Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of

Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching

An effective level of guidance can significantly increase a student’s learning capabilities and as such

it is necessary to consider the involvement teachers have with their students and how they assist them

(Guseva, 2017). Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) address the issue of minimal guidance during

instruction and the impact this has on learners in various stages. This issue of minimal guidance is

relevant to examine both on a broad spectrum and in specific contexts, as it can inform our teaching

strategies and provide educators with applicable knowledge to influence their pedagogy. A critical

analysis of Krischner, Sweller & Clark’s (2006) article can help determine the validity of their

research and how their findings can suggest recommendations for practical application. An example

of how these recommendations could positively enhance a lesson can be explored by applying

changes to a learning activity and evaluating the effectiveness of a more guided approach from a

teacher, whilst also looking to justify any modifications with research from other scholars.

The effectiveness of guidance and instruction has been disputed for the past half-century, and the

question of what amount of guidance maximises learning still remains (Krischner, Sweller, & Clark,

2006) (Matlen & Klahr, 2013). Broadly, this has implications on the wider teaching community, as a

lack of understanding into what benefits students learning experiences regarding guidance, can

influence the teaching practices of many educators (Hopkins & Spillane, 2015) The relevance in

examining the effectiveness of minimal guidance is apparent when considering factors such as

teacher’s pedagogy. Providing educators with accurate information that influences their teachings

practice is important, as it may help them enhance the learning environment of their students and

provide them with the most beneficial learning atmosphere. Research into what may hinder a

student’s learning is undoubtedly beneficial for educators and a focus on research to develop

professionally is of the utmost importance for all who are in the educational context (Kervin, Vialle,

Howard, Herrington, & Okely, 2016). Specifically, looking at the relevance this issue has regarding

1
the key learning area of English, there are numerous advantages in understanding the appropriate level

of guidance and instruction. Matlen & Klahr (2013) showed that students respond well to high levels

of instruction or guidance and that their work benefitted from interaction with their teacher.

Information like this is relevant in informing teaching practices within the classroom. An English

teacher would then understand they should interact with their students and provide them with

instruction to enhance their learning. Whilst Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) address this issue

from a primarily educational point of view, Ohrt, Blalock & Limberg (2016) show us how guidance is

relevant in other aspects of education. School counsellors are also required to effectively guide and

instruct their students with a focus on skill acquisition which can assist students in developing coping

strategies (Ohrt, Blalock, & Limberg, 2016). Examples like that show us how guidance in all aspects

of schooling is relevant and how continued research can inform our professional practice as we

continue to develop strategies to enhance our students learning environment.

Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) aim to address the effect that varying levels of guidance has on

students and how this impacts the students learning capabilities. Throughout the article they refer to

the findings and research of several other scholars to support their claims. Background research is

recognized and cited in the beginning of this article referring to numerous “examples of applications

of differently named but essentially pedagogically equivalent approaches” (Krischner, Sweller, &

Clark, 2006, p. 75). A vast array of different scholars’ works is assessed over a relevant period of time

and the findings are summarised into two main assumptions which inform the methods used within

this article. The first assumption being the challenge that students face trying to solve authentic

problems or acquire complex knowledge in specifically ‘information-rich’ settings leads to the most

effective learning experience and the second assumption assumes that knowledge can best be acquired

through experience (Krischner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). These two assumptions are addressed and

assessed through the lens of several theories and theorists to evaluate the validity of claims such as

“too much guidance may impair later performance” (Krischner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p.76).
2
Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) incorporate the use of theories such as Atkinsons & Shiffrin’s

(1968) human cognitive architecture, Peterson & Peterson’s (1959) theory of working memory and

the theory of constructivism from Steffe & Gale (1995). These theories are analysed and applied in a

way that deconstructs how students most effectively learn under varying levels of guidance.

Characteristics of effective educators include the ability to reflect on theory, research and practice

(Kervin, Vialle, Howard, Herrington, & Okely, 2016). Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) arrive at

their recommendations for practice through the analysis of various theories and research which

directly relates to their topic of consideration. Their recommendations suggest that there is no

evidence to support the use of minimal guidance as controlled studies show strong instructional

guidance is more effective from a range of learners from novice to intermediate (Krischner, Sweller,

& Clark, 2006). Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) acknowledge the foundations of a minimal

guidance approach to education, but then go on explain why that may have been simply effective for

education when it was introduced in the specific area and time. Further questioning of minimal

guidance and its use as an ‘ideology’ additionally supports their recommendations for strong

instructional guidance and Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) even go as far as to question the entire

notion of minimal guidance quoting Mayer (2004) who argues that “we move educational reform

efforts from the fuzzy and unproductive world of ideology, to the sharp productive world of theory-

based research” (Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) p. 84). There is also a recognition or claim that

minimal guidance is not only less effective, but that there is evidence it may negatively influence

students in their attempts to learn (Krischner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). By challenging the concept of

minimal guidance using evidence and studies, combined with the theory based recommendations for a

strong instructional guidance, Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) argue that is more effective to

interact with students with strong instruction than it is with minimal guidance.

3
However, there are numerous instances throughout the article of studies which found there was no

correlations between a diminished learning experience and minimal guidance. Kyllonen & Lajoie

(2003) show in their study that “weaker treatments benefited more able learners”, suggesting a less

guided approach to learning (Krischner, Sweller & Clark, 2006, p.81). Krischner, Sweller & Clark

(2006) dismiss these conclusions almost immediately using outdated reviews of similar research from

Cronbach and Snow (1977) and seem to ignore the relevant data found in the study. Krischner,

Sweller & Clark (2006) also seem to infer meanings from studies which provide inconclusive results.

Hmelo-Silver (2004) merely place “questions marks concerning the general validity of PBL (problem

based learning, considered to be similar to minimal guidance learning)” (Krischner, Sweller & Clark,

2006, p. 83). Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) then go on to argue that research findings show that

PBL is not more effective and is costlier than instruction. Examples like this can detract from the

validity of the overarching conclusions and recommendations made by Krischner, Sweller & Clark

(2006), questioning how they arrived at such clear results for strongly interactional guidance.

Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) also fail to acknowledge any long-term effects of other forms of

learning, attaining their judgement from the initial results of students. Brunstein, Betts & Anderson

(2009) show that over extended periods of time, forms of discovery can become equivalent or even

superior to direct instruction.

The recommendations in Krischner, Sweller & Clark’s (2006) article can be further explored through

applying it to a learning activity such as the responding to poetry (NESA, n.d; Appendix) task tailored

for students in stage 4. The responding to poetry task requires students to select 3 poems they have

studied and enjoyed throughout the semester and respond to them briefly outlining why they would

recommend these poems to others (NESA, n.d; Appendix). This activity is used to develop students’

skills in understanding various forms of texts, analysing and identifying poetry techniques and

creatively and critically composing responses to texts.

4
There are several strengths and weaknesses of this learning activity when we assess it through the lens

of recommendations of Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) who suggests a high level of guidance of

students. Throughout this learning activity this is little interaction between the students and their

teacher, both individually or as a group. Additionally, there is a lack of clear guidance of what is

expected to be in their work with the only instruction stating that their work “should demonstrate an

understanding of a range of poetic techniques” (NESA, n.d; Appendix). Krischner, Sweller & Clark

(2006) show how this lack of guidance for students could not only see a lack of proficient work from

students, but also be detrimental in their learning process and produce a measurable loss of learning.

Clark (1989) shows in his review of over 70 studies (that assessed students with and without

guidance) that students who received minimal guidance reported significantly lower scores in

comparison to students that received guidance. Comparing these examples to the learning activity,

there is an apparent weakness in how the activity is set out and an expectation that students will

perform poorly under the lack of guidance. Students are also asked to choose the poems that they

analyse on their own and draw their technical analyses from previous knowledge, which is similar to

the idea of discovery learning. Moreno (2004) concluded from his research that there is a significantly

increased quality of learning from students who received guidance compared to students who learned

via discovery. This further shows how there is a weakness in this learning activity when considered

through the perspective of minimal guidance approach to learning.

There is a small strength in this learning activity as students are “normally” meant to be provided with

criteria for what is expected to be in their work (NESA, n.d). This does provide a loose framework in

which students will have at least some guidance in how to produce appropriate work and what is

required of them. However, this is merely a mention of what is expected of them and is not

communicated in such a way that is instructional or guiding. This may potentially lead to a lack of

interaction for many students and even enjoyment. Clark (1982) claimed that when learners are

5
provided unguided versions of course work, less able students learn less from it and choose to interact

with it less in the future.

Several revisions could be made to address the weaknesses of this learning activity and improve the

overall learning experience and guidance of students. From the outset, students are given poor

instruction regarding how they should analyse the poems selected and what is expected of them. This

could be amended by the teacher clearly outlining what students need to include within their analyses

of poems, highlighting what they are going to be assessed on and individually providing students with

guidance where necessary. Pi-Sui, Van Dyke & Chen (2015) found in their research that extended

teacher guidance is more effective in engaging students from various forms of development stages

and that students are more likely to develop more reasoned responses and evidence in their work with

the aid of teacher’s instruction. This revision would then assist students from all stages of cognitive

development, whilst also giving them the opportunity to engage with the teacher to clarify any

confusion they may have regarding the assigned work.

The teacher may also provide students with an example copy of how they are to analyse a poem with

various forms of poetic techniques highlighted to help students understand what they are to do.

Matlen & Klahr (2013) show how viewing detailed examples of work is highly beneficial for novice

learners and that through this exercise they learn more. This addition to the learning activity would

then help learners of any stage produce quality work. Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) argue similar

findings and highlight how examples and considerable guidance produce vastly more learning that

other learning approaches.

The effectiveness of guidance studied by Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) show how relevant this

topic is in ensuring the best practices for teachers to engage their students in. Kervin, Vialle, Howard

& Okely (2016) show how the education of students and how they best learn is pivotal to any
6
educator and should be a high priority. The amendments made to the lesson plan from NESA based

on recommendations of the research from Krischner, Sweller & Clark (2006) show how learning

activities can be made more effective tools of education through simple modifications. Whilst this was

only a few examples of how one learning activity could be improved, the concept of minimal

guidance has applications for a range of learning areas and levels of students and is closely related

with pedagogical practice. Further study to develop effective forms of guidance is needed to further

facilitate the growth and learning experiences of students.

7
References

Atkinson, R., & Shiffrin, R. (1968). Psychology of Learning and Motivation. The Psychology, of

learning and motivation. Vol 2, 89-195.

Brunstein, A., Betts, S., & Anderson, J. (2009). Practice Enables Successful Learning Under Minimal

Guidance. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 101 Issue 4, 790-802.

Clark, R. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies. Educational

Psyhologist, 17, 92-101.

Clark, R. (1989). When Teaching Kills Learning: Types of Mathemathantic Effects. In H. Mandl, E.

Bennett, E. de Corte, & H. Freidrich, Learning and instruction: European research in an

international context. Vol 2 (pp. 1-22). London: Pergamon.

Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on

interactions. New York: Irvington.

Guseva, L. G. (2017). Implementing the Zone of Proximal Development: From the Pedagogical

Experiment to the Developmental Education System of Leonid Zankov. International

Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. Vol. 9 Issue 4, 775-785.

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational

Pyschology Review, 16, 235-266.

Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. (2015). Conceptualizing relations between instructional guidance

infrastructure (IGI) and teachers' beliefs about mathematics instruction: Regulative, normative,

and cultural-cognitive considerations. Journal of Educational Change. Vol. 16 Issue 4,, 421-

450.

Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Howard, S., Herrington, J., & Okely, T. (2016). Research for Educators, 2nd

Ed. Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia.

Krischner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (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.

8
Kyllonen, P., & S, L. (2004). Reassessing aptitude: Introduction to a special issuse in honor of

Richard E. Snow. Educational Pyschologist. 38, 79-83.

Matlen, B., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on

children's acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science.

Vol. 41 Issue 3, 621-634.

Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for

guided methods of instruction. American Pyschologist, 59.: 14-19.

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: Effects of explanatory versus

corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113.

NESA. (n.d.). STAGE 4 - ACTIVITY 2, Responding to Poetry. Retrieved from NSW Education

Standards Authority: https://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/english/english-k10/stage-4-activity-2/

Ohrt, J., Blalock, S., & Limberg, D. (2016). Preparing School Counselors-in-Training to Conduct

Large Group Developmental Guidance: Evaluation of an Instructional Model. Journal for

Specialists in Group Work. Vol. 41 Issue 2, 96-116.

Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, Vol. 58, 193-198.

Pi-Sui, H., Van Dyke, M., & Chen, Y. (2015). Examining the Effect of Teacher Guidance on

Collaborative Argumentation in Middle Level Classrooms. Research in Middle Level

Education Online. Vol. 38 Issue 9, 1-11.

Steffe, L., & Gale, J. (1995). Contructivism in education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Inc.

9
 Appendix
Responding to Poetry
Description of activity
Students select three poems they have enjoyed from their study of poetry. The three poems
are their recommended selection for a new poetry anthology for Year 7 or 8 students. The
three poems should be different types of poems and the selection should demonstrate an
understanding of a range of poetic techniques. (The selection may include one poem they
have written themselves and two studied in class.) Students write a 200 – 300 word
response on each of the three poems. In their response they give reasons why they would
recommend the three poems selected.

Context
Students have been involved in a wide reading poetry unit in which they have been taught
about poetic form and poetic techniques such as simile and metaphor. In groups they have
been asked to identify these forms and techniques and explain their effect in the poems they
have studied. As part of this unit students have analysed poems to understand how meaning
is shaped and have composed their own poems.

Outcomes
EN4-1A responds to and composes texts for understanding, interpretation, critical analysis,
imaginative expression and pleasure
EN4-3B uses and describes language forms, features and structures of texts appropriate to
a range of purposes, audiences and contexts
EN4-4B makes effective language choices to creatively shape meaning with accuracy, clarity
and coherence
EN4-5C thinks imaginatively, creatively, interpretively and critically about information, ideas
and arguments to respond to and compose texts

Criteria for assessing learning

(These criteria would normally be communicated to students with the activity.)
Students will be assessed on their ability to:

 plan, compose and edit accurate, clear and coherent texts applying knowledge of language
conventions and structures of a written response such as:
o introduction, elaboration and conclusion
o use of evidence from poems to support claims
o context in order to explain personal response to, and analysis of, the poems consistent and
appropriate choices made about language for purpose, audience
 analyse poems interpretively through:
o identification of poetic techniques
o analysis and interpretation of techniques to explain their effects
10