Is Direct Instruction the Answer to the Right Question
This Kirschner article has widely been criticised in academic circles for its misguided/simplistic definitions of constructivism and inquiry. In particular the inquiry model they seemed to use in the article was discovery learning, which is a style of inquiry that was commonly used in the seventies and early eighties, but which has been debunked. Discovery learning I have never seen in practice during my more than a decade of teaching experience.
Both direct instruction and inquiry are very important elements of teaching and learning - but they should be applied at different times. Direct instruction is important at the beginning of a teaching cycle and inquiry or other opportunities for application such as authentic assessment are very important towards the end of a teaching cycle.
At Markham Lower School the kind of inquiry that we use is called "guided inquiry" and it is modelled on Kath Murdoch's inquiry cycle. The stages of the cycle have periods when there is direct instruction such as the "finding out" stage. I recommend anyone not familiar with her work to seek her out, along with Wiggins and McTighe and also Hattie.
Three articles are referred to in this post
Is direct instruction the answer to the right question? (Kuhn, 2007) Today, this debate still rages and provokes widespread discussion. Critically evaluate the arguments presented by these authors and arrive at your own stance or conclusion- is direct instruction the right answer? What is the theoretical view of learning in each of the articles? Limited? Inclusive? Exclusive? You may want to consider to which type of learner does each theoretical position apply? You may also want to consider what type of learning is best facilitated by each approach?
Blog Post 1 – Is Direct Instruction the Answer to the Right Question?
In response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark’s (2006) writing on the perceived failure of constructivist approaches to learning and the need for a highly guided approach, Schmidt, Loyens, Van Gog and Paas (2007) claim that inquiry approaches and direct instruction can be applied successfully together and Kuhn (2007) wonders whether direct instruction is the answer to the right question. Rather than arguing in favour of a particular instructional method, Kuhn says that educators need to consider instructional methods within, “the broader context of instructional goals (2007, 112).” Essentially, Kuhn reframes the discussion to highlight the importance of thinking deeply about what we want the students to achieve before considering instructional approaches and knowledge to be included in curricula.
My personal stance aligns with that of Kuhn (2007); I believe that we need to carefully consider the purpose of education in the 21st century and consciously construct curricula and pedagogy around those purposes. According to Kuhn, “After examining possible alternatives, I make the case that the only defensible answer to the question of what we want schools to accomplish is that they should teach students to use their minds well, in school and beyond (2007, 110).” If this is the agreed purpose, then I believe that both inquiry and direct instruction approaches are essential elements in guiding students towards being able to use their minds well during their formal education and throughout the rest of their lives.
In this blog post, I will attempt to identify the main arguments of Kirschner et al. (2006), Schmidt et al. (2007) and Kuhn (2007), their theoretical views of learning and consider what the most effective instructional model in the 21st century might look like combining inquiry and direct instruction.
Kirschner et al. (2007) use cognitive load theory to argue that direct instruction is the superior pedagogical model to inquiry methods by claiming that the cognitive load placed on students during inquiry learning is too heavy. They define direct instruction as: “providing information that fully explains the concepts and procedures that students are required to learn as well as learning strategy support that is compatible with human cognitive architecture (p.75).” I personally interpret this definition to include many of the assessment for learning and scaffolding of learning pedagogical approaches that have become widely used in 21stcentury classrooms. Along with the authors, I agree that clear information and instruction is effective, but I would go further and say this kind of input also empowers students and is a key element of many constructivist contemporary approaches.
Kirschner et al. (2006), unfortunately, present a limited theoretical view of learning, by failing to acknowledge the complexity and depth of several issues within their argument. First, they fail to clearly define what they are arguing against: the article title claims that constructivist, discovery, problem based, experiential and inquiry based teaching have failed, but they bundle all of these nuanced approaches into one, and in doing so, mistakenly claim that all of these approaches use minimal guidance. In fact, they seem to have a vision of inquiry being taught universally with a minimal guidance approach and that does not look at all like the inquiry methods that I have ever observed as a pre-service teacher or teacher over the past 11 years. Furthermore, they do not provide any evidence for the prevalence the minimally guided inquiry methods they reject. It seems to me that they are arguing against a pedagogical approach that has now entirely disappeared, rendering their argument irrelevant. Additionally their theoretical view of learning is limited as they do not consider what content should be included in subjects and courses and seem not to grasp the problematic nature of what content is appropriate to teach in a post-modern era. In contemporary education, as mentioned in Kuhn (2007) the “what” of education is equally as problematic as the “how”:
“Traditional answers to the question of what schools should teach children have become increasingly hard to justify. Beyond basic literacy and numeracy, it has become next to impossible to predict what kinds of knowledge people will need to thrive in the mid-21st century (2007,110)”.
Given the limitations of this paper, one is led to draw the conclusion that they either demonstrate a limited understanding of the nuances of each inquiry method they claim as being failures, or they are deliberately ignoring the differences in the approaches they condemn belying a bias.
In response to Kirschner et al. (2006), Schmidt et al. (2007) agree that minimally guided approaches are not effective for novice learners. However, they also argue that inquiry based teaching strategies are not a minimal guidance instructional method and that inquiry is compatible with direct instruction and human cognitive architecture. According to Schmidt et al.: “One of the basic tenets of PBL can be summarized as scaffolding for student independence. Kirschner et al. (2006), however, seem to confuse the ultimate goal of student independence with novice learners being unguided or minimally guided in PBL (2007, 93).”
In fact, Schmidt et al. (2007) argue that the flexible nature of inquiry models to adapt and offer student guidance potentially makes them more supportive of human cognitive structures than the direct instruction method put forward by Kirschner et al. Schmidt et al. look at how direct instruction and problem based learning can work together. They also clearly define PBL and advocate PBL as an inclusive theoretical view of learning whereby there is space for differentiated instruction –
“While working on a problem, the group is guided by a tutor. His or her task is to stimulate the discussion, to provide students—if necessary—with just-in-time subject matter information, to evaluate progress being made, and to monitor the extent to which each group member contributes to the group’s work (2007, 92).”
By identifying the range of needs and experiences of students and how inquiry methods and direct instruction can be used in tandem to lead to effective learning, Schmidt et al. demonstrate an inclusive theoretical view of learning. Kuhn (2007) wonders whether direct instruction is the answer to the right question and suggests that first we must decide upon our instructional goals for education. While not directly supporting one instructional approach over the other she acknowledges the value of each:
“If we agree that development of inquiry skills is a worthwhile educational goal, as I have argued and a majority of science educators agree, and we also accept Kirschner et al.’s claims regarding the desirability of direct over inquiry methods of instruction, the following conclusion is unavoidable: Students should learn inquiry skills but they should not be involved in inquiry as an instructional method for mastering these skills. Engaging in inquiry, in other words, is not the most effective means of acquiring inquiry skills (p.111)."
Kuhn’s desire to delve deep and analyse the needs of learners and instructional goals before deciding on content and pedagogical models also demonstrates an inclusive theoretical view of learning.
After carefully analysing the arguments of Kirschner et al. (2006), Schmidt et al. (2007) and Kuhn (2007), my personal stance aligns with that of both Schmidt et al. and Kuhn. I believe that carefully scaffolded learning identified by Schmidt is essential to guide students carefully and avoid extraneous cognitive load. However, as Kuhn highlights, I believe it is first essential that educators carefully consider instructional goals for their particular students before selecting the appropriate teaching strategies, which may include both direct instruction and inquiry methods.
References
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, 75-86.
Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-113.
Schmidt, H., Loyens, S., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109-113. 91-97