Between Constructivist Learning and Direct Instruction - Essay Example

? Between Constructivist Learning and Direct Instruction Number and 4 October Introduction The value of self-constructed learning over direct instruction has probably been the most notable point of discussion in the field of education during the 21st century (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Constructivists argue that learners should be able to construct knowledge from their own set of experiences and from their environment (Gallagher & Reid, 2002; Kozulin, 2003; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). While the guidance of an adult or experienced learner is given, knowledge should be constructed on the learner’s own accord. On the other hand, proponents of direct instruction claim that learners, especially those at the beginning stages of the learning process, need to be provided with the basic concepts, procedures, and strategies that would allow them to gain and hold on to information (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). This paper will present a summary of each type of instructional method, highlighting the learning theory or theorists that support each one. After which, an insight on the prevailing teaching methods will be provided, and a preferred teaching method will be discussed. Direct Instruction As explained by Kirschner et al. (2006), under direct instruction, learning, which occurs only when there is a presence of an alteration in long term memory, takes place by having an adult/more learned individual provide information that exhaustively explains the concepts and processes that learners are required to learn. This information also includes the learning strategy that is apt with human cognitive architecture. Human cognitive architecture is a concept that pertains to the hierarchy of cognitive structures as they are organized in a person’s mind (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Proponents of the direct instruction methods point out that a cognitively unprepared person cannot be expected to create learning out of nothing if the learner does not have the basic concepts and processes to draw upon his conclusions (Becker & Gersten, 1982; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Kail & Cavanaugh, 2008). Kirschner, et al (2006) showed through a number of published researches and studies that direct instruction had more impact on learners based on a number of tests conducted. Direct instruction proponents dispute the latest trend in education strategies which encourages learners to construct their own learning via minimal guidance even without prior knowledge of underlying concepts, principles, and processes (Baumann, 1982). They say that this method goes against the human cognitive architecture, that is, learners can only churn out, via long term memory, what was previously inputted to them. Constructivist Learning Constructivist learning, in whatever form it may be, is rooted from the works of Piaget and Vygotsky (Gallagher & Reid, 2002; Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Constructivists propose that learning occurs when knowledge is constructed by the learner through personal experiences, interaction with the environment, and scaffolding guidance of an adult or more experienced person. In response to Kirschner et al’s (2006) position that minimally guided instruction is less effective that direct instruction, Hmelo-Silver, et al (2007) pointed out that a number of constructivist strategies, specifically problem-based and inquiry learning, utilize more than just minimal guidance during scaffolding. They say that scaffolding takes place at a high rate in problem-based and inquiry learning, thus refuting Kirschner, et al’s position. Moreover, Hmelo-Silver (2007) produced a long list of studies and researches which attested to the effectiveness of problem-based and inquiry learning. Another notable point that constructivists try to emphasize is that positive effects of employing constructivist approaches may not be immediately observed from standardized tests (Hiebert, Stigler, & Jacobs, 2005; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Rather, the true effects of such methods will come into play as a life-long learner is developed, instead of an information machine. The authors likewise put emphasis on the soft skills that constructivist approaches develop among learners, making the experience more beneficial to them in the long run (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). The Teaching Methods of Today For many centuries since formal learning institutions have been established, teaching has been a one-way street: the teacher possesses all the required information in the form of concepts and processes, transmits this information to the student, and expects the student to take in this information hook, line, and sinker. Today, however, more and more classrooms in the US are employing different methods of learning such as Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, all grounded at the Constructivist root (Hiebert, Stigler, & Jacobs, 2005). However, classrooms from other parts of the world still largely employ the direct instruction methods. While I do promote the constructivist methods for teaching and learning, I am not in the position to say that this is the best method. However, I do believe that a majority of the learning population will greatly benefit the constructivist approach, from the novice learners up to the advanced ones. The Best of Both Worlds From a personal point of view, I adhere to the constructivist ideology of allowing the learning to construct knowledge based on personal experiences, with the guidance of an adult learner when needed. I believe that children should not be treated as empty receptacles who need to be filled up with information so that one could withdraw them at will. Based on my understanding, Kirschner, et al (2006) seem to be against the idea of minimal guidance during learning and would prefer that learners are provided basic concepts and processes required to complete a particular task. I agree and disagree with them. First, I agree that minimal guidance may not always be for the learner’s best interest. That is why responsible scaffolders should be able to properly assess how much guidance a learner must be provided with, taking into consideration the learner’s cognitive load. Appropriate scaffolfing must be provided and gradually removed to allow the learner to further his knowledge on his own. When you are teaching someone, nothing beats the feeling of seeing an “Aha!” moment in the learner’s eyes at the point where he or she was able to figure out the solution to a problem on his own. As Hmelo-Silver, et al (2007) point out, constructivist instruction prepares lifelong learners in the process of being able to craft a solution on their own given an infinite number of possible scenarios rather than simply recalling the exact solution to the exact problem at hand. Conclusion So much debate has been going on to pinpoint exactly which mode of instruction would produce the best results for a learner. While it may be disappointing to think that no one has found the secret formula to learning yet, the on-going debate is a welcome clash of ideas because it means that educators still have not rested on the age-old established “facts” about learning and are still very much in the quest for the improvement of the ease and effectiveness of the teaching and learning process. Maybe no one has found the secret formula yet because there may be no secret formula at all. Perhaps the only reliable “fact” about learning is that each learner is unique; what might work for one may not work for another. The best that we can hope for is that at the end of the day, teachers/educators/facilitators have done their best in trying to create an appropriate and effective learning environment for the child. References Baumann, J. (1982). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly , 20, 93-115. Becker, W., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of follow through: The later effects of the direct instruction model on children in fifth and sixth grades. American Educational Research Journal , 19, 75-92. doi: 10.3102/00028312019001075 Gallagher, J., & Reid, K. (2002). The learning theory of Piaget and Inhelder. iUniverse Press. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J., & Jacobs, J. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 27, 111-132. doi: 10.3102/01623737027002111 Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist , 42 (2), 99-107. Kail, R., & Cavanaugh, J. (2008). Human development: A life-span view. Cengage Learning. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimial 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. Kozulin, A. (2003). Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press. Sigelman, C., & Rider, E. (2011). Life-span human development. Cengage Learning. Read More