Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

When Does Provision of Instruction Promote Learning

2011; Wiley; Volume: 33; Issue: 33 Linguagem: Inglês

1551-6709

Hee Seung Lee, Abraham R. Anderson, Shawn Betts, John R. Anderson,

Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods

When does Provision of Instruction Promote Learning? Hee Seung Lee, Abraham Anderson, Shawn Betts, and John R. Anderson {heeseung, lobo, sabetts, ja0s} @andrew.cmu.edu Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Abstract Contradictory evidence has been reported on the effects of discovery learning approach and the role of instructional explanations. By manipulating the presence of instruction (verbal explanation) and transparency of problem structures, we investigated how effects of instructional explanations differed depending on the transparency of problem structure. We developed an auxiliary representational task that made certain aspects of the problem structure more transparent. Instruction proved irrelevant to those aspects of the problem made transparent by the representation but facilitated learning of those aspects that were left obscure. We suggest that the critical role of instruction is not specifying the steps in solving a problem, but rather making salient the features that are critical to student’s ability to infer the steps from examples. Keywords: discovery learning, instruction, explanation, transparency of problem structure, representation. Introduction One of the central controversies in education is how much instructional guidance needs to be provided in a learning environment. Even if an optimal amount of instruction is identified in one learning environment, the effect might differ based on the use of other instructional factors. This study investigated how effects of instructional explanations differed in different instructional conditions. Debate over discovery learning and direct instruction Is it better to give students instructions about how to solve problems or is it better to allow students an opportunity to discover the knowledge for themselves? This question led to a long debate over effects of discovery learning versus direct instruction approach. Discovery learning approach is based on a constructivist theory of learning (Piaget, 1970) and it emphasizes learners’ active engagement in constructing their own knowledge. Learners are believed to be able to generate their own examples and explore them for learning. On the other hand, some researchers argue that the discovery learning approach has continuing advocates but without sufficient evidence (e.g., Mayer, 2004) and instructional guidance is critical to successful learning. In discovery learning students in effect have to generate their own worked examples by discovering solutions and making sense of their own solution steps. This can be at a disadvantage to providing instruction in that it can be costly both of time and working memory (e.g, Sweller, 1988) to generate the examples. Also, it can be at a disadvantage to providing instruction in that the structure of the solution is not explained. This often increases floundering thus students may never be able to discover what they are to learn (Ausubel, 1964). Both positive and negative effects of discovery learning have been reported in many different domains. Several studies demonstrated when students invented their own solution procedures, they showed better understanding of the domain than those who simply followed instructed solution procedures (e.g., Hierbert & Wearne, 1996; Kamii & Dominick, 1998). However, Rittle-Johnson (2006) reported an opposite finding. She found students who were directly taught a correct procedure showed better procedural transfer than those who were told to think of a new way to solve the problem without instruction. In the science domain, Klahr and Nigam (2004) showed direct instruction on control of variable strategy (CVS) led to better learning outcome and in turn subsequent transfer. However, Dean and Kuhn (2006) demonstrated direct instruction was neither necessary nor sufficient and instead practice appeared more important for enhancing students’ scientific inquiry skill. The benefits of direct instruction quickly disappeared without a long term engagement. Consistent with this finding, Brunstein, Betts, and Anderson (2009) also reported that discovery learning was more effective than direct instruction only when combined with high levels of practice in the domain of Algebra learning. Worked examples and instructional explanations In contrast to contradictory evidence with respect to direct instruction, there is strong evidence that learning is facilitated by the provision of worked examples (e.g., Carroll, 1994; Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999). Worked examples are believed to help students focus on relevant solution steps by reducing search activity that is irrelevant for problem schema acquisition. Provision of instruction and worked examples can be seen as orthogonal factors with discovery learning being the situation where the student has to generate solutions without the benefit of either examples or instruction. Even when worked examples are provided, if underlying solution steps are not explained and/or relevant features are not appropriately highlighted, students are left to generate own explanations to understand worked examples and discover relevant features for their learning. This process is not always successful. Sstudents often show illusion of understanding and fail to solve comprehension problems without instructional explanations (Renkl, 2002). However, instructional explanations can be also