If you reply to this long (7 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
************************************
ABSTRACT: I give online URL's for (a) three responses by
psychologists to "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 (KSC) (2006)], (b) the counter by KSC to those
responses, and (c) my own critique of KSC (2006). Both "a" and "b"
appear in the Educational Psychologist 42(2), (2007).
************************************
There has been considerable discussion-list attention to the
provocatively titled article "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 (KSC) (2006)].
Therefore some subscribers may be interested in the online responses
to KSC (2006) by psychologists: Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), Kuhn
(2007), & Schmidt et al. (2007); and KSC's online counter to those
responses: Sweller, et al. (2007); all in the Educational
Psychologist 42(2), 2007 at <http://www.leaonline.com/toc/ep/42/2>.
The abstract of Sweller, et al. (2007) is:
*************************************
In this reply to commentaries on the Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark
(2006) paper, we not only reemphasize the importance of randomized,
controlled experimental tests of competing instructional procedures,
but also indicate that altering one variable at a time is an
essential feature of a properly controlled experiment. Furthermore,
we also emphasize that variable must be relevant to the issue at hand
with its effects explainable by our knowledge of human cognitive
architecture. We reject the view that the presentation of relevant
information should be reduced in favor of teaching learners how to
find information. Lastly, we indicate that we believe a new
educational psychology has been developed that has the potential to
rapidly change our field.
*************************************
I shall modestly forbear mentioning my own online critique of KSC
(2006): "Cognitive Science and Physics Education Research: What We've
Got Here Is Failure to Communicate" [Hake (2007)].
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., R.G. Duncan, and C.A. 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; online at
<http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cogtech/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf>
(96 kB).
Kirschner, P.A., J. Sweller, & R.E. Clark. 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;
online at
<http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf> (176 kB).
Schmidt, H.G., S.M.M. Loyens, T. van Gog, & F. Paas. 2007.
"Problem-Based Learning *is* Compatible with Human Cognitive
Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),"
Educational Psychologist 42(2): 91-97; online at
<http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cogtech/publications/schmidt_etal_ep07.pdf>
(72kB).