Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Literature Trace P572

Anchored Instruction Project-Based Learning Problem-Based Learning
by

Tiffany Roman

on 22 July 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Literature Trace P572

Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
and Anchored Instruction:
Debate on the theory of learning

Savery and Duffy (1995) cite Rorty's (1991) and von Glaserfeld's (1989) philosophical views of Constructivism.

Savery and Duffy support their central principles of learning and instruction (foundations of PBL) on the philosophical principles of those two authors.
So what is the issue?

Savery and Duffy (1995), as well as
Hmelo-Silver (2004) reference cognitive apprenticeship as a component of PBL.

Constructivism, as posited by von Glaserfeld's is quite different from the apprenticeship model.
Started by Krischner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)

'Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching'
Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006)

Argue minimally guided approach is likely to be ineffective
Address underlying assumptions
Minimal guidances ignores characteristics of memory
Research supports guided instruction
Critique educational models favoring minimal guidance
Schmidt, Loyens, Gog, and Paas (2007)
PBL can't be equated with minimally guided instruction
PBL allows for flexible adaptation of guidance, making this instructional approach potentially more compatible with human cognitive architecture.

Elements of PBL that can reduce cognitive load:
small group, training in group collaboration skills
learning task, activation of prior knowledge
tutor instruction, resources
Kuhn (2007)
Response to Kirschner et al. (2006):
Addresses motivation theory
Issue not how to teach but what to teach students
Teacher cannot change student beliefs
Suggests:
Students need skills of inquiry and argumentation
Need to find balance between direct instruction and student-directed inquiry
Focus attention on what students may be motivated to learn and why they wish to do so.
Trace Back: Conflicting support for Problem-based learning
Constructivism as defined by Ernst von Glaserfeld (1989)
Cognitive apprentice as defined by Collins et al. (1989)
von Glaserfeld (1989)
Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989)
Address the differences between formal schooling and apprenticeship methods
Explain the implications for the teaching and learning of cognitive skills
Propose a new cognitive apprenticeship model for teaching students the skill of thinking, reasoning and problem-solving.
Suggest four dimensions of learning environment: content, method, sequence, and sociology.
Minimally guided approach includes:
discovery learning,
problem-based learning
inquiry learning
experiential learning
constructivist learning
Assumptions:
students solve "authentic" problems or acquire complex knowledge in information rich settings
knowledge best acquired through experiences based on the procedures of the discipline
Human-Cognitive Architecture:
"Aim of instruction is to alter long-term memory" (p. 77).
Working memory has limitations
Cannot ignore burden on working memory
Goal of instruction rarely to "search for or discover" information
Three responses to original article (all in the same journal)

Schmidt, Loyens, Gog and Paas (2007)
"Problem-Based Learning is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)"

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Clark (2007)
"Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Krichner, Sweller, and Clark (2006)"

Kuhn (2007)
"Is Direct Instruction an Answer to the Right Question?"
Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Clark (2007)
Two flaws with Kirschner et al. (2006):
Pedagogical flaw
(i) PBL & IL are not minimally guided instructional approaches
(ii) PBL & IL provide extensive scaffolding and guidance
Evidentiary base
PBL & IL can foster deep and meaningful learning as well as
significant gains in student achievement on standardized tests
Ernst von Glaserfeld:
Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching (1989)
Presents alternative theory of knowing
Examines Piaget's scheme theory
Cannot lead learners to understanding (teachers already tend to adapt instructional activity to student's conceptual network)
To Guide Or Not To Guide:
Debate on Minimally Guided Instruction

Pedagogical flaw
PBL & IL are NOT minimally guided because of the many forms of scaffolding provided
- Scaffolding makes disciplinary thinking
and strategies explicit
- Scaffolding embeds expert guidance
- Scaffolding structures complex tasks or
reduce cognitive load
May include direct instruction on a just-in-time basis
Evidence
PBL is effective
IL is effective

"Tell me and I will forget;
show me and I may remember;
involve me and I will understand" (p. 105).
Kirschner et al. (2006) "seem to cconfuse the ultimate goal if student independence with novice learners being ungided or minimally guided in PBL."

PBL is not an example of minimally guided instruction when it is implemented with the proper degree of scaffolding.

Effective learning according to cognitive load theory (CLT)
Response to critiques
Sweller, Krischner, and Clark (2007)

"Why Minimally Guided Teaching Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries"
Discussion Questions for Kirschner et al. (2006):

1) What is your initial response to Kirschner et al.
(2006) based on our readings this week?

2) How would you argue for or against the position of
Kirschner et al.?
Discussion question for various responses to Kirschner et al. (2006):

How do you think Kirschner et al. (2006) would respond to the three critiques?
Final set of discussion questions:

1) How do you envision the debate proceeding in the future?

2) How do the various positions presented in the debate affect your position on learning and instruction?
Support for Guided Instruction: Research
Aulls (2002) - Constructivist teachers needed to provide considerable guidance
Klahr and Nigam (2004) - "Very important study" (p. 79) comparing discovery learning to direct instruction and direct instruction resulted in "vastly more learning than discovery" (p. 79).
Support for Guided Instruction:
Cognitive load theory (difficulty for novices to integrate information into prior knowledge)
Worked examples (reduce memory load, prevent "unproductive problem-solving search"
Process worksheets
Critique of models favoring minimal guidance:
Clark (1982): Strong vs. Weak learner comparisons
Medical problem-based learning issues (use Hmelo-Silver's 2004 article for support!)
In Sum: Kirschner et al (2006)
No body of research supports instruction using minimal guidance
Direct instructional guidance superior (novice/intermediate learner)
Unguided instruction not just less effective, it can produce negative results
Response to Schmidt et al. (2007)

1) Schmidt et al. deny human cognitive architecture is in conflict with PBL
If problem solving causes heavy cognitive load, why engage in problem-solving search?
Note limits of working memory

2) Schmidt et al. do not relate the worked-example effect to PBL
Worked examples provide direct instructional guidance better than discussion problems without appropriate guidance

3) Schmidt et al. introduce cooperative PBL
Group work is itself cognitively taxing
Collaborative learning benefits due to "failure to provide adequate levels of guidance in instruction" (p. 117).
Final word to Schmidt et al.:
"PBL is ineffective compared with instruction that provides direct, explicit information" (p. 117).

Response to Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2007)

1) Hmelo-Silver et al. do not state differences between PBL and inquiry learning, but both are different from discovery learning
Issue: Scaffolding in each approach is not different
Ignore providing learners with problem and problem-solving procedure

2) Hmelo-Silver et al. provide miminal reference to human cognitive architecture
Issue: Aim of learning to increase knowledge of long-term memory
"No sophisticated, teachable general problem-solving strategy have been isolated" (p. 117).
Problem-solving search is unnecessary as a teaching tool

3) Hmelo-Silver et al. cite studies that support their claims
Issue: "All [the studies] seem fatally flawed" (p. 118).
Experimental designs cited are useless in determing effective instructional procedures (better experimental studies needed)
Final word to Schmidt et al. and Hmelo-Silver et al.:
Direct instructial guidance
(e.g. worked examples) is of ultimate importance.

Response to Kuhn (2007)

1) "Very strongly disagree" with Kuhn's point of view
Does not describe any of the critical thinking skills she favors
Does not explain how to teach them
Does not relate skills to human cognitive architecture
Does not describe any inquiry skills (let alone evidence)
2) Knowledge is in the relevant theories or findings in a domain specific area
Collins et al. (1989) continued
Implication in teaching methods:
Adopt Lave's successive approximation of mature practice (1994): observation-coaching-practice (Note Collins et al. (1989) use different terminology: modeling-coaching-scaffolding)
Add articulation, reflection, and exploration to the model.
Ask teachers to break the problem into subparts.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989)
Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of
reading, writing and mathematics.
In sum, Collins et al. (1989) conflicts with von Glaserfeld (1989), yet both were cited by Savery & Duffy (1995) and Hmelo-Silver (2004).

Something to think about:
The similarities and differences between the apprenticeship model theory of learning and constructivism as described by von Glaserfeld.
Knowledge:
Not simply transferred by means of words
Not acquired passively
'Learning' product of self-organization
Described as an adaptive* function
Piaget in sum:
Novelty handled through assimilation
Experience only novel when perturbation experienced
Experience may lead to accommodation
Alters cognitive structure
Interaction with others "most frequent source of perterbations" (p. 136).
(Group learning "with little to no inference" from teacher)
Full transcript