Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Minimal Guidance During Instruction

Introduction

Following evidence and research-based practices is a key feature of the teaching

profession (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2011).

International policies and practices influence individual countries and states in the practices

that they adopt in their systems for the improvement of educational outcomes (Scott et al.,

2018; Tan, 2017). Various challenges can arise from adopting certain approaches, even

though they may be utilized internationally, hence, it is important to focus on authentic

research which highlights effective practices (Tan, 2017). The research article by Kirschner,

Sweller, and Clark (2006) emphasise the importance of following evidence-based practices

for teaching, and analysing evidence on popular pedagogical methods. Their

recommendations for practice are applicable across subjects, and have been used to alter the

lesson plan on developing problem-solving skills for stage 3 and 4 mathematics classes

developed by Castle (2014).

Context and Significance

Scholarly debates about which pedagogical approaches work in educational settings

consistently arise in response to static or depleting educational outcomes. Despite age old

debates on the constructivist vs. direct teaching methods (Null, 2004), confusion about both

methods and their effectiveness in the classroom has been brought to public attention in

recent times (Donnelly, 2018; Holland, 2015). Constructivism comes from an understanding

that knowledge is not something to be obtained, but something which is constructed by

individuals (Null, 2004). Constructivist views arose from past understandings by Rousseau

and others about the importance of providing children with the chance to direct their own

learning (Null, 2004). This view opposes traditional methods of teaching (Direct/Explicit
instruction) which include lecture-only classes, memorisation etc. and in recent times, it aims

to foster deep knowledge in students which seemingly traditional methods have been unable

to develop (Scott et al. 2018).

Various research articles have been published which demonstrate the effectiveness or

lack thereof of both approaches, advocating for the use of one over the other (Scott, Smith,

Chi & Friesen, 2018). Furthermore, the NSW Department of Education (n.d.) validates and

provides resources on methods which relate to both constructivist and direct instruction

approaches (e.g. Experiential and Explicit learning). In addition, the NSW Quality Teaching

Model was developed in light of a constructivist pedagogy, with a focus on student-direction

and integration of student experiences and cultural knowledge whilst also pointing out the

importance of explicit methods (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation [CESE],

2013). The above may seem to be quite conflicting and not very informative for teacher

practice, but this feature of complexity in educational research has been highlighted in the

report by the CESE (2013), stating that at times educational research is “inconsistent,

inadequate or non-existent” (p. 19).

Moreover, the advocacy of both approaches has been prevalent in all subjects

including mathematics, which has been prominently viewed as an explicit-method based

subject (Bano, Zowghi, Kearney, Schuck & Aubusson, 2018). Various constructivist methods

have been introduced to the subject, including Project/Problem -based learning (PBL) and

inquiry learning (Bano et al. 2018; Capaldi, 2015). The main purposes for the implementation

of constructivist methods to this generally traditional subject is to increase engagement and

enhance mathematical understandings (Capaldi, 2015). Pedagogical practices have one of the

most significant effects on student learning and engagement (Gore, 2007). With various

conflicting sources on the topic, it is important for teachers to be critical readers of research

to implement evidence-based practices in their classroom. The important question arises as to


whether these ‘new’ methods do benefit students or if they in fact have negative

consequences on student learning.

Critical Summary

The research article “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An

analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-

based teaching” by Kirschner et al. (2006) reviews the evidence concerning the effectiveness

of constructivist instructional methods in classroom practices in comparison to direct

instruction. The authors reviewed 50 years of empirical research, and using a human

cognitive architecture theory aimed to demonstrate that instructional methods based on

constructivist views for novice to intermediate learners are ineffective and sometimes

detrimental to educational outcomes. Consequently, their argument also provides evidence

for the benefit of direct/explicit instruction over constructivist methods.

The research article has been conducted in the form of a professional literature

review. According to Ullman (2015), a professional literature review discusses one

educational topic by “synthesizing” a range of articles on the topic in an aim to “draw

implications for improving educational practice” (p. 56). Kirschner et al. (2006) did not

provide detail about their search procedures and how they located the articles which they

synthesized, which is a general feature of professional literature reviews (Ullman, 2015). This

omission of search procedures, however, develops doubt as to the comprehensiveness of the

review, the criteria used for article selection and how balanced the review may be in terms of

providing a range of views on the topic area (Ullman, 2015, p. 77). Looking at the article,

however, it does overall demonstrate a breadth of search in terms of time and sources as well

as a commitment to empirical research (Kirschner et al. 2006). In terms of topic breadth, it

has a strong focus on research in mathematics and science areas with multiple research
articles and examples provided in those subject areas e.g. PBL in medicine & inquiry-based

instruction in science (Kirschner et al. 2006). Hence, it could be argued that the

recommendations provided about methods of instruction may be more applicable to

education in the science and mathematical fields.

It is common for low-experienced researchers to publish professional literature

reviews; hence, it is important to establish the authority and credentials of the articles authors

to ensure it is authoritative (Ullman, 2015). In this article, the authors are well-known in the

field of educational psychology and have experience in studying the effectiveness of

instructional methods in education. The article itself references the authors own work as part

of the literature at times, but also includes various other authors’ works which provide further

evidence and support to their arguments e.g. Worked example effect (Kirschner et al. 2015).

Although the articles reviewed were current for the time it was published, the

literature review now dates to over a decade. According to Ullman (2015), due to the lack of

rigor and emphasis on methodology in a professional literature review, many times the

findings and recommendations are only relevant for its time. However, looking at some

research articles on the benefits of direct instruction over constructivist methods in more

recent times, it seems that the findings of Kirschner et al. (2006) have been further supported

by research evidence (Centre of Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2015; Rosenshine,

2012).

Although the article lacks the structure and explicit mention of search procedures

present in quality research articles, the goal of this article to recommend evidence-based

teaching practices in a simple manner has generally been achieved. Kirschner et al. (2006)

have demonstrated how various empirical articles argue for guidance in instruction rather

than minimal guidance. Hence the authors recommend that teachers employ direct/explicit
instructional methods which they define 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” (p. 75). In the article some

examples are provided which include worked examples and process worksheets (p. 80). In

line with this, the authors recommend teachers avoid constructivist instructional methods

such as PBL, Inquiry-learning etc. and suggest a focus on explicit teaching of discipline

processes (science and mathematics) rather than a ‘discovery’ of such processes through

experiences (p. 84).

Lesson Plan Revisions

The lesson plan “Patch wants to fly, problem solving lesson plan” (Castle, 2014) was

obtained from the Australian Curriculum Lessons website, and can be used to demonstrate

the use of Kirschner et al.’s (2006) recommendations for practice. The lesson plan aims to

develop students’ problem-solving skills using mathematical operations and unit conversions.

It does this through a problem-solving activity which involves a hypothetical scenario that

students must engage with. It specifically addresses outcomes in the year 6 Australian

curriculum, but is also applicable to year 4, 5 and 7 (Castle, 2014).

Kirschner et al. (2006) states that one of the underlying assumptions of constructivist

instructional methods is “that knowledge can best be acquired through experience based on

the procedures of the discipline” (p. 76). The lesson plan has been designed with a

constructivist outlook, with no instruction provided by the teacher about unit conversions or

mathematical operations, but rather the students use and learn those strategies by working

through a problem-based scenario (Castle, 2014). One of the main arguments of the review

by Kirschner et al. (2006) is that it is ineffective for novices to engage in such tasks (specific

mentions of mathematics and science subjects), undertaking procedures without explicit


instruction initially, as, contrary to the constructivist perspective, teaching instructions should

explicitly explain to students the disciplines’ procedures rather than be in the form of the

disciplines’ procedures. Hence, the lesson plan will be altered using the understandings of

Kirschner et al. (2006) about direct instructional methods in favour of the constructivist

methods currently in place.

The lesson plan activity contains no instructional guidance on approaching the question

by the teacher. Only the scenario is provided to the students and they are expected to devise

their own strategies to solve the problem which, after the lesson, will be brought forth in a

class discussion (Castle, 2014). Without prior knowledge of how to solve such problems this

lesson plan would be ineffective for novice and fail to increase their problem-solving skills in

similar situations (Krischner et al., 2006). Rosenshine (2012) describes the importance of

providing quality time explicitly teaching content before giving students time to work on

problems. He draws on research in mathematics which indicated the effectiveness of teachers

who spent more time on explicit instruction of mathematical steps and engaging with the

students over teachers that allowed students more time on solving problems independently

(Rosenshine, 2012).

To achieve best practices from the lesson plan, there should be an inclusion of direct

instructional guidance from the teacher about the procedures that are to be used in the

problem-solving scenario (Kirschner et al., 2006; Rosenshine, 2012). At the start of the

lesson activity, the teacher should explicitly teach or review (if previously learned) the

methods of unit conversions (mass, currency, percentages, fractions). When providing the

students with the problem-solving scenario, teachers should also provide guidance through

process worksheets. In this case, it would be useful to indicate the rules related to unit

conversions (e.g. 1kg = 1000g) as “hints or rules of thumb” that can assist students

(Kirschner, 2006, p. 80). These changes emphasise the role of the teacher as a strong guide in
the learning process of students, providing them with the knowledge they require to solve

mathematical problems.

Furthermore, another key issue in the lesson plan is the lack of instructional methods that

align with human cognitive architecture as described in Kirschner et al. (2006). The lesson

plan activity focuses students’ attention on solving one scenario and discussing the students

range of strategies used for this purpose. It does not demonstrate how such problem-solving

practices are going to be retrieved into the students’ long-term memory through continuous

practice and automation (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003). According to Kirschner et al.

(2006), altering long-term memory to store information within it is the main purpose of

learning, by which information is no longer required to be processed as ‘new’ information

each time in working memory, causing unnecessary load, but rather automatically retrieved

from long-term memory schemas. Hence, instructional methods which do not focus on this

purpose are deemed ineffective (Kirschner et al., 2006).

The lesson plan would improve through the inclusion of instructional methods that are

“compatible with human cognitive architecture” (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 75). Worked

examples can assist students in acquiring “problem-solving schemas” (Chi, Glaser, & Rees as

cited in Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 80). They do not cause unnecessary load on working

memory, and provide a basis for students to practice and understand how to solve problems

(Kirschner et al., 2006). In the lesson plan, worked examples on unit conversions should be

provided to students to study, detailing the various steps required to answer the problem (see

Appendix). Worked examples are applicable to various mathematics lessons, as numerous

calculations involve detailed steps and formulas that can be articulated in worked examples.

This was similarly demonstrated in Cooper and Sweller’s (1987) study demonstrating the

effectiveness of worked examples in algebra topics.


Conclusion

In conclusion, the importance of teachers following evidence-based practices has been

emphasised in recent times with the increased need to improve student performance. Given

that the area of educational research is quite complex, various topics of research are quite

controversial. This includes the debate surrounding direct instruction vs. constructivist

instructional methods. Kirschner et al. (2006) have successfully drawn out evidence-based

practices to the teaching profession, indicating the effectiveness of direct instructional

methods over minimally-guided instruction. The implications of this study have been evident

in how research articles after its publishing confirm its findings and its applications to

classroom practice. This was demonstrated in the application of the study’s recommendations

to the lesson plan by Castle (2014).


References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian professional

standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-

source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2018). Mobile learning

for science and mathematics school education: A systematic review of empirical

evidence. Computers and Education, 121, 30-58. doi:

10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.006

Capaldi, M. (2015). Inquiry-based learning in mathematics. In P. Blessinger & J. M.

Carfora (Eds.), Inquiry-based learning for science, technology, engineering, and

math (STEM) programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (283-

320). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Castle, D. (2014). Patch wants to fly, problem solving lesson plan – year 4/5/6/7. Retrieved

from https://www.australiancurriculumlessons.com.au/2014/04/28/patch-wants-fly-

problem-solving-lesson-plan-year-4567/

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2013). Great teaching, inspired

learning: What does the evidence tell us about effective teaching? Retrieved from

https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au//images/stories/PDF/GTIL_what_does_the_evidenc

e_tell_us_2013.pdf

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2015). What works best: Evidence-based

practices to help improve NSW student performance. Retrieved from

https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/What-works-best_FA-

2015_AA.pdf
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation

on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,

79(4), 347-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347

Donnelly, K. (2018). Child-led learning has dragged Australia down. Retrieved from

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/child-led-learning-has-dragged-australia-

down-20180425-p4zbmb.html

Gore, J. (2007). Improving pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers towards higher
levels of quality teaching. In J. Butcher, L. McDonald (Eds.). Making a difference:
Challenges for teachers, teaching and teacher education, 15-32. Sense Publishers.

Holland, B. (2015). Freedom to learn: Inspiring students in constructivist math classrooms.

Retrieved from

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edtechresearcher/2015/11/constructivist-math.html

Kirschner, P. A., 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. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

NSW Department of Education. (n.d.). Learning modes. Retrieved from

https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/learning-for-the-

future/future-focused-learning-and-teaching/learning-modes

Null, J. W. (2004). Is constructivism traditional? Historical and practical perspectives on

a popular advocacy. The Educational Forum, 68, 180-188. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ724882.pdf
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructiona l design:

Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4. doi:

10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all

teachers should know. American Educator. Retrieved from

https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Rosenshine.pdf

Scott, D. M., Smith, C. W., Chu, M., & Friesen, S. (2018). Examining the efficacy of

inquiry-based approaches to education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,

64(1), 35-54. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Scott45/publication/324968843_Exa

mining_the_Efficacy_of_Inquiry-

based_Approaches_to_Education/links/5af113950f7e9ba366452ae7/Examining-

the-Efficacy-of-Inquiry-based-Approaches-to-Education.pdf

Tan, C. (2017). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges.

Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 238-247. doi:

10.1080/14767724.2015.1105737.

Ullman, J. (2015). Applying educational research: How to read, do, and use research to solve

problems of practice. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Australia.


Appendix

Q. Bob bought some boxes of tools to put in his garden. He wants to carry as many boxes as

he can from his car to his garden. Bob can only carry 5kg in one go. Each box weighs 500

grams. How many boxes can Bob carry at one time?

Step 1: Convert 5 kilograms into grams

1 kilogram = 1000 grams

Therefore, 5 kilograms = 5000 grams

Step 2: How many 500 grams in 5 kg/ 5000 grams

5000 divide by 500 = 10

Step 3: Conclusion

Therefore, Bob can carry 10 boxes at one time.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi