Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching Imprimer Envoyer
Le débat - Antagonismes
Écrit par Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller et Richard E. Clark   
Mardi, 07 Mars 2006 00:00

Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller et Richard E. Clark

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), pp75-86 , 2006

pdf Télécharger le document

 

 

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.

 

Lire la suite

 

Voir la traduction

Notes de lecture

 
 
Une réalisation LSG Conseil.