Subscribe to our Blog
A Non-Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma
Faithful readers may by now have deduced that we do not care for the current emphasis on indirect instruction in schools. The paper Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching conclusively proves that indirect approaches work poorly - and explains exactly why.
The first point - that indirect methods work poorly - is proven by a devastating review of the literature. Here’s an excerpt from the paper.
“A number of reviews of empirical studies have established a solid research-based case against the use of instruction with minimal guidance. Although an extensive review of those studies is outside the scope of this article, Mayer (2004) recently reviewed evidence from studies conducted from 1950 to the late 1980s comparing pure discovery learning, defined as unguided, problem-based instruction, with guided forms of instruction. He suggested that in each decade since the mid-1950s, when empirical studies provided solid evidence that the then popular unguided approach did not work, a similar approach popped up under a different name with the cycle then repeating itself. Each new set of advocates for unguided approaches seemed either unaware of or uninterested in previous evidence that unguided approaches had not been validated. This pattern produced discovery learning, which gave way to experiential learning, which gave way to problem-based and inquiry learning, which now gives way to constructivist instructional techniques. Mayer (2004) concluded that the ‘debate about discovery has been replayed many times in education but each time, the evidence has favored a guided approach to learning’.”
The second point - why indirect methods work poorly is proven with reference to “human cognitive architecture”, the way our brains work.
The paper explains that learning does not occur unless it has been stored in long-term memory and that the aim of all instruction is to alter long-term memory. Long-term memory can be accessed only through working memory, the structure in which processing takes place. But problem-based searching makes such heavy demands on working memory that long-term memory can be affected only minimally, if at all. However, when learners are given adequate information, their working memories have enough capacity left over to transfer some of the new concepts to long-term memory.
There is no mystery about which teaching approach works better. The mystery is why so many educators turn up their noses at it.
At one point, in the early years, the school insisted that my child did not have problems with working memory. Of course, I stated otherwise, the exact opposite. This is another chapter in my life, exploring working memory, and the research. The origin of research in working memory, have been generated in the field of learning disabilities, and where the majority of kids suffering from learning problems, have problems with working memory.
Most of that research, has led to the same conclusion that working memory of LD kids are not damage by genetics, or brain injury, but this group learn best by using direct instruction, and guidance.
Why indirect instruction are still used in our public schools, when every private school that the elite children go to, received direct instruction, with lots of guidance , is beyond logic and reason.