我就喜歡這樣的妳

1.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

 SUMMARY 

The article argues against the effectiveness of minimally guided teaching methods, such as discovery learning and problem-based learning. The authors, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark, cite the limitations of human working memory and the importance of long-term memory as reasons why these methods are inefficient. They argue that providing novice learners with direct, strong instructional guidance is essential for effective learning, particularly when dealing with novel information. The authors further contend that the available research overwhelmingly supports guided instruction, citing numerous studies that demonstrate its superiority over unguided approaches. 

WEAKNESS: The authors use these sources to build their argument logically, presenting evidence from various contexts and perspectives. However, they do not conduct or report on any original data collection or analysis within this particular essay．

　ＷＨＹ

The authors of this essay aim to challenge the effectiveness of minimally guided instruction, particularly in light of what we know about human cognitive architecture. They achieve this by reviewing and synthesising a large body of existing research. The authors' motivation for undertaking this research synthesis stems from their belief that minimally guided instruction, while popular, is fundamentally at odds with how humans learn. Here's a breakdown of their reasoning:

• Ineffectiveness of Minimal Guidance: The authors argue that fifty years of research provides no substantial evidence to support minimally guided instruction. Conversely, they highlight a significant body of controlled studies consistently demonstrating the superiority of direct, guided instruction for both novice and intermediate learners. This evidence forms the core of their argument against minimal guidance.

• Contradiction with Human Cognitive Architecture: The essay argues that any instructional method disregarding human cognitive architecture is unlikely to be effective. They specifically point to minimally guided instruction as ignoring the limitations of working memory, especially when dealing with new information. This disregard for cognitive load, they argue, makes these methods less effective.

• Misconceptions about Learning and Practice: The essay criticises the common confusion in educational practices between 'learning a discipline' and 'research in the discipline'. This confusion, they suggest, fuels the advocacy for minimally guided methods like problem-based learning as a primary teaching approach. They argue that while these methods have their place, they should not be mistaken for effective ways to impart foundational knowledge.

• Need for Evidence-Based Instruction: The authors express concern over the continued popularity of minimally guided instruction despite a lack of empirical support and, in some cases, evidence of negative consequences like misconceptions and incomplete knowledge. They call for a shift in educational reform, moving away from ideology-driven approaches towards those grounded in robust research and a clear understanding of how people learn.

In essence, the authors' research is driven by a desire to correct what they perceive as a fundamental misunderstanding of effective learning strategies. They aim to steer educational practices towards methods that align with our current understanding of human cognition, advocating for a more significant role of direct guidance in the learning process, especially for novices.

 

Ｈｏｗ　

The essay doesn't describe a method for conducting research because the authors of this essay primarily review and synthesize existing research to support their argument.12 They don't conduct any original experiments or collect new data. Instead, they analyse and interpret findings from various sources to bolster their claims. Here's a breakdown of their approach:

●

Review of Empirical Studies: The authors examine numerous empirical studies, spanning several decades, that compare the effectiveness of guided and unguided instruction.1345 This review allows them to identify trends and draw conclusions based on a substantial body of evidence.

●

Analysis of Instructional Methods: The authors dissect specific instructional approaches, such as worked examples and process worksheets, to illustrate the principles of effective guidance.67 They explain the theoretical underpinnings of these methods, such as cognitive load theory, and provide examples of their application in different learning contexts.

●

Examination of Educational Models: The essay critically evaluates various educational models, including experiential learning and problem-based learning, which often advocate for minimal guidance.8910 By examining the research and outcomes associated with these models, the authors expose their limitations and potential downsides.

●

Synthesis of Findings: Throughout the essay, the authors synthesise findings from diverse fields, including cognitive psychology, educational research, and instructional design. This interdisciplinary approach allows them to construct a compelling argument supported by evidence from multiple perspectives.111213

The authors' research approach aims to provide a comprehensive and evidence-based critique of minimally guided instruction. By meticulously reviewing, analysing, and synthesising existing research, they build a case for the superiority of direct, guided instruction, particularly for novice learners.

 

　ｗｈａｔ　

This essay argues that minimally guided instruction is ineffective and direct, guided instruction is a more effective method, especially for novice learners. The authors examine research from the past half-century, concluding that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of minimally guided instruction, also known as discovery learning, problem-based learning, inquiry learning, experiential learning and constructivist learning.

Here is a list of what the essay is about:

• Human Cognitive Architecture: The essay emphasizes the importance of understanding human cognitive architecture, particularly the limitations of working memory, when designing instructional methods. The authors argue that minimally guided instruction ignores these limitations, leading to cognitive overload and hindering effective learning.
• Ineffectiveness of Minimal Guidance: The essay systematically refutes the claims made in favour of minimal guidance by citing numerous studies that show its ineffectiveness compared to guided instruction. The authors present evidence from controlled experiments across various domains, including science and medical education, demonstrating that guided instruction leads to better learning outcomes and transfer of knowledge.
• Cognitive Load Theory: The essay draws heavily on cognitive load theory to support its arguments. It explains how problem-solving, a central aspect of minimally guided instruction, can overload working memory and hinder the transfer of information to long-term memory. The essay highlights the effectiveness of guided instruction techniques, such as worked examples and process worksheets, in reducing cognitive load and facilitating learning.
• Expertise Reversal Effect: The authors acknowledge that instructional methods suitable for novices may not be as effective for experts. They explain the expertise reversal effect, where techniques beneficial for beginners become redundant or even counterproductive for more knowledgeable learners. This concept underscores the importance of adapting instruction based on the learner's level of expertise.
• Criticism of Problem-Based Learning: The essay specifically critiques problem-based learning (PBL), a popular form of minimally guided instruction, particularly within medical education. The authors cite studies showing that PBL, despite its intuitive appeal, often leads to poorer performance in basic science exams and a higher likelihood of ordering unnecessary tests in clinical practice. They argue that while PBL might have some merits, it should not be considered a replacement for direct instruction in foundational knowledge.
• Call for Evidence-Based Instruction: The authors conclude by urging a shift in educational practices away from ideology-driven approaches, such as constructivism, towards those grounded in scientific research on human learning. They call for increased emphasis on direct, guided instruction, particularly for novice learners, to promote efficient and effective knowledge acquisition.

The essay advocates for a more balanced approach to instruction, recognizing the importance of guidance in the initial stages of learning while acknowledging the need to gradually reduce it as expertise increases. They believe that aligning educational practices with our current understanding of human cognition is crucial for creating more effective learning environments.

  QUESTIONS 

1. What are the two primary assumptions underpinning minimally guided instruction, and why do the authors of this article challenge them?
2. Explain the concept of human cognitive architecture, focusing on the roles of working memory and long-term memory.
3. How does the worked-example effect challenge the principles of minimally guided instruction?
4. What is the expertise reversal effect, and how does it relate to the debate between guided and minimally guided instruction?
5. Discuss the concept of pedagogical content knowledge and its relevance to the critique of minimally guided instruction.
6. What did Klahr and Nigam's 2004 study reveal about the effectiveness of discovery learning compared to direct instruction in science education?
7. What are process worksheets, and how can they be used to enhance learning in a guided instruction setting?
8. What criticisms have been levelled against Kolb's model of experiential learning?
9. What are some of the limitations of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as highlighted by research?
10. Summarise the authors' main argument against minimally guided instruction and their proposed alternative.
11.  

Answer Key:

• Assumptions of Minimally Guided Instruction:Assumption 1: Learners constructing their own solutions in authentic problem settings leads to optimal learning.
• Challenge: This assumption lacks empirical support. Learners often struggle to construct knowledge effectively without sufficient guidance.
• Assumption 2: Knowledge acquisition is best achieved through mirroring the methods of the discipline.
• Challenge: Confuses the practice of a discipline (epistemology) with the process of learning it (pedagogy).
• Human Cognitive Architecture:Working Memory: Limited capacity and duration; handles new information.
• Long-Term Memory: Vast storage capacity; holds well-learned information and schemas.
• Interaction: Working memory processes new information and integrates it into long-term memory.

1. Worked-Example Effect: Demonstrates that novices learn more effectively by studying worked examples than by solving problems independently. This contradicts the minimally guided approach by showing that direct instruction can be more beneficial.
2. Expertise Reversal Effect: Instructional methods effective for novices may become less so as expertise grows. This implies that guidance should be adjusted based on the learner's skill level, contradicting the one-size-fits-all approach of minimal guidance.
3. Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Refers to a teacher's ability to transform expert knowledge into accessible forms for learners. It highlights the importance of instructional expertise, challenging the notion that learners can effectively guide their own learning.
4. Klahr and Nigam (2004): Found that direct instruction was significantly more effective than discovery learning in science. Furthermore, there was no evidence that discovery learning led to superior knowledge transfer.
5. Process Worksheets: Provide structured guidance with phases, hints, and prompts to support problem-solving. They offer a more structured form of guidance within a problem-solving context.

• Criticisms of Experiential Learning:Lack of robust empirical support.
• Questionable reliability and validity of learning style inventories.
• Overemphasis on experience without sufficient consideration for knowledge structures.
• Limitations of PBL:No clear evidence of superiority over traditional instruction.
• Can be more costly and time-consuming.
• May hinder the development of efficient, forward-directed reasoning patterns.

1. Authors' Argument & Alternative: Minimal guidance is ineffective because it ignores human cognitive limitations. They advocate for guided instruction that provides clear explanations, worked examples, and scaffolding, tailored to learners' needs and expertise levels.
2.  

Essay Questions:

1. Critically evaluate the authors' argument against minimally guided instruction. Do you agree with their assessment, or are there nuances and complexities they overlook?
2. How can educators strike a balance between providing sufficient guidance and fostering learner autonomy and self-directed learning?
3. Discuss the implications of the expertise reversal effect for instructional design and teaching practice.
4. In light of the criticisms of minimally guided instruction, how should educators approach the use of experiential learning methods like PBL?
5. Considering the research on human cognitive architecture, propose specific instructional strategies that align with the principles of guided instruction.
6.  

Glossary of Key Terms:

• Cognitive Architecture: The inherent structure of the human mind and its cognitive processes.
• Constructivism: A learning theory emphasizing the active role of learners in constructing knowledge through their experiences and interactions.
• Discovery Learning: A minimally guided approach where learners are expected to discover information and solve problems largely on their own.
• Epistemology: The study of knowledge and how it is acquired.
• Experiential Learning: Learning through direct experience and reflection upon those experiences.
• Expertise Reversal Effect: The phenomenon where instructional methods effective for novices become less effective, or even detrimental, as learners gain expertise.
• Guided Instruction: Instruction that provides clear explanations, models, and support, gradually reducing guidance as learners progress.
• Hypothetico-Deductive Method: A problem-solving approach involving generating hypotheses and testing them against evidence.
• Inquiry-Based Learning: A form of minimally guided instruction where learners engage in investigations to answer questions and construct understanding.
• Long-Term Memory: The relatively permanent memory system with a vast capacity for storing information and knowledge.
• Minimal Guidance: Instructional approaches that minimize explicit instruction and require learners to discover or construct knowledge independently.
• Pedagogy: The art and science of teaching.
• Problem-Based Learning (PBL): A student-centred approach where learning is driven by complex, real-world problems.
• Process Worksheets: Structured guides that provide steps, hints, and prompts to support learners in problem-solving.
• Schema: A mental framework that organizes knowledge and provides a basis for interpreting new information.
• Scaffolding: Temporary support provided to learners to help them achieve tasks within their zones of proximal development.
• Working Memory: The cognitive system responsible for temporarily holding and manipulating information during cognitive tasks.
• Worked-Example Effect: The finding that novices often learn more effectively by studying worked examples than by trying to solve problems independently.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

2.

DeHaan RL. Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009 Fall;8(3):172-81. doi: 10.1187/cbe.08-12-0081. PMID: 19723812; PMCID: PMC2736021.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736021/