In their Educational Psychologist article, "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An analysis of the Failure of Contstructivist , Discovery, Problem Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching," http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdfKirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) say that inquiry-based methods are a "failed approach" (p.84) and that, to acheive best results, all instruction should be highly structured and systematically delivered.
As I read the article, I found myself leaning toward each learning style at one point. I think there is a time and place in which each of the type of instruction could produce the desired results. For instance, beginning in elementary school, students need guidance. We cannot put a kindergarten student in the class and tell them to figure out how to read. What are they to do if they do not know the letter-sound relationship. Then I move up to upper elementary, these students need guidance on working through skills. It is also at this point in which students can begin to receive minimal guidance from their teachers. In upper elementary, I think science is the subject in which the students are able to discovery and guide their own learning. This belief further extends to the middle and high school grades. At some point, ALL students need guidance as they learning. To just give students something and say figure it out is setting them up for failure. Just like the saying "practice make perfect" is flawed, allowing a student practice something wrong is also ludicrous. With that being said, I am not sure if I can take an actuall side because there is a time and a place for each teaching style.
No comments:
Post a Comment