ADAPTIVE INSTRUCTION MARKET RESEARCH
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work
By Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller & Richard E. Clark
An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry Based Teaching
Review Summary by Venkataraman L.N.
Market Research, Adaptive Instruction
A great article with deep research based insights. The details on human cognitive architecture and working memory functions with the relationship to long-term memory are presented in good detail. The basis and models for the constructivist approach with minimal guidance and related research studies is well explained. The empirical data on the effectiveness of guided vs minimal guidance is interesting and also aligns to the personal experience to working with children who learn without or with minimal interaction with teacher(s).
Going through the 10+ pages of content will need some effort and time to absorb the ideas. For those who are short of time, I would like to highlight the seven key takeaways and some excerpts from the article. The link to this research article is provided below the header image.
Seven Key Takeaways
- Transfer of information and knowledge to long term memory is of great importance for problem solving.
- Problem based, discovery based and inquiry based approach without the needed knowledge and clarity of laws, theories and principles, increases cognitive load and results in poor learning.
- Focus on ‘application’ and ‘methods’ does not give ability to handle new kinds of problems. Foundational knowledge with standard pedagogy structures cannot be skipped.
- The practice of a profession is not the same as learning to practice the profession.
- Worked examples and process worksheets reduce cognitive load and improve learning effectiveness.
- Minimal guidance instruction actually worsens the score after instruction based on empirical research studies.
- Direct guidance in learning is the key to effectiveness of instruction.