E-learning modules for Integrated Virtual Learning

    Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work:



    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2010-04-06

    Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work:

    Post  ochona on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 2:03 am

    University of the East
    Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, Inc.
    Aurora Boulevard, Quezon City

    Group 1
    Castellano, Katrina
    Gonzales, Charise
    Galvez, Maria Lourdes
    Ochona, Zacchari Andrei

    Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching

    During the past few years there has been a flurry of activity exploring problem-based instruction (Spector, 2004). Krischiner et al in their paper, Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching; compared between minimally guided environment and direct instructional guidance. They identified discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning, experimental learning, and constructivist learning as examples of minimally guided environment for learners.

    The authors provided evidence that minimally guided instruction is likely to be ineffective and efficient than guidance specific design. Krischiner et al identified a number of problems with minimally guided environment such as students will acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge. They also discussed how constructivist theory shifted the emphasis away from teaching a discipline as a body of knowledge to making an emphasis on learning a discipline by experiencing the process. To support their views, they presented some current research supporting direct guidance and discussed how minimally guided teaching as in problem-based learning (PBL) and inquiry learning (IP) is less effective and of limited value to the learner.

    Hmelo-Silver et al focused on "What sorts of instructional practices are likely to promote knowledge construction or learning?" At some point we agree with the responses raised: two major flaws with Kischiner et al's argument, the first is a pedagogical flaw; PBL and IL are not minimally guided instructional approaches, but rather require extensive scaffolding and guidance to facilitate students' learning. The second is a flaw in evidence provided; that there is no evidence to support the efficacy of PBL and IL as instructional approaches. They presented evidence from current research supporting PBL and IL.
    Problem-based learning (PBL) has swept the world of medical education since its introduction 40 years ago, leaving a trail of unanswered or partially answered questions about its benefits. PBL comprises a progressive framework of problems providing context, relevance and motivation (problem-first learning), builds on prior knowledge integration, critical thinking, reflection on learning and enjoyment, achieves its goals via facilitated small-group work and independent study, and relates to problem solving only in so far as knowledge becomes more accessible and can therefore be applied more efficiently during this process.

    Mayer (2004) suggested that in unguided approach did not work, Advocate for unguided seemed either unaware or uninterested in previous evidence that unguided approaches have not been validated. This pattern produced discovery learning, which gave way to experiential learning which gave way to problem-based and inquiry learning, which now gives way to constructivist instructional techniques.
    In current research support direct guidance, most teachers who attempt to implement classroom-based constructivist end up providing students with considerable guidance. The most effective teachers introduced when students failed to make learning progress in a discovery setting. He reported that the teacher whose students achieved all of their learning goals spent a great deal of time in instructional interactions with students.
    Direct instructional guidance is defined as providing information that fully explains the concepts and procedures that students are required to learn as well as learning strategy support that is compatible with human cognitive architecture (Kirschner, 2006).

    Direct instructions involving considerable guidance, resulted in vastly more learning than discovery. While those few students who learned via discovery showed no signs of superior quality of learning.
    According to the study entitled: Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance by Brunstein et al (2009). The authors suggest that the high levels of practice made students more efficient at discovering the algebraic transformations. When the cognitive demands were manageable, the discovery students may have more often encoded the algebraic transformations in mathematically correct ways.
    Given all the different things that instructors teach, given all the skills they seek to develop, given all the different learners that face them, given all their different strengths as teachers, isnt it a bit of a stretch to imagine that either telling students or letting them discover is the definitive right answer? (Weiner, M. 2008)

    As far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners.

    Guide Questions:
    1. Which are you in favor guided or unguided instruction & Why?

    2. Do you think that problem-based learning (PBL) requires extensive scaffolding and guidance to facilitate students' learning?

    3. What are the benefits of guided or unguided instruction?

    Brunstein et al., Journal of Educational Psychology 2009 American Psychological Association: Practice Enables Successful Learning under Minimal Guidance

    David H. et al., (2004), Jonassen Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction page 673 - 675

    Kirschner, P., 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(2), 7586.

    Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA.(2006) Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kischner, Sweller, and Clark .Educational Psychology 2007, 42(2): 99-107.

    Neville A. (2008). Problem-Based Learning and Medical Education Forty Years On A Review of Its Effects on Knowledge and Clinical Performance. McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ont. , Canada

    Spector, R. (2004). Cultural diversity in health and illness. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.


    Posts : 1
    Join date : 2010-10-20

    Re: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work:

    Post  jamec9869 on Wed 20 Oct 2010, 11:57 am

    great post. thank for your post

      Current date/time is Mon 28 May 2018, 1:38 am