Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

102096 Researching Teaching and Learning

Assessment 2: Evaluation of an Educational Issue

Introduction to Educational Issue – Pedagogy and Instruction.………………………………………...2

Critical Analysis of Kirschner, Sweller & Clark Article ……………………………………………………….4

Educational activity………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

Activity Revision……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10

1
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

The issue of effective pedagogy is at the heart of all teaching, and this pedagogy is

embodied through teacher instruction. The chosen article by Kirschner, Weller & Clarke

attempts to completely discredit one particular form of pedagogical instruction,

constructivism. This essay will consider the findings of the Kirschner et al article by first

explaining what pedagogy is, why pedagogical instruction is relevant to teaching practice,

and a brief explanation of the two competing pedagogical models discussed in the article. It

will then provide a critical analysis of the article, with particular attention to the research

process and validity of its recommendations. It will justify the relevance of this issue and

article in relation to the key learning area of English. Before finally using the articles

recommendations, as well as other relevant resources, to make revisions to an English

lesson activity, such that the pedagogical instruction is designed to best meet the needs of

the learners.

Introduction to Educational Issue – Pedagogy and Instruction

Pedagogy, at it’s most basic is the act of teaching children, Watkins and Mortimore (1999)

define it as “any conscious activity by one person designed to enhance the learning of

another” (p. 3). Pedagogy in reality is complex, imbued with power, informed by theory and

influenced by policy (Waring & Evans, 2015). If the role of a teacher is, as Professor Corrigan

(2016) states, “to add value to the learning of each student in your care”, then it is

imperative that a teacher designs their pedagogical instruction in a way that is engaging,

informative and effective. The need for effective instruction is highlighted in much of the

literature about teacher responsibilities in Australia. For example, the Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) state that teachers must “1. Know

students and how they learn” and “3. Plan for and implement effective teaching and

2
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

learning”. Furthermore, the Quality Teaching Model that is currently implemented state -

wide in New South Wales aims to ensure “high quality pedagogy in the interests of good

outcomes for all students” (Gore, 2007, p. 15); it places significance on “substantive

communication” between teachers and students that is open and reciprocal, as well as

allowing for some amount of “student direction” within the classroom. (Ladwig & Gore,

2003). While the need for good pedagogical instruction is widely agreed upon, what

constitutes good pedagogical instruction is often a point of contention.

This essay deals with two broad forms of pedagogy; expository and constructivist. These

two forms come from different schools of thought on educational instruction. Expository

pedagogy places importance on the need for teachers to give direct and explicit instruction

to foster student understanding. It is based on the work of Vygotsky (1978) and his theory of

the “Zone of Proximal Development” which statesmthat learning is a social and

developmental process and that a student can achieve greater learning “under adult

guidance or through the help or more capable peers” (p. 86). While constructivism

considers teachers to be learning facilitators who supply minimal instruction to guide

students towards forming their own understanding. It is based on the work of Piaget, who

believes that all knowledge is acquired through action and “cannot be directly transmitted

through words or other symbols” (Wadsworth, 1989, p. 157). Navigating the minefield of

conflicting theories on pedagogical instruction is one of the difficulties of being a teacher,

the article by Kirchner, Sweller & Clark attempts to clear up this conflict by staunchly

defending expository pedagogy and discrediting constructivism, however there are some

issues.

3
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Critical Analysis of Kirschner, Sweller & Clark Article Why Minimal Guidance During

Instruction Does Not Work

This article is a quasi-meta-analysis/literature review that compares ‘strong and weak

instructional treatments’ (Kirshner et al, 2006, p.82), or expository and constructivist

pedagogy as described above, with a clear preference for heavily guided approaches, as

portrayed in the title “. . . the failure of constructivist . . .” The article makes several valid

points against constructivism, including its incompatibility with the current understanding of

cognitive structure (pp. 76-78), as well as its failure to distinguish between pedagogy and

epistemology (p. 76), and experts and novices. However, its pro-expository

recommendation cannot be unequivocally accepted as there are some flaws in their

research approach.

Kirscner, Sweller and Clark’s article is not research in and of itself because no original

research was undertaken, as such there are no method or results sections that would

typically constitute a research article (Shank, Brown & Pringle, 2014, p. 27; Kervin, Vialle,

Howard, Herrignton & Okely, 2006). This article also doesn’t claim to be a meta-analysis,

simply an ‘analysis’ (Kirschner et al, 2006), likely because it fails to meet the standards of a

meta-analysis, as set out by Gurevitch, Koricheva, Nakagawa & Stewart (2018); as “the term

meta-analysis should be applied only to studies that use well-established statistical

procedures, such as appropriate effect-size calculation, weighting and heterogeneity

analysis” (p. 179). Nevertheless, it is a significant collection and comparison of primary

research and this is a concern because it is unclear how the included articles were chosen;

no selection criterion was provided, and the authors didn’t appear to conduct any critical

analysis of the primary research. There is inadequate description of the original resources, it

4
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

is very difficult to discern the creditability of the research on which the recommendations

are based without reading each of them individually as there is no description of their

purpose, methods or measures. Even though the origins, ideas & even positive attributes of

constructivism are acknowledged, this article fails to cite research that supports it, and it is

possible that the included literature may have been ‘cherry-picked’ to support the

hypothesis. Gurevitch et al (2018) state that “a collection of many narrowly focused reviews

of what is essentially the same intervention can generate spurious results” (p. 177), that is

result that are skewed in a way not necessarily representative of the actual outcomes.

Whether or not the results are accurate to the current climate is up for debate too. The

article itself is considerably old as it was published in 2006. Much of its key evidence is even

older, and is likely to have been improved, revised or superseded since release, with

publication dates spanning from the 1950’s – 2000’s. It contains lengthily passages taken

from a Hurd article on science teaching from 1969, and frequent reference to research from

the 80’s and 90’s; including notable use of the authors’ own articles, 22 references in total in

total.

Overall, the scope of the article was excessively simple. The primary research cited appears

to be predominantly quantitative, despite qualitative reasoning being well within the scope

of the article. In fact, it may have generated a greater understanding, as Kirschner, Sweller

and Clark (2006) admit that expository approaches ‘tend not to be liked’ (p.82) by students.

A qualitative analysis of why this is, how it effects learning and possibly how to remedy it

would make an extremely valuable contribution to the recommendations the authors put

forth. The article also focuses principally on STEM studies, largely ignoring the impacts of

pedagogical instruction in other areas such as arts, sports and humanities.

5
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

As such it is difficult to completely justify the practices by which the articles

recommendations where drawn, and it isn’t clear exactly what populations these

recommendations apply to. Overall, the logic of the article is sound but the naming of

constructivism as a total failure and the recommendation to cease constructivism altogether

is excessively harsh, as the article itself acknowledged potential strengths, occasions where

it is appropriate and cases where it has succeeded. It is possible that the authors are taking

a misinformed view of constructivism as the absence of teacher instruction, as Chrenka

(2001) describes, instead of it being a method of scaffolding and an openness to difference.

Still, a middle ground that better fits the results of the article is clearly needed. Perhaps a

more appropriate recommendation would have been to use expository instruction for new

topics and low skilled learners and move into constructivist approaches only when students

show independent capabilities. This may require growth over time, or differentiation of

instruction between students within one classroom.

Educational Activity & Links to Issue, Article & English

All sorts of research into learning and pedagogy, including this one, are significant to

teachers as

“understanding more about how people learn is empowering for the profession of

teaching . . . Education research can play a powerful role is serving a school

community and . . . can lead the field towards more effective teaching” (Kervin et al,

2006, p.10).

As aforementioned, the Kirschner article deals primarily with examples from maths, science

and medicine, however the issue of pedagogical instruction is important to all teachers, of

all subjects, at all levels of schooling, including high-school humanities. This will be

6
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

highlighted by considering the Australian Curriculum Syllabus for English, and by revising a

stage 4 English journal writing activity.

A popular activity amongst high school English teachers is free writing or journaling time

during class and many students are likely to have experienced this themselves. The rationale

behind this, as explained by the chosen lesson plan is to “provide learners with more writing

practice in English” and get them accustomed and comfortable with writing (Clanfield &

Tennant, 2012). This is certainly important as all stages of the English Curriculum, as per the

syllabus, include writing skills. (BOSNSW, 2012). Furthermore, English remains the sole

compulsory subject for all HSC students in NSW, and a vast majority of their assessment

consists of writing either academically, persuasively or creatively (NESA, 2017).

The activity plan advises having regular set times within class for journaling activities that

last for only 5-10 minutes, and that students should not worry about planning their

responses, but simply write “what comes into their heads” (Clanfield & Tennant, 2012). This

approach has a clear link to the minimal guidance/constructivist approach described above

as it allows students to work mostly independently, control their own learning and figure

things out on their own. However, the activity plan also suggests that the teacher can begin

by prompting student writing with journal topics, before weening this away as students

become more capable and confident. This is a basic attempt at the “worked examples”

method described by Kirschner, Sweller and Clark, but more work is needed.

7
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Activity Revision

The main flaw with the chosen activity plan is that it expects a certain level of student

ability. With students of any age, even in high school, literacy and writing competency

cannot necessarily be assumed. We must consider students will lower ability, students with

English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EALD), and students with learning difficulties

or special needs. For some students simply spending a few minutes writing whatever they

want is extremely difficult. As such this activity is too constructivist and is not approachable

or useful for some learners, as Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) state that “the failure to

provide strong learning support for less experiences or less able students could actually

produce a measurable loss of learning” (p. 87). They also discuss the unintended scaffolding

that occurs when teachers attempt minimally guided lessons that are too difficult. Instead,

scaffolding and worked examples should be planned from the onset. The APST (AITSL, 2011)

state that teachers must “differentiate teaching to meet the specific need of students across

the full range of abilities”. As such teachers should consider conducting a diagnostic

assessment of student ability before starting any writing activities, so that appropriate

scaffolding and differentiation can be pre-planned.

Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) discuss the human cognitive network, the limitations of

working memory and the need for knowledge to move to long term memory (p. 77). Though

not discussed within the article, writing skills also need to be acquired over time, and the

highlighted journaling task isn’t necessarily facilitating that. Hill (2012) believes that quick

and unedited writing tasks “bear very little relation to the real world” and the type of

writing students might have to do at university and in the workplace (p. 40). Kellogg and

Whiteford (2009) discuss the “power law of skill acquisition” and the need for performances

8
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

to be practiced in order to become automated (p. 251). They state this is also true of writing

skills, citing evidence that advanced creative writing skills take over a decade to attain (p.

252). If students are only practicing quick and fun writing, it is possible they are not

acquiring the skills that they need at all.

This scheduled class time may be better used as a writing workshop. Workshops give

students opportunities to work on sustained pieces of writing over a period of time,

allowing for the processes of planning, drafting, writing, re-writing and editing. Welsh (2013)

advocates for the workshopping approach, stating that;

“the teacher structures lessons and provides resources, guides students, models

writing, supports discussion, encourages collaboration and thus facilitates the

creative writing process. The pedagogical advantages include the freedom and

flexibility to scaffold and differentiate learning to enable students of all abilities to

collaborate and engage in hands-on learning activities” (p. 44).

The workshop approach does not entirely disregard constructivist approaches as suggested

by the Kircher, Sweller & Clark article, but better yet could be seen as a best practice

approach that incorporates elements of direct instruction, independent work and group

work that can be tailored to meet the needs of all children. As such the highlighted

journaling activity should be changed from time spent on free writing, to time spent on the

purposeful development of higher order English skills through the sustained writing

processes involved in workshopping.

[2127 word, excluding references]

9
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-

source/apst-resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final.pdf

Board of Studies New South Wales (2012). NSW Syllabus for the Australian Curriculum:

English K-10 Syllabus. Sydney, Australia, BOSNSW. Retrieved from

http://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/assets/englishk10/downloads/englishk10_full.pdf

Chrenka,, L. (2001). Misconstructing Constructivism. The Phi Delta Kappan, 82(9), 694-695.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20440007

Clandfield, L., & Tennant, A. (2012). Journal Entries. Minimal Resources: 8 Writing Activities.

One Stop English. Retrieved from http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology

/minimal-resources/skills/minimal-resources-8-writing-activities/146552.article

Corrigan, D. (2016, September 13). What is the role of a teacher? The Conversation.

Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-role-of-a-teacher-64977

Gore, J. (2007). Improving Pedagogy: The challenges of moving teachers towards higher

levels of quality teaching. In J. Butcher, & L. McDonald (Ed.), Challenges for Teachers,

Teaching and Teacher Education (pp. 15-32). Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Sense

Publishers.

Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., Stewarts, G. (2018). Meta-Analysis and the Science

of Research Synthesis. Nature, 555, 175-182. doi:10.1038/nature25753

10
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Hill, F. (2012). English- Go to Great Creative Lengths. The Times Educational Supplement

5013, 40-42. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1220739152?accountid=36155

Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training Advanced Writing Skills: The Case for

Deliberate Practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250-266. doi:

10.1080/00461520903213600

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2006). Research for Educators.

Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clarke, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction

Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-

Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-

86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102 1

Ladwig, J., & Gore, J. (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW public schools: A classroom practice

guide. Ryde, NSW: State of NSW, Department of Education and Training Professional

Support and Curriculum Directorate.

New South Wales Education Standards Authority (2017). NSW Syllabus for the Australian

Curriculum: English Standard Stage 6 Syllabus. Sydney, Australia; NESA. Retrieved

from https://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/english-standard-stage6/

Shank, G., Brown, L, & Pringle, J. (2014). Understanding Education Research: A Guide to

Critical Reading. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.

11
Georgia Linnenbank (18366570)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction Between Learning and Development. In M. Cole, V. John-

Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Superman (Ed.), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher

Psychological Processes (pp. 79-91). London, England: Harvard University Press.

Wadsworth, B. (1989). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development (4th ed.).

New York: Longman.

Waring, M. & Evans, C. (2015). Understanding Pedagogy: Developing Critical Approach to

Teaching and Learning. Oxfordshire, England; Routledge.

Watkins, C. & Mortimore, P. (1999) Pedagogy: What do we know? In P. Mortimore (Ed.)

Understanding Pedagogy and Its Impact on Learning. (pp. 1-19). London, England:

Paul Chapman Publishing.

Welsh, S. (2013). Teaching creative writing: A writer's workshop approach. Idiom,

49(3), 44-50.

[19 references]

12