Back to results
Bibliographic record · Consultation and access
Artículo

Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching

Paul A. Kirschner; John Sweller; Richard E. Clark · Educational Psychologist · 2006

Resource page
Quick overview. Review the resource’s basic details, then access the content using the main button. This page shows only the information needed to identify, cite, and open the work.

Resource access

Open the content from the main option or choose another available source.

OpenAlex OpenAlex Works
Entrar por OpenAlex
Main access

Resource page

Resource reference page. Full text availability has not been automatically confirmed.
Open resource

Summary

Descripción general del contenido del recurso.

Evidence for the superiority of guided instruction is explained in the context of our knowledge of human cognitive architecture, expert-novice differences, and cognitive load. Although un-guided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process. The advantage of guidance begins to recede only when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge to provide `internal` guidance. Recent developments in instructional research and instructional design models that support guidance during instruction are briefly described.

How to cite

Elegí el formato que necesitás y copiá la referencia al portapapeles.

APA 7

Kirschner, P. A, Sweller, J, & Clark, 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

MLA

Kirschner, Paul A, et al. "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching." 2006. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

Chicago

Kirschner, Paul A, John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark. 2006. "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.". https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

Harvard

Kirschner, P. A, Sweller, J. and Clark, 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, available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 [Accessed 7 Aug. 2026].

Share and print

Save the record, copy its permanent link, or print it as a PDF.

Export reference

You can export the record in common formats for use in a reference manager.

Resource details

Bibliographic information to help confirm that this is the correct material.

Title
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching
Author / contributors
Paul A. Kirschner; John Sweller; Richard E. Clark
Publisher
Educational Psychologist
Publication year
2006
Language
English

Subjects

Explore related resources through these subjects.

Copied