Cognitive Load Theory vs. Constructivism Theory in Mathematics Education
Abstract
Is cognitive load theory in contrast with the application of constructivism theory in mathematics education? No, it even makes the application of constructivism in mathematics classroom better than before. By relating to the theory of cognitive load that students have different ability in providing internal guidance, teachers will put more considerations in giving instructional guidance in constructivist classroom. The role of instructional guidance during the learning process which causes the contradiction between the two theories can be determined by understanding the level of students’ ability in thinking. Moreover, since in the constructivism theory students are engaged to construct the mathematical knowledge by themselves then the guidance from teachers can be substituted by students’ discussion. By combining the adequate internal guidance and students’ discussion in the learning process, it will result in a higher level of understanding.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The author's thesis is that there is sufficient research evidence to make any reasonable person skeptical about the benefits of discovery learning--practiced under the guise of cognitive constructivism or social constructivism--as a preferred instructional method. The author reviews research on discovery of problem-solving rules culminating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strategies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO programming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer. Overall, the constructivist view of learning may be best supported by methods of instruction that involve cognitive activity rather than behavioral activity, instructional guidance rather than pure discovery, and curricular focus rather than unstructured exploration.