The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Constructivism as a Theory of Learning Versus Constructivism as a Prescription for Instruction
Abstract
Constructivism1 has long been recognized as a useful theory of learning in which learners build mental representations by engaging in appropriate kinds of active cognitive processing during learning. It is tempting to also view constructivism as a prescription for instruction in which learners must be behaviorally active during learning. While accepting constructivism as a theory of learning, this chapter examines what is wrong with this view of constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In particular, the thesis of this chapter is that it is inappropriate to assume that active cognitive learning requires teaching methods that promote hands-on behavioral activity during learning-such as discovery methods. Similarly, it is inappropriate to assume that passive instructional methods-such as multimedia presentations-cannot promote active cognitive learning. In this introduction, I explore the constructivist teaching fallacy by drawing on a distinction between high cognitive activity during learning (which according to constructivist learning theory leads to deeper learning) and high behavioral activity during learning (which according to a constructivist teaching theory leads to deeper learning). Second, the chapter reviews exemplary research on when active instructional methods lead to passive cognitive learning (i.e., high behavioral activity and low cognitive activity), including ways that discovery methods can fail. Third, the chapter reviews exemplary research concern…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“les chercheurs en sciences cognitives s'accordent sur le fait qu'il faut des années de pratique pour devenir expert dans un domaine (Mayer, 2009).”
From Enseignement explicite et développement decompétences : antinomie ou nécessité? (2020) · cites this paper as Mayer, 2009
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 1 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Mayer, R. E.
- Corresponding author
- Richard E. Mayer
- ORCID
- Richard E. Mayer
- Venue
- Constructivist Instruction
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2009-05-28
- Pages
- 196-212
- OpenAlex
- W2913114891
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 21.11
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Keywords
- constructivism, active learning, passive learning, behavioral activity, cognitive activity, discovery learning, multimedia teaching, instructional design, deep learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review