The learn drive mechanism makes the optimum use of working memory by maximizing value for a given semantic distance. Recommendations advocating minimal guidance during instruction proceed as though working memory does not exist or, if it does exist, that it has no relevant limitations, when dealing with novel information, the very information of interest to constructivist teaching procedures.
The authors do not seem to understand the incremental nature of constructivism. They are seemingly unaware of layer by layer build up of long-term memory associations in the concept network. The learn drive mechanism operates in limited search space by ensuring concept activations at optimized semantic distance. Working memory load does not contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in long-term memory because while working memory is being used to search for problem solutions , it is not available and cannot be used to learn.
The learn drive mechanism is the best known optimizer of learning trajectories see: Jigsaw puzzle metaphor. The authors clearly subscribe to the myth of efficient optimization by hand see: Mountain climb metaphor of schooling :. The goal of instruction is rarely simply to search for or discover information. The goal is to give learners specific guidance about how to cognitively manipulate information in ways that are consistent with a learning goal, and store the result in long-term memory.
The authors do not seem to understand the incremental nature of the learning process. They clearly imagine that pure discovery learning looks like asking someone to go and discover quantum mechanics on her own?
So the working memory gets overwhelmed and nothing is left in long-term memory? This is exactly how hand-optimized curriculum-oriented schooling looks most of the time! This is the problem of schooling put on its head:. The consequences of requiring novice learners to search for problem solutions using a limited working memory or the mechanisms by which unguided or minimally guided instruction might facilitate change in long-term memory appear to be routinely ignored. Jerome Bruner is one of the geniuses of constructivism.
Long before we understood the mechanisms behind the pleasure of learning , he knew that knowledge is its own best reward. Now that we understand the learn drive and how memory works , all traces of doubt are gone. Bruner's "blunder" was "excused" by his living in an ignorant era? In , Bruner died at the beautiful age of Since the paper's publication, he had a decade to become enlightened with the marvelous concept of the "well-mapped cognitive architecture".
Unsurprisingly, he never recanted his beliefs. Recommending minimal guidance was understandable when Bruner proposed discovery learning as an instructional tool because the structures and relations that constitute human cognitive architecture had not yet been mapped.
Which is better? A Tell a child that eclipse is caused by the obstruction of the sun by the moon, and B Make the kid curious and make her go on her own google search exploration?
Is it good when a child veers off unpredictably to other topics such as extraterrestrial intelligence, or Big Bang, or questions such as "Why is the sky blue? Each time the answer is B own exploration , we have glaringly obvious evidence for the power of exploration and discovery.
Most learners of all ages know how to construct knowledge when given adequate information and there is no evidence that presenting them with partial information enhances their ability to construct a representation more than giving them full information. The brain is a concept network. It begins the process of conceptual crystallization long before birth.
The process ends with the last bit of consumed information, often after the last breath. According to Kyle , scientific inquiry is a systematic and investigative performance ability incorporating unrestrained thinking capabilities after a person has acquired a broad, critical knowledge of the particular subject matter through formal teaching processes. It may not be equated with investigative methods of science teaching, self-instructional teaching techniques, or open-ended teaching techniques.
Educators who confuse the two are guilty of the improper use of inquiry as a paradigm on which to base an instructional strategy. We know that kids get bored with easy tasks and run away from hard problems. They employ problem valuation network. Free exploration of a highly complex environment may generate a heavy working memory load that is detrimental to learning. When there is bad science around, we should always look for the root cause.
How can it be explained? Each widely-cited bad theory has a degree of good contribution to the progress of science. But it also causes waves of confusion, esp. In this case, a bad theory might undermine the quest for the Grand Education Reform. Kirchner, Clark and Sweller have all rich background in classroom education.
They must be experiencing the "fish tank effect" were classroom reality distorts the truth of social ecology, incl. They all believe in a qualitative change in the learning process with the buildup of expertise. In their minds, students need guidance, but experts don't. During one of the educational conferences, they have been labelled instructionists , and for them that's no offence. Over a coffee, they decided to put some flesh on their convictions.
By capitalizing largely on Sweller's cognitive load theory , they produced a controversial piece that turned out to hit the jackpot. Google Scholar tells me that Kirschner and Clark have built their citation fame on their bad theory and a controversial claim. Again we see the flaws of the citation index in peer review. Those who make outrageous claims often shoot up in citation popularity contest. They get quoted in books and in confused blogs. One of the victims wrote "I am eternally grateful to whoever pointed in the direction of a paper which gave me new teacher-life" source.
Paul A. Kirschner discovered that Facebook decreases GPA. Richard Edward Clark wrote "Media will never influence learning". The authors apparently differ from most kids of the new generation. They prefer a classroom over YouTube. Perhaps it is unbearable to see great learning theories be quashed with cat videos? Kirschner's lectures even seem to follow a similar pattern than those of Dr Manfred Spitzer.
I do not mind a difference of opinion, however, I wish the paper authors did not contribute to enslaving kids in the classroom by spawning flimsy theories of learning. Human rights call for the professors to be free to learn with guidance, and for kids to be free to choose their own ways.
As for Dr John Sweller, he is a surprise. Does he not know that kids naturally run away from problems that are too hard? His classroom bias dates back to his original publication that put his name in the annals of education science history.
It is clearly not just a problem of bad definition of discovery learning because the title of the article clearly speaks of minimum guidance see: It is hard to research discovery learning. Crucially, Sweller claims:.
Related Articles:. Home References Article citations. Journals A-Z. Journals by Subject. Publish with us. Contact us. Related Articles: Open Access. Murray Schafer. Creative Education Vol. DOI: Open Access. Open Access Library Journal Vol. Applied Mathematics Vol.
0コメント