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, 8:29 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

    Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, Richard E clark

    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, isn’t 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), 75–86.

    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.[b][center]


    Posts : 14
    Join date : 2009-06-21


    Post  lynnmonterozo on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 12:50 pm

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

    Group 5
    Alvarez, Efren Jr. F.
    Facto, Christian Jay J.
    Monterozo, Mary Lynn R.
    Nidar, Joy H.

    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

    In the world today, constructivism, problem-based learning and learner-centric approach are seemed to be the current catchphrase of learning. Use of these certain methodologies has its own application on different instructional situation.

    Kirschner P. et.al (2006) recognized that the above methodologies are considered to be fall under minimally guided environment for learners on which may result for having students’ misconceptions, incomplete and disorganized knowledge. Thus, ineffective learning will take place. Furthermore, Valiathan, P. (2009) presented different situations wherein direct or guided instruction would be very much effective and efficient to impart learning. Direct instruction approach has been found to utilize in situations where (1) the primary objective is the learners’ mastery of standardized facts, concepts, rules and procedures; (2) when the content and available resources are too many, and spread out, with a need to categorize, structure and translate it into more learnable form and (3) fairly large group size are to be addressed. In addition, direct instruction established improvement on students’ learning rate and much very useful in teaching primary pupils. It is also recommended to be use both on developed and developing countries in the world. (Gujjar, A. 2007)

    In contrast in the ample studies that presented on which direct or guided instruction has been very effective; The Center for Inspired Teaching (2008) obtained numerous literatures wherein minimally guided instruction such as inquiry-based teaching was chosen over the direct or guided instruction approach. Inquiry-based curriculum develops and validates ‘habits of mind’ that characterize a life-long learner. It fosters the desires and skills to acquire knowledge about the world. Students were given opportunities to take ownership of their own learning and lastly, it allows drawing connections between academic content and their own lives. Additionally, Phylis, M. et al (2004) accentuated that inquiry-based teaching inspires students to learn more, and to learn more thoroughly. Cheong, F. et al (2008) on the other hand, emphasized the difference of problem-based approach from problem solving approach wherein problem-based approach doesn’t required acquiring predetermined series of right answers rather they engaged in a complex situation and decide what skill need to be use in able to answer the problem. Thus, it promotes students’ self independence. However, Cheong suggested that problem-based approach must still combine with traditional approach for the students to face their anxiousness so that immediate feedback will take place.

    As we reviewed the studies presented above, various benefits seemed to show that either guided/direct or indirect instruction a learner would use have its own, good and appropriate way of application depending on one’s learning ability and how it was perceived.


    Kirschner P. et.al (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), pp. 75–86. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. retrieved April 10, 2010

    Valiathan, P. (2009). Direct Instruction Works! (Benefits of Expository E-Learning). Knowledge Platform White Paper. pp. 1-8. Retrieved April 10, 2010

    Gujjar, A. (2007). Direct Instruction and Appropriate Intervention for Children with Learning Problems. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET. 1303-6521 volume 6 Issue 2 Article 3. Retrieved April 10, 2010

    Center for Inspired Teaching (2008). Inspired Issue Brief: Inquiry-Based Teaching. 1436 U St NW, Suite 400 • Washington, DC 20009. Retrieved April 10, 2010

    Cheong, F. et al (2008). Using a Problem-Based Learning Approach to Teach an Intelligent Systems Course. Journal of Information Technology Education. Volume 7, 2008. Retrieved April 10, 2010

    Marx, Ronald W., Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, Joseph S. Krajcik, Barry Fishman, Elliot Soloway, Robert Geier, and Revital Tali Tal. 2004. Inquiry-Based Science in the Middle Grades: Assessment of Learning in Urban Systemic Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10):1063-1080.


    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2010-04-06

    Re: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work

    Post  aldrinvallarta on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 6:05 pm

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

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

    Group 6
    Aquino, Felix
    Sarmiento, Noel
    Magdael, Kaye
    Vallarta, Aldrin

    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

    In problem-based learning (PBL), active participation of students is needed to solve complex and concrete problems that help develop content knowledge as well as problem-solving, reasoning, communication, and self-assessment skills. These problems also help to maintain student interest in course material because students realize that they are learning the skills needed to be successful in the field (CTL, 2001).

    Moreover, students must learn to be conscious of what information they already know about the problem, what information they need to know to solve the problem and the strategies to use to solve the problem. Being coherent to such thoughts helps students to become more effective problem-solvers and self-directed learners. On the other hand, many students are not capable of this sort of thinking on their own. For this reason, the instructor must become a tutor or “cognitive coach” who models inquiry strategies, guides exploration, and helps students clarify and pursue their research questions (Arámbula- Greenfield, 1996).

    To wrap things up, the group staunchly believe that problem-based learning requires extensive scaffolding and guidance to facilitate students’ learning. Moreover, teachers who are using PBL should be knowledgeable about the structure and process of this kind of method to facilitate their students properly and make their learning experience and environment effectively.


    Arámbula-Greenfield, T. (1996). “Implementing problem-based learning in a college science class: Testing problem-solving methodology as a viable alternative to traditional science-teaching techniques.”Journal of College Science Teaching, 26 (1), 26-30.

    Center for Teaching and Learning(2001). Problem-based learning. Speaking Of Teaching, 11 (1), 1-8. Retrieved on April 10, 2010 at http://ctl.stanford.edu/Newsletter/problem_based_learning.pdf

    Last edited by aldrinvallarta on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 6:17 pm; edited 2 times in total


    Posts : 4
    Join date : 2010-04-08

    Re: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work

    Post  jerrick on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 6:13 pm

    Journal Response by GROUP #3:
    Juco, Melissa,
    Mananquil, Ann Marby
    Marasaigan, Iza Therese
    Medalla, Jerrick


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

    Teaching strategies has rapidly developing over the past years. It has evolving with the help of the innovation on our technology

    Hmelo-Silver (2007), define Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered instructional strategy in which students collaboratively solve problems and reflect on their experiences. The students are expected to develop their semantic reasoning, case based reasoning, analogical reasoning, causal reasoning, and inquiry reasoning, which lead to foster content knowledge, problem-solving, and self-directed learning skills.
    A study by Geier Problem base learning can help improve learning up to 14%. PBL touches all types of learning strategies. It increases the cognitive level plus meta-cognitive level, field independent and the learners become competent.( Hasanbegovic 2006). Problem base learning mainly boost the cognitive by elaboration on prior knowledge and active processing of new information.
    The real problem with this was a cognition overload and what they describe as the guidance-fading effect (Sweller, 2006). Early in the learning process, student may find it difficult to learn large amount of information in a short period of time which make them not to understand and not to analyze the information needed. Novice for example can find it difficult in problem solving which are needed in the PBL.
    Conclusion: Problem-based learning should be implemented in a gradual stage, for adult learners and it require general knowledge on the subject that will be discussed. The learning environment should also be designed to support and challenge the learner's thinking that will target the primary goal to support the learner in becoming an effective thinker.
    1.Hasanbegovic, Jasmina (2006). IGIP Course materials, Module 5 - Tutoring and Collaboration

    2.Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107


    Posts : 7
    Join date : 2009-06-21

    Re: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work

    Post  arneljamolangue on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 7:22 pm

    University of the East
    Graduate School

    AQUINO, Patricia Camille
    FADERA, Juan Carlo
    LACISTE, Chloe Anne

    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


    Constructivist approach believed that learning is an individual process, it involves “construction” of new ideas and experiences with what the learners already know. The assumption of constructivist is that learners construct understanding through group interaction and brainstorming. For students to change their old beliefs, the new ideas should appear intelligible, plausible, and fruitful to them (Liang, L. & Gabel, D. 2005).

    According to Piaget’s cognitive development theory, peer interaction is a source of experience that evokes cognitive conflict (disequilibrium) in children, and human beings all have a tendency to reduce this conflict and re-establish an equilibrium at a higher
    level (Liang, L. & Gabel, D. 2005). Cognitive development occurs when a younger, less experience learner interact with a more knowledgeable one social processes are then transformed into younger learner. Cooperative learning is effective in small-group and maximized learning and accomplished same learning goal.

    One good example of inquiry oriented approach is the WebQuest. Its an instructional tool for inquiry-oriented learning in which learners interact with resources on the Internet, develop small group skills in collaborative learning and engage in higher level thinking (Zheng, R. & Stucky, B. et al). It has two levels: Short term and Long term learning. The former focuses on learners’ knowledge acquisition and integration that can be completed in one to three class hours while the latter focuses on learners’ skills and ability and refine knowledge it takes a week to month in a class room setting. The inquiry learning approach is a deeper learning experience, wherein construction of new knowledge through critical thinking process takes place.

    Liang, L & Gabel, D. et al (2005). Effectiveness of a Constructivist Approach to Science Instruction for Prospective Elementary Teachers. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 27 Issue 10. Retrived April 10, 2010 from Academic Source Complete database.

    Zheng, R. & Stucky, B. et al (2005). WebQuest Learning as Perceived by Higher-Education Learners. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p41-49, 9p. Retrieved April 10, 2010 from Academic Source Complete database.

    Last edited by arneljamolangue on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 7:25 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : CORRECTION)

    Ma. Martell Reyes

    Posts : 13
    Join date : 2009-06-21

    Re: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work

    Post  Ma. Martell Reyes on Sat 10 Apr 2010, 7:45 pm

    Group 2


    There are certain factors to be considered in order to make learning effective. These contributing factors include the readiness of the learner and the availability of facilities needed for the learning process. Guided learning is also possible not only in an academic setting but also in the premises of work. According to Billett's research (2000), it was found that participation in everyday work activities was most valued and reported as making effective contributions to learning in the workplace. A positive result was noted after a six months of guided learning strategy done in five work places.

    Mayer (2004), debated that discovery learning or minimally guided instruction is almost likely worse than direct instruction because students often fail to have the materials that are need to learn. On the other hand he argued that discovery learning leads to the integration of new information with existing information, making it more successful than direct instruction. In addition discovery learning can be superior with more practice and less guidance provided that students are knowledgeable enough (Chandler, Tuovinen, and Sweller,2001).

    Both discovery and guided learning strategies their significance and drawbacks. The efficiency and effectiveness of both strategies depend on the willingness of educators to motivate their learners, and it is also part of the students to embrace the kind of learning that suits them.


    Stephen Billett (2000). Guided learning at work Retrieved last April 10, 2010 from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13665620010353351

    Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). Whened
    problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of
    Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588.

    Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise
    reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.

    Brunstein, Betts, and Anderson (2009).Practice Enables Successful Learning Under Minimal Guidance. Retrieved las april 10, 2010 from http://actr.psy.cmu.edu/papers/896/brunstein.pdf.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work

    Post  Sponsored content

      Current date/time is Tue 22 Jan 2019, 12:29 am