39 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/300813248</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/304609272</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>I never considered constructivism as a minimal guidance approach. Reading the two articles on the constructivist/instructionist controversy reinforced by belief of the importance of relying on more than one learning theory. I can see why constructivist educators that do not consider the cognitive architecture of the brain might use a minimal guidance approach. If they believe that students construct their own knowledge without understanding how the working memory works, they may undervalue their role as a guide on the side. Novel information cannot be learned if it is in no way connected to long term memory. It will be lost from the working memory soon after attention moves elsewhere. Cognitive overload occurs when too much new information takes up the working memory; it leads to confusion and can cause a loss of learning applied to long term memory. Therefore, teachers play an important role as a guide and facilitator of learning both through modeling and scaffolding to make sure students learning is connected to prior experience and knowledge. Teachers need to guide every new step in the learning process, every new task to make sure that students do not fall behind.                                               -Sarah Jones</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-15 01:18:03 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/304609272</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/305572926</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>I found this controversy quite interesting to consider.  The Kirschner, Sweller and Clark article took quite a strong approach.  They describe constructivism as having an accurate description of learning, but that, "instructional consequences do not necessarily follow" (2006).  I found myself agreeing with many of their observations regarding the limitations of taking a minimally guided approach to teaching, but feel that they took a very narrow position.  Like Sarah noted, the conversation around constructivist vs. instructionist approaches to teaching should take into account the need to consider multiple theories of learning when creating a personal pedagogy of teaching and learning. Constructivist teaching has many similarities to cognivitism - activating prior knowledge, applying new knowledge with feedback, metacognition.  All of these strategies are also part of a cognivitist approach, and show that constructivism cannot be simply summarized as student-entered with minimal guidance from the teacher.  Helen Rogan</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-17 18:22:14 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/305572926</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>hellojmca</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/306858328</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Sarah - Thank you for your comments! I agree that not understanding the architecture of the brain can certainly play a role in the way one might facilitate and to what extent. If you haven't already visited the Neuroscience presentation, I'm sure you'll find the information regarding the way in which the brain retains information, fascinating! It further fostered my connection between neuroscience and constructivism.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-21 21:58:57 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/hellojmca/cdvzl9jtsr76/wish/306858328</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
