Authors’ Response: The M-N-L Framework: Bringing Radical Constructivist Theories to Daily Teaching Practices

Constructivist Foundations 12 (1):83-90 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Upshot: We seek to address several questions and statements made in the commentaries by elaborating on the four main aspects of the M-N-L framework. Before doing so, we discuss the issue of constructivist teaching in the context of schools. We conclude by hypothesizing on what would be lost in the M-N-L framework by taking constructivism out of the picture.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Toward a Model of Constructivist Mathematics Teaching.L. P. Steffe - 2016 - Constructivist Foundations 12 (1):75-77.
What Do We Lose If We Abandon Constructivism?B. Jaworski - 2016 - Constructivist Foundations 12 (1):73-75.
When Is a Constructivist not a Constructivist?T. McCloughlin - 2016 - Constructivist Foundations 12 (1):79-80.
Physics develops unaffected by constructivism.Helmut Schwegler - 2001 - Foundations of Science 6 (4):241-253.
Negotiating the Classroom.J. Richards - 2016 - Constructivist Foundations 12 (1):78-78.
RC is a Theory of Learning, not Teaching.A. Engström - 2014 - Constructivist Foundations 9 (3):314-316.
Author’s Response: Is God a Radical Constructivist?A. Quale - 2015 - Constructivist Foundations 11 (1):140-147.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-11-15

Downloads
30 (#519,519)

6 months
9 (#290,637)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references