The difference between Learning and Instruction
One thing I am proud of is that I am an avid reader as I was reading an article tonight I thought I should write a post about it and share my opinions. The article appeared in American Educator which, essentially, argues that educators who believe in the value of experiential, problem-based learning, are misguided fools, and I thought OK let’s see where this misguided fool has gone wrong. The article titled: ‘Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction’, written by Clark, Kirschner and Sweller seeks to basically put an end to any debate around which mode of learning is best: partially-guided instruction (as seen in discovery learning, problem-based learning, or inquiry learning) or direct instruction. Where does this fit into the blended/hybrid world?
It’s a long article, so I’d urge you to read it for yourself, but not at night unless you have insomnia. But the basic premise of it is something like this: advocates of constructivist approaches to learning are wilfully ignoring decades of rigorous research who proves, beyond doubt, that for novice learners, (defined by the authors as almost all of us) fully-guided instruction is the way to learn. I spoke recently to a colleague who is undertaking her PhD at USC and this was one of her issues that the research they are using to frame arguments is from the 70’s and 80’s!!
I don’t know about you, but my hair on my neck rises when I see professors seeking to “put an end” to debate to make something the final word, it just wreaks of absolutism. I have issues with this as there is a detachment from schools or education and researchers many times to the reality of school today. Some of them might need to get out of their ivory towers and actually go to a school. If that’s the case then I have a few arguments to counteract their points.
There is, however, another aspect to this kind of academic arrogance that gets under my skin and raises my hair, or as I would have said a few years ago “pisses me off”.
Why do these arguments get presented in such a manner? Who said it was either/or? And, of course, minimal guidance during ‘instruction’ is pretty pointless – it barely counts as guidance.
This article points to an even bigger question, for me, though. What do we mean by ‘learning’? The authors imply that learning is simply about reaching into the long-term memory data banks to find previous ‘worked examples’ which will provide a solution to presented problems. They cite chess masters as prime examples of this, are you kidding me “chess masters'” where is their creativity or innovation? They state that by being able to beat several opponents at once by retrieving data on previous moves from their memory banks is the base for the research model. I don’t know much about chess, but I do recal Bobby Fischer emphasising the importance of speculation and intuition.
In a future where a connected mind is likely to be at a premium, should we not be seeing ‘learning’ as more than just store-and-retrieve? Sure, their ideas might help you pass a standardized test (which is another post in itself), but will it help you put two ideas together to create a new one? And, if a student becomes engaged (and inquiry and problem-based approaches seem remarkably good at engaging students) aren’t they going to be more likely to apply some discretionary energy into learning more about concepts and theories, because doing so could explain why an experimental didn’t work fully? We do know that, if knowledge isn’t re-visited regularly, we lose it. This explains why most of us can’t remember much of what we rote-learned in our childhoods, no matter how guided the instruction. If we weren’t engaged at the time of the instruction, we aren’t likely to want to re-visit it.
Solving problems, recognising the part our emotions play when learning, following hunches, daydreaming might seem to Profs Clark, Kirtchner and Sweller as ‘inefficient’. I would love to have the opportunity to argue that they all help engage the learner and without engagement, there’s no deep, or lasting, learning. It is about passion based, passion driven learning with guidance from behind.
This is a true example of how this concept is in real life, visit Caine’s Arcade, in the video below, and ask yourself if you think that he will have long-term memories of how he solved problems through experience, experimentation, emotion and intuition? BTW a week ago when I was first sent the video (thanks Ana) I watched it five times, just to watch the look on the boys face as he saw his dreams coming true as he built his “field of dreams”. Let me know what you think..
Link to Caine’s Arcade video…http://vimeo.com/40000072