Why Discovery Learning Doesn’t Work
In the paper entitled, “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching” Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark present empirical corroborating evidence attesting to the superiority of guided instruction over what has been called self-directed instruction.
The perspectives presented bring to light the differing perspectives that are as prevalent as ever concerning the value of various modes of learning. What this article neglects to address is the class of learning experiences that are not purely “guided” or “independent” but rather fall into some chasm in between labeled by many to be “self-paced.” These environments may contain a mixture of instructor-led (instructivist) activities and learner-paced (constructivist) activities along with varied instructional presentations, multimedia, and other learning objects. While it certainly is logical to deduce from the research that the features of guided instruction make it superior to other “unguided” opportunities, what level of guidance must be exhibited in order for a course to be guided? Can a course be both “guided” and “unguided” at the same time? I think the answer is a resounding “Yes” and we will see more and more examples in the days ahead of learning experiences that take advantage of the benefits of both.
And, as we see eLearning continue to evolve in the future and social networking becomes a more entwined into the overall online learning experience, will the incorporation of social networks transform what has typically been considered to be “unguided” instruction into a discernable hybrid form necessitate a revisiting of the ideas presented by Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark?
Comments
Leave a Reply