Ironic that this [0] is the top story at the same time as this article is on the front page.
How can an academic be arguably arguing against Constructivist Learning Theory [1] without mentioning Piaget [2] or Papert [3], from the birthplace of Scratch [4] no less.
The author recommends, "design drills for it" but at the same time deriding project-based learning as simulating work. I cannot think of a better way to encourage stimulus-response coding than, "doing drills". Projects provide context, which provide anchors for knowledge. Projects provide a constant stream of problems with a motivation to solve them, the teacher should be there to guide the student towards the knowledge and skills to solve the problems as they arise.