adlCommunity

Publication

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

A critical look at a number of instructional approaches relevant to ADL. Specifically, the authors examined constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching and find little empirical or theoretical support for these approaches. Reactions to this article for publication in this Newsletter are welcome. It is clear that the Kirchner et al, article will stimulate healthy discussion of the issues raised. We hope that it will not stop merely at discussion but also generate vigorous research on the issues posed in the paper.

Discussion of Kirschner et al. Article

Since I invited discussion of the Kirschner et al. (2006) paper, see reference above, perhaps it is appropriate for me to kick it off, especially since some people requested guidelines before contributing. Please do not take these comments as a model, but rather as one of many possible forms for advancing the discourse about an important topic.

Some time ago (1991) I was asked to comment in print on a set of papers featuring a disagreement between constructivists and researchers committed to an Instructional Systems Design approach to the development of materials. I announced then that I was a card carrying eclectic in that dispute, and haven’t seen anything in the last 15 years to make me change my mind.

I have been impressed by one aspect of the constructivist (let me use that term as shorthand for discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching that are the subject of the Kirschner et al., paper) position not commented on in the article. It has been claimed, most recently at the Games conference described above, and it seems intuitively reasonable that these approaches induce higher student motivation than approaches relying more heavily on deduction. On the other hand, I am unaware of a study comparing motivation on constructivist and other types of materials. If any of our readers are aware of such evidence, please share those references with the rest of us. If such references do not emerge, an empirical study of this assumption would be most helpful. Student motivation can be assessed in many different ways, and a comparison of learner motivation while students are working on the same content developed along constructivist and more deductive modes would be a useful contribution to the research literature

I am also impressed by one of the major points in the Kirschner et al. manuscript, namely that the constructivist approaches absorb a very large proportion of working memory, especially for novices. The importance of working memory in learning has been demonstrated by Kyllonen (2002) who reported correlations between six measures of working memory capacity and 15 reasoning measures that ranged from 0.80 to 0.88. He also reported a 0.99 correlation between nine measures of working memory and the 10-subtest Armed Forces Vocational Ability Battery, a test-usually also considered a measure of learning ability. Such high relationships suggest that working memory and general learning ability, or intelligence, are highly similar if not virtually synonymous.

Kirschner et al. seem to infer that constructivist approaches absorb a large portion of working memory, or general intelligence. One would hope that such an important assumption would be tested experimentally. Kyllonen (2002) also described a number of assessments of working memory. A study would be useful in which the same instructional material is taught in a deductive and constructivist mode, while assessments of the load on working memory are made as students work on the materials. Such research would provide much needed data to bolster the discussion about the relative percentages of working memory absorbed by the two approaches.

In summary, I hope that the Kirschner et al., article will not only stimulate rhetoric about motivation and working memory among the advocates of the various positions, but also lead them to conduct research to support the rhetoric.

References

Kyllonen, P.C. (2002).  \'g:\' knowledge, speed, strategies, or working-memory capacity? A systems perspective (pp. 415-446).   in R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.),  The general factor of intelligence: how general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Tobias, S, (1991). An examination of some issues in the constructivist-ISD controversy from an eclectic perspective. Educational Technology, 31 (9), 41-43.

Sigmund Tobias

Institute for Urban and Minority Education

Teachers College, Columbia University

The Effectiveness of Minimally Guided Instruction

The ADL Training Evaluation Team endorses the conclusions drawn by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) 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.” Minimally guided instruction refers to instructional techniques where learners must discover essential information for themselves. It has also been referred to as problem-based discovery, experiential learning, discovery learning, and constructivist learning. Kirschner et al. advocate direct instructional guidance (i.e., instruction that fully explains the concepts and procedures students are required to learn) will result in greater change in long-term memory of training concepts than minimally guided instruction.

Working memory is limited in duration and capacity when processing novel information. Minimally guided instruction burdens trainees’ working memory by requiring them to sort through irrelevant information while locating information that is relevant to their jobs. Working memory cannot be used to commit relevant information to long-term memory while it assesses the relevance of material. In contrast, direct-guided instruction provides trainees with material that is directly applicable to their jobs so working memory can be used to commit training content to their long-term memories.

Supporters of discovery learning focus on the benefits of an inductive approach, whereby individuals explore and experiment with the task to learn the rules, principles, and strategies for effective performance (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). While Kirschner et al. provide a strong argument for the ineffectiveness of discovery learning, the effectiveness of discovery learning as an instructional method depends on the amount and type of guidance provided to learners (Smith et al., 1997). As suggested by the term “guided discovery,” discovery learning and instructional guidance are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Within the discovery learning framework, providing learners with instructional guidance such as cues or prompts, or reducing the total variability of possible responses can help to address some of the working memory issues raised by Kirschner et al. (2006) while still allowing for some of the benefits of having learners take an inductive approach to mastering the material.

While more research is needed to compare these instructional methods, it is also important to note that the majority of the research in this area has focused almost exclusively on information or skill acquisition. However, for some training courses, key learning outcomes might also include changes in a trainee’s attitudes, motivation, and self-efficacy. For example, in safety training programs one of the goals is to teach learners safety skills and how to engage in safe workplace behaviors. In these programs, it is also critical that learners leave training with the attitude that it is important to engage in safe workplace behaviors. Future research should continue to explore approaches to learner guidance and examine not only cognitive and skill-based learning results, but also affective learning outcomes.

References

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Smith, E. M., Ford, J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design strategies. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 89-118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Traci Sitzmann & Katherine Hildebrand

Training Evaluation Team

Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Lab, Alexandria, VA

Rosenshine Discusses Kirschner et al.

I liked Kirschner, Sweller and Clark’s (2006) description of Ericsson and Kintch’s (1995) “long-term working memory.” I liked the finding that when one is using previously learned material the limitations on working memory disappear because one does not need to process the material quickly and I liked the finding that there are no limits to the amount of information that can be brought into the working memory.

But otherwise, I don\'t believe that Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2005) presented anything new about instruction. I don\'t believe this article added anything to the concepts of supported instruction, guided practice, and scaffolds.

Their “worked examples” idea didn’t seem any different from previous descriptions of the use of modeling in instruction, that is, instructional procedures where the teacher first models the entire process, with explanations, then the teacher only provides some of the work the second time and the students add their contribution, and, finally, the students do most of the work alone and the teacher helps. Indeed, their “worked examples” sounds like Collins, Brown, and Newman’s (1989) “cognitive apprenticeship.”

Their article serves, however, to raise the question about why this conflict between discovery learning and direct teaching (which they call “direct guided instruction”) persists in education. Despite years of research on instruction, and despite research findings such as those which Kirschner et al. (2006) present in their article, constructivism remains the dominant position of curriculum departments in colleges of education. The curriculum departments in colleges of education favor constructivism, and they are able to withstand those empirically oriented educational psychologists who tend to favor direct guided instruction.

The curriculum people always win. Constructivism is a lovely romantic idea of students pursuing their interests and learning on their own, and there is no force of data that can withstand those emotional ideas. Constructivism, after all, is not data-based; rather, it is an emotion about kids and teaching. Chall (2000) called such notions “romantic,” as opposed to “rational,” and apparently the absence of data to support romantic beliefs does not reduce their attractiveness to adherents. I’m surprised that after all these years people like Kirschner et al. and Richard Mayer (2004) don’t understand that the curriculum people always win on this point.

A recent manifestation of romantic thinking is the National Board for Professional Teacher Certification (2006). The standards by which the teacher work-products of their teaching are judged are constructivist. The standards were written by teachers and teacher-educators. After all, it is rare to find a teacher educator who favors direct teaching.

So, I thought this was a well-written article, and I’m glad when these articles appear, but by now, even I have learned that they won’t change practice.

References

Chall, J. S. (2000). The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom New York, NY: Guilford,

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),, Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.

Mayer, Richard E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction.  American Psychologist, 59, No 1, 14-19.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

Barak Rosenshine

University of Illinois-Urbana