A discussion on Twitter raised a lot of questions about working memory and the evidence supporting direct instruction cited by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark. I couldn’t answer in 140 characters, so here’s my response. I hope it covers all the questions.
Kirschner Sweller & Clark’s thesis is;
• working memory capacity is limited
• constructivist, discovery, problem-Based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching (minimal guidance) all overload working memory and
• evidence from studies investigating efficacy of different methods supports the superiority of direct instruction.
Therefore, “In so far as there is any evidence from controlled studies, it almost uniformly supports direct, strong instructional guidance rather than constructivist-based minimal guidance during the instruction of novice to intermediate learners.” (p.83)
Sounds pretty unambiguous – but it isn’t.
1. WM isn’t simple. It includes several ‘dissociable’ sensory buffers and a central executive that monitors, attends to and responds to sensory information, information…
View original post 533 more words