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 Clark

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

12 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional designmodels that support guidance during instruction are briefly described
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)75-86
JournalEducational Psychologist
Volume41
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 9 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

Teaching
Learning
Students

Keywords

  • Instruction
  • constructivist teaching
  • discovery teaching
  • Problem-based teaching
  • Experiential,teaching
  • Inquiry-Based Teaching

Cite this

@article{f52dc05c2fdf4ec6888a1ffa9af85100,
title = "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based teaching",
abstract = "Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional designmodels that support guidance during instruction are briefly described",
keywords = "Instruction, constructivist teaching, discovery teaching, Problem-based teaching, Experiential,teaching, Inquiry-Based Teaching",
author = "Kirschner, {Paul A.} and John Sweller and Richard Clark",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "75--86",
journal = "Educational Psychologist",
issn = "0046-1520",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "2",

}

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based teaching. / Kirschner, Paul A.; Sweller, John; Clark, Richard.

In: Educational Psychologist, Vol. 41, No. 2, 09.06.2016, p. 75-86.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based teaching

AU - Kirschner, Paul A.

AU - Sweller, John

AU - Clark, Richard

PY - 2016/6/9

Y1 - 2016/6/9

N2 - Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional designmodels that support guidance during instruction are briefly described

AB - Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional designmodels that support guidance during instruction are briefly described

KW - Instruction

KW - constructivist teaching

KW - discovery teaching

KW - Problem-based teaching

KW - Experiential,teaching

KW - Inquiry-Based Teaching

U2 - 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

DO - 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 75

EP - 86

JO - Educational Psychologist

JF - Educational Psychologist

SN - 0046-1520

IS - 2

ER -