@article{citeulike:507553,
  abstract = {This article is a sequel to the conversation on learning initiated by the editors of Educational Researcher in volume 25, number 4. The author's first aim is to elicit the metaphors for learning that guide our work as learners, teachers, and researchers. Two such metaphors are identified: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor. Subsequently, their entailments are discussed and evaluated. Although some of the implications are deemed desirable and others are regarded as harmful, the article neither speaks against a particular metaphor nor tries to make a case for the other. Rather, these interpretations and applications of the metaphors undergo critical evaluation. In the end, the question of theoretical unification of the research on learning is addressed, wherein the purpose is to show how too great a devotion to one particular metaphor can lead to theoretical distortions and to undesirable practices.},
  added-at = {2008-05-30T00:58:23.000+0200},
  author = {Sfard, Anna},
  biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/274681fdf2d20c22bd9d3b17b4615f9be/yish},
  citeulike-article-id = {507553},
  interhash = {6918e41d97ad9e91413becac497e0b49},
  intrahash = {74681fdf2d20c22bd9d3b17b4615f9be},
  journal = {Educational Researcher},
  keywords = {aquisition background constructivism foundations instructionism learning mathematics mathgamespatterns mythesis participation theory},
  number = 2,
  pages = {4-13},
  priority = {5},
  timestamp = {2008-05-30T00:58:23.000+0200},
  title = {On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One},
  url = {http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-189X%28199803%2927%3A2%3C4%3AOTMFLA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0},
  volume = 27,
  year = 1998
}

@article{Kirschner06,
  abstract = {Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide "internal" guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.},
  added-at = {2006-08-08T16:27:37.000+0200},
  author = {Kirschner, Paul A. and Sweller, John and Clark, Richard E.},
  biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22c4ba38ac76e636417ccff9cf1d06379/yish},
  eprint = {http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1},
  interhash = {224f7370a7de0c1e3e49be5326e652bb},
  intrahash = {2c4ba38ac76e636417ccff9cf1d06379},
  journal = {Educational Psychologist},
  keywords = {elearning cscl constructivism constructionism instructionism},
  number = 2,
  pages = {75-86},
  timestamp = {2006-08-08T16:27:37.000+0200},
  title = {Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching},
  url = {http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/Constructivism_Kirschner_Sweller_Clark1.pdf},
  volume = 41,
  year = 2006
}