102096

Researching Teaching and Learning

ASSIGNMENT 2 – ENGAGEMENT WIH EDUCATIONAL ISSUE

Student Name: Quoc Tuan Le

Student Number: 18196463

Word count: 1837

 The principal premise of education is to shed light on students' improvement, to bring
out the inner potential of each student, and to help them to achieve positive learning outcomes
regardless of their background, socioeconomic status, language, and culture. The focus has
primarily been on students' academic performance on the standardized test. However, teaching
and learning are far more complex than just the result. Connell (2013) claims that teaching is a
complex task, teachers are not only knowledgeable in their teaching area but also have to be
aware of their teaching methods as well as the instructions that they give out in class. Different
teachers use different methods and instructions. These methods and instructions are critically
important and have a profound impact on the quality of the educational experience for children.
Evidence shows that effective teaching methods and instructions result in greater student
outcomes across the curriculum (Entz, 2007). Without the right instructions, it is impossible to
identify what elements will result in success for all students (Entz, 2007). Each teacher has
different pedagogical approaches and teaching techniques from which to choose, but it is clear
that they are not equally effective in producing positive student outcomes (Entz, 2007). Many
teachers naively follow trendy instructions without questioning its effectiveness. The critical
question is which instructional approach will benefit students' learning.

Appropriate instruction is significantly crucial in teaching and learning across all subjects
(Tharp et al., 2000). The superiority of guided instruction is challenged in the article written by
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). The article draws on the current knowledge of human
cognitive architecture and a range of studies in an attempt to explain why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work. This paper will focus on critically summarising the quality of
the article, followed by the application of the article recommendations in revising a part of a
Mathematics lesson plan with justification for all the changes.

Critical Summary

The educational issue features in Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark's (2006) article is the
failure of minimal guided approach. According to them, minimal or unguided instruction has
been called by different names such as discovery teaching, problem-based teaching, experiential
teaching, inquiry-based teaching and constructivist teaching. Kirschner et al. (2006, p.75) suggest
that these approaches are in different names but they all are "essentially pedagogically
equivalent approaches" in providing minimal guidance during instruction. The article's goal is to
draw on their current understanding of human cognitive architecture as their grounds for the
argument that minimally guided instruction is "likely to be ineffective" (Kirschner et al., 2006,
p.76). The ideas that students learn best when they are allowed to discover the fundamental
knowledge and then to construct their own thinking are very popular and intuitively appealing
(Kirschner et al., 2006). However, the authors argue that minimal or unguided instructional
approaches are less effective and less efficient in comparison to instructional approaches
(Kirschner et al., 2006). These arguments are made based on extensive reference to other
researchers and studies, which show how minimal instruction is not always the best choice when
it comes to teaching and learning.

First of all, Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007), in their article as a response to
Kirschner et al. (2006)’s article, points out “two major flaws” in the article. The first one is
jumping straight to conclusion that a range of approaches is minimal guidance approaches as
they “indiscriminately lumped together several distinct pedagogical approaches”. Whereas, at
least some of those approaches are far from providing minimal guidance during instruction, for
instance, problem-based and inquiry learning as these approaches “provide extensive
scaffolding and guidance to facilitate student learning” (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). The second
flaw, according to Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007), is their “evidentiary base” as they claim problem-
based and inquiry learning are ineffective, when in fact, there exist evidence to suggest that
“these approaches can foster deep and meaningful learning as well as significant gains in
student achievement on standardized tests”.

The authors rely on their knowledge of human cognitive architecture to strongly oppose
the effectiveness of minimally guided instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006, p.76). They then
emphasize the idea again by claiming that any instructional procedure that overlooks the
characteristics human cognitive architecture is not likely to be effective (p.76). Moreover, they
further expand their argument on minimally guided instruction does not work as it does not take
into account the limitation of working memory, long-term memory or the association of them.
The authors then go into detailed explaining how long-term memory is no longer perceived as
"passive repository of discrete isolated fragments of information" (p.76) but rather working in
conjunction with working memory (p.77). The authors do not merely provide a clear explanation
but also they include the finding of long-term memory on chess player as these contribute to the
relevance and suitability, which provide high credibility.

The article stresses the explicit differences in definition between "unguided or minimally
guided" and "direct instructional guidance" approaches. On one side, minimal or no guidance
during instruction refers to the idea that learner must "discover or construct essential
information for themselves". On the other side, direct instructional guidance is described as the
learner is provided “information with fully explains the concepts and procedures" (Kirschner et
al., 2006). These definitions are cited with evidence from other researchers, providing a high
level of validity. However, the use of the word "minimal" can be considered as vague, as the
authors did not specifically define to what extent is considered "minimal" guidance which can
cause uncertainty to the reader.

The article sets out in the title to analyze why minimal guidance during instruction does
not work. However, the authors seem to be focusing on critiquing how minimal instructional
approaches are not effective on novice learners, or even worse negatively impact their quality of
learning, rather generalizing the educational issue on all learners. In addition, the authors almost
seem to forget that problem-based learning is necessary for students to achieve a deeper
understanding of a topic.

Worked example effect looks at the differences in terms of academic performance

among learners, especially novice learners, who study worked out examples and those who are
required to solve problems on their own. Those who study worked examples outperform those
who are given minimal guidance (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 80, Ziegler, & Stern, 2016). The reason
why minimal instruction does not work is that it overloads limited working memory, learners
spend a significant amount of time and learn nothing (Kirschner et al., 2006). The authors cite
several studies but they almost seem to ignore the benefits of minimal instruction in the long-
term. The researchers only look at the positive side of direct instruction and ignore the facts that
direction instruction appears to be inefficient in the long-term (Willingham, 2009).

Overall, the evidence that the authors use to support their arguments is broad, ranging
from the understanding of human cognition to different kind of experiments performed by other
researchers. In their conclusion, the researchers emphasize that “there is no body of research”
that support minimal guidance during instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006, pp. 83-84). The
effectiveness of minimal instruction on experienced learners is found to be "equally effective" as
direct instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 84). Nevertheless, it appears that researchers only
focus on studies that are relevant, in fact, in favor of their argument rather than collecting
evidence from both sides of the argument. Furthermore, they only draw on studies from the
past and ignore recent or current studies around the time they published their article.
Consequently, the article fails to provide a fair view of the effectiveness and efficiency of guided
and unguided instruction.
Recommending and justifying changes

A part of a Mathematics lesson plan from the unit "102086 Designing Teaching and
Learning" has been chosen for modification (see Appendix A). The topic area is "Measurement",
the topic covers multiple subtopics, and the subtopic of this lesson plan is about "Working with
Time".

In this activity, students are asked to work in groups of two or individually. Students read
through the worksheet and try to work out the timetable of 5 trains. After that, students will
need to use all the information that they have to answer three questions. The purpose of this
activity is to help students in interpreting timetable and use it to solve problems. Students also
learn how to incorporate 12-hour and 24-hour time. These types of exercise will assist students
later on with real-life problems. Some changes will be made to the activity and these changes
are made based on the recommendations from the Kirschner et al.'s article (2006).

The research recommends all instructional approaches should take human cognitive
architecture into account. Kirschner et al., (2006) argue that instructional procedures that
overlook the human cognitive architecture are likely to be ineffective. The worksheet activity in
this lesson plan ignores the limitation of working memory, and the relations between working
memory and long-term memory. Moreover, the activity fails to identify the fundamental idea of
explicit instruction as it did not precisely explain what students need to do and how they do it.
Explicit instruction starts with clear and precise goal and instruction on how to achieve that goal.
A clear set of outcomes will be added, to explicitly explain what students will learn and how to
achieve those outcomes.

First of all, the worksheet activity places a heavy demand on working memory as
students need to remember and make connections between the trains' names and time.
Students have to constantly deconstruct the question and reconstruct it at the same time in a
logical order to make sense of all the information which overloads the working memory. As
stated by Kirschner et al. (2006) when working memory is being used for a searching solution to
a problem, it is impossible for it to be used to learn (p. 77). As a result, students spend a lot of
time on the question but in the end, they will learn almost nothing (Kirschner et al., 2006). The
question will be modified by dividing the question into smaller chunks for students. Additionally,
the names for the trains will be changed according to student’s suggestions. They can use
realistic destination such as local locations that they are familiar with, in order to make the
question more relevant to them. This will help to reduce the burden placed on working memory.
 Secondly, Kirschner et al., (2006) suggest that the relationship between working and
long-term memory is perhaps "more important than processing limitations" (p. 77). It is essential
to be mindful when designing an activity for students that instructional guidance should draw on
learners' prior knowledge. This can help to remove the limitation of working memory, and
knowledge can be retrieved in order to make new knowledge meaningful (Hattie, 2012).
Another modification will be made is the inclusion of process worksheets, this helps the student
to "recognize which moves are required for particular problems" (Kirschner et al., 2006, p.80).
Students can follow the guided instructions to successfully complete the task. This will not only
allow students to overcome the futile procedural struggles but also result in a more superior
quality of learning. Furthermore, as students become more familiar with the problem, the
amount of guidance can be reduced to avoid redundancy (Kirschner et al., 2006, p.80).

Overall, the activity has a good side which is indicating high expectation from the teacher
as it is highly difficult, in order for students to gain deep knowledge and deep understanding on
the topic. However, this can have a reverse effect without extensive guidance thus a few
modifications are made according to the article recommendations to facilitate learning and
ensure students’ deep understanding of the topic.
Reference
Connell, R. (2013). Teachers. In R. Connell, A. Welch, M. Vickers, D. Foley, N.Bagnall, D. Hayes, ...C.

Campbell (Eds.), Education, change and society (pp. 261-275). South Melbourne, Australia:

Victoria Oxford University Press.

Entz, Susan. (2007). Why pedagogy matters: The importance of teaching in a standards-based

environment. Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table, Forum on Public

Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table, Spring, 2007.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers : Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & 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.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (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(2), 75-86.

Tharp, R. (2000). Teaching transformed : Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and

harmony (Renewing American schools).

Willingham, D. (2009). Why don't students like school? : A cognitive scientist answers questions about

how the mind works and what it means for your classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ziegler, & Stern. (2016). Consistent advantages of contrasted comparisons: Algebra learning under direct

instruction. Learning and Instruction, 41, 41-51.

 Appendix A
Original lesson plan

Outcomes Assessment Students learn about Students learn to

Formative assessment The interpretation of Students review how to

takes place throughout different timetables and interpret timetables and use

MS11-3, the lesson. Teacher how this can be used as a this to solve problems using a

MS11-4, walks around and asks part of life. How public range of different timetables,

MS11-9, questions, and ensures transportation can be used including ferries, buses and

MS11-10. that students are as a means of promoting trains. Incorporate 12-hour

staying on task. sustainability. and 24-hour time into
understanding timetables.

15 mins Worksheet activity*

Teacher hands out train timetable worksheet activity. Students have the option of
working on this alone, or with another person.

Worksheet activity

Five trains travel from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to London Central on the
same morning. The Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts station 6 minutes after the Gryffindor
Goods Train, but arrives 14 minutes before the Slytherin All-Stations Train. The Gryffindor Goods
Train takes 46 minutes to reach London Central and arrives at 8:53am. The Ravenclaw Express
leaves 10 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express and arrives 14 minutes before the Gryffindor
Goods Train. The Muggle-stops train is running 6 minutes late on this particular morning, and
arrives in London Central at 8:37am, after leaving Hogwarts 4 minutes before the Hufflepuff
Express. The Slytherin All-Stations Train takes 33 minutes to travel from Hogwarts to Central
London, and arrives 46 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts.

Work out the train timetable for the 5 trains.

Hogwarts London Central

 Hufflepuff Express
Slytherin All-Stations
Gryffindor Goods Train
Ravenclaw Express
Muggle-stops

1. What is the latest time train you could catch from Hogwarts to arrive at London Central
before 8:40am? What train is this?
2. Explain what would happen if the Ravenclaw Express train was running 7 minutes late.
3. Hannah misses the Hufflepuff Express train by 2 minutes. She needs to be in London
Central by 8:45am. What may be a possible solution for her? Justify reasons for your
answer.
 Appendix B
Modified lesson plan

Outcomes Assessment Students learn Students learn to

about

MS11-3, Solves problems Formative The interpretation Students review how to

involving quantity assessment of different interpret timetables and
measurement, including takes place timetables and how use this to solve
accuracy and the choice of throughout the this can be used as problems using a range
relevant units lesson. Teacher a part of life. How of different timetables,
MS11-4, Performs walks around public including ferries, buses
calculations in relation to and asks transportation can and trains. Incorporate
two-dimensional and three- questions, and be used as a means 12-hour and 24-hour
dimensional figures ensures that of promoting time into understanding
MS11-9, Uses appropriate students are sustainability. timetables.
technology to investigate, staying on task.
organise and interpret
information in a range of
contexts
MS11-10, Justifies a response
to a given problem using
appropriate mathematical
terminology and/or
calculations

15 mins Worksheet activity*

Teacher hands out train timetable worksheet activity. Students have the option
of working on this alone, or with another person.
Worksheet activity

Five trains travel from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to London Central on the
same morning. The Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts station 6 minutes after the Gryffindor
Goods Train, but arrives 14 minutes before the Slytherin All-Stations Train. The Gryffindor Goods
Train takes 46 minutes to reach London Central and arrives at 8:53am. The Ravenclaw Express
leaves 10 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express and arrives 14 minutes before the Gryffindor
Goods Train. The Muggle-stops train is running 6 minutes late on this particular morning, and
arrives in London Central at 8:37am, after leaving Hogwarts 4 minutes before the Hufflepuff
Express. The Slytherin All-Stations Train takes 33 minutes to travel from Hogwarts to Central
London, and arrives 46 minutes after the Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts.

Work out the train timetable for the 5 trains.

Hogwarts London Central

Hufflepuff Express
Slytherin All-Stations
Gryffindor Goods Train
Ravenclaw Express
Muggle-stops

1. What is the latest time train you could catch from Hogwarts to arrive at London Central
before 8:40am? What train is this?
2. Explain what would happen if the Ravenclaw Express train was running 7 minutes late.
3. Hannah misses the Hufflepuff Express train by 2 minutes. She needs to be in London
Central by 8:45am. What may be a possible solution for her? Justify reasons for your
answer.
Break down of the question into smaller Process worksheet
chunks

The Gryffindor Goods Train takes 46 minutes Therefore departure time of Gryffindor
to reach London Central and arrives at Goods Train = Arrival time - duration = ?
8:53am

The Hufflepuff Express leaves Hogwarts Departure time of Gryffindor Goods Train = ?
station 6 minutes after the Gryffindor Goods
Train Departure time of Hufflepuff Express =
Departure time of Gryffindor Goods Train + 6
minutes = ?

Ravenclaw Express leaves 10 minutes after Departure time of Ravenclaw Express =

the Hufflepuff Express Departure time of Hufflepuff Express + 10
minutes = ?

Ravenclaw Express arrives 14 minutes before Arrival time of Ravenclaw Express = Arrival
the Gryffindor Goods Train time of Gryffindor Goods - 14 minutes = ?

The Slytherin All-Stations Train arrives 46 Arrival time of Slytherin All-Stations Train =
minutes after the Hufflepuff Express leaves Departure time of Hufflepuff Express + 46
Hogwarts. minutes = ?

The Slytherin All-Stations Train takes 33 Departure time of Slytherin All-Stations Train
minutes to travel from Hogwarts to Central = Arrival time of Slytherin All-Station Train -
London 33 minutes =?

The Muggle-stops arrives in London Central Departure time for the Muggle-stops =
at 8:37am (running 6 minutes late) Departure time of Hufflepuff Express - 4
minutes = ? (running 6 minutes late)
The Muggle-stops leaves Hogwarts 4
minutes before Hufflepuff Express
However the Muggle-stop was running 6
minutes lates
The actual departure time of the Muggle-
stops = ? + 6
The actual arrival time of the Muggle-stops =
?+6