Vs. Constructivism

This got me started:  https://ateacherswonderings.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/inquiry-to-what-end/

Which led to these:

http://www.deliberations.com.au/2006/09/bereiter-education-and-mind-in.html

http://www.wou.edu/~girodm/middle/Airasian.pdf

• Constructivism is so widely accepted because of the widespread belief that current methods don't promote "higher-order" thinking, because it allows for greater teacher discretion over teaching and learning, and because its rhetoric is sexy:  "lighting the spark" of motivation rather than "filling the buckets" of knowledge, all students can learn, emancipating the teacher.
• Caution #1:  An epistemology of learning is not a prescription for an instructional approach.  Just because a lesson is "hands-on" does not make it constructivist.
• Caution #2:  Constructivist techniques are not the sole means by which students construct meaning.  No single method should be used exclusively.
• Caution #3:  Implementing constructivism is time-consuming.  There will necessarily be more emphasis on depth than breadth.
• Caution #4:  There need to be clear criteria and standards for evaluation student constructions.  It's not true that all constructed knowledge is equally valid.

http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/Files/Courses_Folder/ED%20261%20Papers/Scardamalia%20Knowledge%20Building.pdf

• Distinction between shallow and deep constructivism: "The shallowest forms engage students in tasks and activities in which ideas have no overt presence but are entirely implicit. Students describe the activities they are engaged in (e.g., planting seeds, measuring shadows) and show little awareness of the underlying principles these tasks are to convey."
• "Knowledge building environments enable ideas to get out into the world and onto a path of continual improvement. This means not only preserving them but making them available to the whole community in a form that allows them to be discussed, interconnected, revised, and superseded." 
• CSILE/Knowledge Forum

http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2011/paper/CEUE335002011.pdf