Kirschner, Sweller, Clark (2006) - Summary
Stephen Downes, Half an Hour, November 12, 2007.

I have been studying Kirschner, Sweller and Clark's paper Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. This is in preparation for my talk tomorrow at SURF Education days here in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Hence this short newsletter. Anyhow, this is the summary, and here are some readings (the published responses don't appear at all on Google search and are somewhat expensive). If you have anything to add... I won't be speaking until tomorrow afternoon, your comments would be helpful. (Hits Today: 0 Total: 1046) [Direct Link] [Tags: Books, Google, Newsletters]

Share |

Comments

Re: Kirschner

jsener, November 12, 2007

Hi Stephen,

After skimming through the paper, your analysis of it, and the myriad of comments related to it, here are some comments. There is a lot of noise in this paper and the related comments -- too much to sort through in detail on short notice. Much of my comments echoes other comments, but maybe there's a novel thought or two.

1) The title of the paper sets up false dichotomies:

a) PBL et al. are not inherently "minimally guided"; each approach can have different degrees of guidance, even the discovery method.

b) Failure to do what? In my own learning experiences, I have seen both types of approaches both succeed and fail spectacularly. You already captured this point to a large extent with your comment "if you are telling people what to do, then the best approach is to tell them what to do." So we know that minimally guided instruction is an inferior way of telling people what to do -- didn't we know that already?

It is not hard to imagine the shadow paper, "Why Maximum Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Direct Instruction." The paper could even cite some of the same sources, for instance the "poor" results in US science and math education. Of course, such a paper would rely on equally false dichotomies and not really be worth the trouble.

c) Why does it have to be either/or? It's as stupid as asking people to choose between phonics OR whole language, old math OR new math, when educators have been integrating both approaches for decades.

2) Learning theory is not my forte, and I haven't taken the time to grasp the intricacies of Human Cognitive Architecture. But doesn't it seem as if a model which relies so heavily on the concept of memory (STM, LTM, WM) also relies heavily on the idea of knowledge as something which can be stored in memory? And assessment as something which measures efficacy of memory retrieval?
I expect my computer to be good at storing certain things in memory, but I don't expect it to be good at solving novel problems. This paper and its model seem to assume that accumulating a knowledge base stored in LTM is the only path to problem-solving.

3) It'd be interesting to see what were the intended outcomes of the studies cited to support the case for guided instruction. I suspect that many if not most of them measured how well students regurgitated what they were told to learn.

I think the paper is useful as a departure point for exploring the relationship between education and learning. 'When is it useful to tell people what they should know?' is an important question. But it seems as if the paper is intended more as a weapon in a war (which I have no interest in joining) than it is intended to shed light on how people learn.

Hope this helps.

John Sener [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Kirschner

Anymouse, November 13, 2007

I've enjoyed reading your analysis of the 'religious war' between the rationalists and the romantics. As someone who is, above all, a pragmatist and who has tried all sorts of instructional strategies on numerous occasions, I have come to the conclusion that whwta we are really talking about is 'horses for courses':

- If I wanted to impart a coherent body of knowledge to relative novices then I would use a structured instructional approach, drawing heavily on the guidelines suggested by Kirschner et al.

- If I wanted to help someone master a practical skill, I would demonstrate the skill then provide opportunities for plenty of practice, with gradually reducing scaffolding.

- If I wanted to encourage someone to adopt a fresh perspective to something they currently think, do or feel, then I would have them participate in activities which would provide fuel for further reflection and discussion on the topic in question.

As a result, I don't feel under any pressure to take a position on one educational approach or another. Am I missing something? [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Kirschner

, November 13, 2007

Sorry didn't log in. 'Anymouse' is Clive Shepherd. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Comment



Title
Your comment:
Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.