9 How Much and What Type of Guidance is Optimal for Learning ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

How Much and What Type of Guidance is Optimal? 1670123456789012345678901234567890123456mid- level guidance conditions typically found in problem- based learning experimentswere compared with no guidance or very minimal levels of guidance.Research protocols that examine the amount and type of guidance required forapplication learning must systematically vary the completeness of steps ininstructional demonstrations and whether students are required to learn andapply procedures for completing tasks and solving problems. All models or demonstrationsof problem solving and “worked examples” of ways to perform tasksare not equally complete or accurate (Clark et al., 2007; Velmahos et al., 2004).There is considerable evidence that incomplete demonstrations, models, orworked examples place unnecessary and sometimes overwhelming amounts ofirrelevant cognitive load on learners (Mayer, 2004; Sweller, 2006). Yet allresearchers must validate claims that the cognitive load imposed by requiringstudents to construct missing steps or sections of procedures or complete routinesfor solving problems are beneficial, harmful, or inconsequential. DeLeeuwand Mayer (2008) have examined various approaches to measuring differenttypes of cognitive load and have provided evidence that different types of cognitiveload imposed during instruction are sensitive to different types of measures.We must clearly describe the operations, decision rules, and psychologicalreasoning used to construct treatments where guidance is varied. Critics andconsumers of research on guidance must go beyond labels such as scaffolding,problem- based, or direct instruction and instead look carefully at the operationsused to design and implement treatments.Yet demonstrations are not the only type of support required for guidance.The discussion turns next to elements of guidance that are included to supportthe transfer of learning to novel contexts after instruction.2 When Adaptive Transfer is Required, Guidance Must Also Providethe Varied Practice and Declarative Knowledge that Permits Learnersto Adapt a Procedure to Handle a Novel SituationThere is considerable disagreement about whether people can be taught tobecome adaptable (see for example, Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Singley &Anderson, 1989) and yet most educators view adaptability as a desirable goal ofeducation. Procedural knowledge is considered by some to be bound to thecontext where it was learned and thus some researchers reject the notion ofadaptability entirely (Anderson et al., 1997). This section of the discussion beginswith a brief description of the evidence for adaptable expertise and then considersthe disagreements about the types of instructional support that foster adaptableexpertise.Different instructional theories propose different ways to achieve adaptableexpertise. Foremost among those differences is the question of whether forcedcompliance with a specific procedure for solving problems or accomplishingtasks supports or inhibits adaptable performance. This concern is one of themain reasons why Pea (2004) stipulated that scaffolding provided learningsupport only until the problem or task was “beyond his or her own reach ifpursued independently when unassisted” (p. 430) and required that instructional
168 R. E. Clarkdesigners and teachers have “independent evidence that the learner cannot dothe task or goal unaided” (p. 443). It is also part of the reason why Savery andDuffy (2001) were concerned that teachers do not “dictate or attempt to proceduralize. . . thinking” (p. 5) but instead that learners be required to “engage in . . .construction . . . we do not want the learner to . . . execute scientific procedure asdictated” (p. 4). Those who recommend the teaching of procedures argue thatadaptable expertise results when procedures are demonstrated in conjunctionwith varied practice.Does Forced Procedural Knowledge Inhibit Adaptability?A large body of empirical research on expertise and transfer supports the conclusionthat procedures do not inhibit (but instead support) adaptability. Hatanoand Inagaki (1986, 2000), Besnard and Bastien- Toniazzo (1999), Bereiter andScardamalia (1993), Gott, Hall, Pokorny, Dibble, and Glaser (1993), Perkins andGrotzer (1997), De Corte (2003), Masui and De Corte (1999), and Klahr andNigam (2004), among others, have offered evidence that more flexible expertsacquire and apply both procedural and conceptual knowledge differently thanless flexible experts. In a recent review of research on the development ofadvanced expertise, Feldon (2007) tackles the flexibility question and states:careful empirical studies of acquisition and transfer for automated skillsdemonstrate that limited transfer of automated procedures to novel cuesand circumstances can occur . . . Further, because complex skills are inherentlycompilations of many distinct subskills, any particular performancemay represent one of three possible paths. These paths are (1) fully automatedprocesses, (2) serial execution of automated and consciously mediatedsubskills, or (3) simultaneous execution of both automatic andconscious elements.(p. 97)Feldon goes on to suggest that when experts learn and automate procedures, theyare able to apply them without “thinking” while using their conscious, conceptualknowledge to adjust “ subskills” (chunks of larger procedures) to solve novelproblems by enlarging and varying the conditions under which they apply a procedure.Without automated procedures, the complexity involved in handling thenovelty involved in enlarging the application conditions for a procedure has beenfound to cause “cognitive overload” and defeat performance (Clark, 2001;Sweller, 2006).Declarative and Procedural Knowledge InteractionsAnderson’s ACT- R theory is supported by many years of studies that demonstratethe role of conscious, declarative knowledge in the development of productions(procedures) that support performance (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998).ACT- R hypothesizes that when existing automated knowledge (in the form of1234567891111111111222222222233333333334444444
Page 1 and 2: 9 How Much and What Type ofGuidance
Page 3 and 4: 160 R. E. Clarkadvanced solutions t
Page 5 and 6: 162 R. E. Clark1 Guidance Must Prov
Page 7 and 8: 164 R. E. ClarkExperts Are Largely
Page 9: 166 R. E. Clarkgroup of 24 medical
Page 13 and 14: 170 R. E. Clarkare asked to determi
Page 15 and 16: 172 R. E. Clarkcontext, certainly a
Page 17 and 18: 174 R. E. ClarkHer results suggest
Page 19 and 20: 176 R. E. Clarkpossible in emergent
Page 21 and 22: 178 R. E. ClarkAssembling procedura
Page 23 and 24: 180 R. E. ClarkBrown, J. S., Collin
Page 25 and 26: 182 R. E. Clarkintelligence in educ

9 How Much and What Type of Guidance is Optimal for Learning ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?