isbn9789526046266

Skirmish 7: minimal guidance pedagogy
Problem-based learning, inquiry learning, and other constructivist teaching approaches are sometimes
labeled minimal guidance approaches, as in the title of the provocative paper by Kirschner et al. (2006):
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,
Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Kirschner et al. review evidence
that points to the supremacy of direct-guidance methods (such as worked-out examples) in teaching.
Influential threads within educational psychology, such as cognitive load theory (Section 4.5), emphasize
the need to give significant guidance to novice learners, even to the extent of providing ready-made
solutions to problems for the learner to study. This contrasts with the fairly common interpretation of
constructivist learning theory according to which learners should be left to discover meanings, patterns, and
solutions on their own, with little guidance from a teacher. Such a combination of complex contexts with
limited guidance has come in for particularly harsh criticism from the cognitivist camp (see, e.g., Mayer,
2004; Kirschner et al., 2006). Mayer laments that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
pure discovery pedagogies seem to reappear every decade in a different guise – presently constructivism –
“like some zombie that keeps returning from its grave”. Sweller has argued that constructivist pedagogy
has failed to account for the different kinds of instruction needed to learn biologically primary knowledge
that we have evolved to acquire easily and automatically – such as language, which can be taught by
immersing the learner into complexity – and biologically secondary knowledge, such as politics or computer
programming, which call for direct, explicit instruction (Sweller, 2010a; Sweller et al., 2007)
The paper by Kirschner et al. (2006) has given rise to a rich exchange of views between academics
from the two schools of thought (Schmidt et al., 2007; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Kuhn, 2007; Sweller
et al., 2007; Tobias and Duffy, 2009). The typical constructivist defense against the attack of Kirschner
et al. has been to emphasize how constructivism – or one’s particular interpretation of it, at least – is not
a pure discovery or minimal guidance approach. Proponents of various constructivist pedagogies such as
PBL have been quick to point out that although some implementations of constructivism might involve
little direct guidance, at least the particular variant that is being promoted features significant scaffolding.
These arguments have not been entirely to the satisfaction of direct-instruction advocates: disagreement
persists concerning the amount of guidance needed, and in particular on whether providing the solution
to a problem is an inappropriate form of strong scaffolding or a very useful one. Many constructivists
emphasize that methods such as PBL improve ‘softer’ skills that the attacking psychologists do not test
for, such as teamwork and self-directed learning skills. Some (such as Kuhn, 2007) even question the goal
of teaching knowledge, preferring to emphasize the development of generic thinking and learning skills
(which is a goal that goes against the schema theory view of expertise as domain-knowledge dependent;
Chapter 4).
Both sides of the argument have sought to present empirical evidence for their respective views and
criticized the studies cited by the other side. The book edited by Tobias and Duffy (2009) features
some increasingly fruitful dialogue between the two camps. Future research may help us gain better
understanding of under what circumstances and for which goals the different pedagogies work best, and
how they can complement each other.
Skirmish 8: nothing new
Nearly all critics of constructivism, it seems, have cast doubt upon the originality of constructivist ideas
and the pedagogical practices they result in. Phillips (2000), for instance, asks if constructivism has
really changed anything or if it is just the newest form of Kant’s philosophy, Dewey’s progressivism, and
discovery learning. Matthews (2000) suggests that constructivism has mostly succeeded in introducing
new jargon that – instead of simplifying complex matters, as terminology should – complicates simple
matters. Matthews even provides a tongue-in-cheek dictionary that maps “constructivist new speak” to
“orthodox old speak”. Elsewhere, Matthews (1992) calls constructivism old wine in new bottles, while
Levitt (quoted by Patton, 2002, p. 101) goes one better as he describes constructivism as a manifestation
92