ABSTRACT
In this chapter we attempt to reframe the debate surrounding instructional guidance in a way that may be more productive than the one pursued recently. Up till now, the conversation between constructivists and instructionists has largely centered on the adversarial question of whether or not constructivist instructional approaches provide enough guidance to be effective. However, we argue that experimental “high versus low guidance” studies cannot provide a valid basis for making inferences about the fundamental merits of constructivist teaching. Reviewing some of the literature cited in the recent debate (with a particular focus on worked-example studies), we will argue that for constructivists and instructionists alike, the quantity of guidance is just one dimension along which guidance can be usefully characterized. We introduce the context in which guidance is delivered and the timing with which guidance is delivered as two more important concerns. We then make a case for a research agenda that we believe may bring constructivists and instructionists together in exploring questions about the optimal quantity, context, and timing of guidance in ill-defined problem domains. On one side of the recent debate is a perspective that sees instructional approaches such as problem-based learning (PBL) and guided inquiry as providing too little guidance to support learning effectively (e.g., Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Proponents of this view often cite lab-based findings such as the worked-example effect (e.g., Sweller & Cooper, 1985) as support for the position that “more” guidance, generally given at the outset of instruction, is almost always best for learners. Because of the primacy this perspective places on the delivery of up-front explicit instruction, we refer to it as “instructionism.” On the other side of the debate, there is a perspective that claims that inquiry and PBL approaches do provide a great deal of guidance, and may in fact produce learning outcomes that are superior to up-front explanation (e.g., Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn, 2007). Proponents of this view often cite classroom-based studies showing that students in inquiry-based classrooms achieve greater depth of understanding than students in traditional ones (e.g., Hickey, Kindfield, Horwitz, & Christie, 1999) as support for this position, generally referred to as “constructivism.” It appears to us that the two sides are talking past each other. We suspect that this may be due to different ideas about the purpose of guidance, different
ambitions with regard to the transfer of learning, and different views about the nature of the evidence needed to justify claims about the merits of any instructional approach. In the following sections, we try to unpack these differences and show how these incommensurate views lead us to a methodological catch-22 that, at present, makes the debate irresolvable. The reader may wonder, if we cannot answer the question of which approach is better, is there still a way to move forward productively? We present one possible path that uses the amount, context, and timing of guidance as a toolkit for thinking about the design of instruction. We explore evidence from both the constructivist and instructionist perspectives regarding the nature of effective instructional guidance, and attempt to develop principles that both instructionists and constructivists may be able to agree to. By using a common language, we hope to engender the possibility of research agendas of interest to both instructionists and constructivists, and to which each group can contribute.
