Open Universiteit
www.ou.nl
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not
Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,
Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-
Based teaching
Citation for published version (APA):
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2016). 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
DOI:
10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Document status and date:
Published: 09/06/2016
Document Version:
Other version
Please check the document version of this publication:
• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between
the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the
final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.
• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.
• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.
Link to publication
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please
follow below link for the End User Agreement:
https://www.ou.nl/taverne-agreement
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:
pure-support@ou.nl
providing details and we will investigate your claim.
Downloaded from https://research.ou.nl/ on date: 10 Aug. 2022
KIRSCHNER, SWELLER, CLARKMINIMAL GUIDANCE
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not
Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist,
Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and
Inquiry-Based Teaching
Paul A. Kirschner
Educational Technology Expertise Center
Open University of the Netherlands
Research Centre Learning in Interaction
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
John Sweller
School of Education
University of New South Wales
Richard E. Clark
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge
of human cognitive architecture, expert–novice differences, and cognitive load. Although un-
guided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appeal-
ing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human
cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that con
-
sistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than in
-
structional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning pro
-
cess. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high
prior knowledge to provide “internal” guidance. Recent developments in instructional research
and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.
Disputes about the impact of instructional guidance during
teaching have been ongoing for at least the past half-century
(Ausubel, 1964; Craig, 1956; Mayer, 2004; Shulman &
Keisler, 1966). On one side of this argument are those advo
-
cating the hypothesis that people learn best in an unguided or
minimally guided environment, generally defined as one in
which learners, rather than being presented with essential in
-
formation, must discover or construct essential information
for themselves (e.g., Bruner, 1961; Papert, 1980; Steffe &
Gale, 1995). On the other side are those suggesting that nov
-
ice learners should be provided with direct instructional
guidance on the concepts and procedures required by a par
-
ticular discipline and should not be left to discover those pro
-
cedures by themselves (e.g., Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Klahr
& Nigam, 2004; Mayer, 2004; Shulman & Keisler, 1966;
Sweller, 2003). Direct instructional guidance is defined as
providing information that fully explains the concepts and
procedures that students are required to learn as well as learn
-
ing strategy support that is compatible with human cognitive
architecture. Learning, in turn, is defined as a change in
long-term memory.
The minimally guided approach has been called by vari
-
ous names including discovery learning (Anthony, 1973;
Bruner, 1961); problem-based learning (PBL; Barrows &
Tamblyn, 1980; Schmidt, 1983), inquiry learning (Papert,
1980; Rutherford, 1964), experiential learning (Boud,
Keogh, & Walker, 1985; Kolb & Fry, 1975), and
constructivist learning (Jonassen, 1991; Steffe & Gale,
1995). Examples of applications of these differently named
but essentially pedagogically equivalent approaches include
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 41(2), 75–86
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
CorrespondenceshouldbeaddressedtoPaulA.Kirschner,ResearchCen
-
tre Learning in Interaction, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, P.O. Box
80140,3508TC,Utrecht,TheNetherlands.E-mail:p.a.kirschner@fss.uu.nl