Greg Ashman had an article in an Australian paper: Don’t be seduced by inquiry and project-based learning — the evidence is scant.
A comment pointed to the original paper on this topic, Minimal Guidance…..re constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, inquiry-based. My comment pointed out an easier paper to read:
For busy people, what a joy it is to find an easy-to-read version of an academic paper! From 12 pages to 6 pages and stripped of much academese — who can ask for more? Thanks to Craig Lawrence for suggesting that the “starting point” should be the “Minimal Guidance . . .” paper by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark. After having read the previous comments Craig is probably suggesting that people do their homework on this heavy debate surrounding direct instruction versus inquiry/project-based learning.
Here is that “newer and better” (?) paper: Putting Students on the Path to Learning, https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Clark.pdf
It was written by teachers for teachers and published in the American Federation of Teachers journal, American Educator, Spring 2012 (6 years after the original).
Here you will find:
– The “dispute” clearly set out
– The term “novices” used for new learners, “experts” for those already comfortable
– How “working memory” and “long-term memory” operate – The concept of “worked-example effect”
– The introduction of the term “cognitive load” (more fully described in the original)
– How “discovery” approach could lead to “confusion” and “misconceptions”
– That “transfer” does not necessarily apply to other contexts
– Novice and intermediate learners are best-served by explicit instruction, while “most expert students” can benefit from “minimal instruction”
I feel this paper is a better starting point. From there one would appreciate the original, Greg’s blog and book, Daisy’s book, etc. Of course, much has happened since 2006 and 2012, and we must now salute the new movement, researchED, which aims to emphasize the need for evidence-informed practice.