Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. argue in Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86 (2006) that minimal guidance during instruction does not work. They analyze “the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.” They find little empirical or theoretical support for these approaches.
Sigmund Tobias invites comments about this article, especially about ways not to reject Kirschner, et al.’s conclusions. Their article generated discussion at the Second Games, Learning, and Society Conference.
This issue appears as an endemic, although mostly invisible controversy educators should review again before board of education members inquire about the fit between these instructional approaches and policies that say all students should learn at least enough content to meet minimum state standards as tested.
If you use collaborative or other constructivist, etc. methods, what evidence do you generate to address Kirschner’s conclusions?
Setting aside anecdotes, beliefs, and political commitments, how would you test the hypothesis of these failures empirically in your school?