'Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, ....'

Downloads and links to relevant research and articles, along with book recommendations.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

'Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, ....'

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Tue May 15, 2018 1:22 pm

It's very good to see that this paper has open access:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... 85ep4102_1

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching

Paul A. Kirschner , John Sweller & Richard E. Clark

Pages 75-86 | Published online: 08 Jun 2010


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.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: 'Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, ...

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:11 am

Here is a piece by Paul Kirscher on the same topic - published via the researchED site:

https://researched.org.uk/inquiry-learn ... struction/

Inquiry learning isn't - a call for direct explicit instruction

By Paul Kirscher, July 2108



In 2006 Paul Kirschner published, with John Sweller and Richard E Clark, a now-seminal piece of research that threatened to blow the doors off an often-accepted orthodoxy in teaching: that students learn best when they discover things by themselves. They proposed that not only was this not the case, but that the best learning frequently took place when guided direct instruction by an expert was the main strategy.

Decades of research demonstrates that for novices (the state of most students), direct explicit instruction is more effective and efficient – and in the long run enjoyable – than minimal guidance. So, when teaching new content and skills to novices, teachers are more effective when they provide explicit support and guidance. Direct, explicit instruction fully explains the concepts and skills that students are required to learn. It can be provided through all types of media and pedagogies (e.g., lectures, modelling, videos, computer-based presentations, demonstrations, class discussions, hands-on activities etc.) as long as the teacher ensures that the relevant information is explicitly provided and practised. Minimal instructional guidance, on the other hand, expects students to discover on their own most, if not all, of the concepts and skills they are supposed to learn. This approach has been given various names such as discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning, experiential learning, and constructivist learning.

Return to “Research and Recommended Reading”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest