Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work¶
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.
Cited by¶
5 citations across 5 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Constructivist Learning
- … or guidance (unstructured exploration often leads to misconception, frustration, and inefficiency), a critique Mayer (2004) advanced in arguing for a "three-strikes rule" against pure discovery learning and Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) reinforced in their analysis of why minimally guided instruction fails.
This sourceArgues from cognitive-load theory and expert–novice differences that minimally guided instruction underperforms guided instruction with worked examples for novices (inline, What It Is Not — link added).
- … or guidance (unstructured exploration often leads to misconception, frustration, and inefficiency), a critique Mayer (2004) advanced in arguing for a "three-strikes rule" against pure discovery learning and Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) reinforced in their analysis of why minimally guided instruction fails.
- Inquiry-Based Learning
- The Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) critique systematized this concern: minimal-guidance inquiry instruction overloads novice working memory and produces weaker learning than direct instruction for initial content acquisition.
This sourceArgues that minimally-guided methods underperform direct instruction with worked examples for novices, with implications for which alternative methods belong in a mastery-learning corrective library.
- The Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) critique systematized this concern: minimal-guidance inquiry instruction overloads novice working memory and produces weaker learning than direct instruction for initial content acquisition.
- Mastery Learning
- Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) caution that not all instructional methods are interchangeable — direct instruction with worked examples often outperforms minimally-guided discovery for novices — so the "library of alternatives" archetype below must be matched diagnostically to the learner's expertise.
This sourceArgues that minimally-guided methods underperform direct instruction with worked examples for novices, with implications for which alternative methods belong in a mastery-learning corrective library.
- Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) caution that not all instructional methods are interchangeable — direct instruction with worked examples often outperforms minimally-guided discovery for novices — so the "library of alternatives" archetype below must be matched diagnostically to the learner's expertise.
- Scaffolding
- Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) draw the most useful boundary by arguing that minimally-guided "discovery" approaches are ineffective precisely because they lack the contingent support that defines scaffolding—locating scaffolding in opposition to both pure unguided discovery and undifferentiated direct instruction.
This sourceArgues that minimally-guided methods underperform direct instruction with worked examples for novices, with implications for which alternative methods belong in a mastery-learning corrective library.
- Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) draw the most useful boundary by arguing that minimally-guided "discovery" approaches are ineffective precisely because they lack the contingent support that defines scaffolding—locating scaffolding in opposition to both pure unguided discovery and undifferentiated direct instruction.
Mechanisms¶
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:650e35460345 · see in the full table