It’s important not just to know things, but to understand them, which is why I took three posts to explain my unease about the paper by Kirschner, Sweller & Clark. From the responses I’ve received I appear to have overstated my explanation but understated my key points, so for the benefit of anybody unable or unwilling to read all the words, here’s a summary.
1. I have not said that Kirschner, Sweller & Clark are wrong to claim that working memory has a limited capacity. I’ve never come across any evidence that says otherwise. My concerns are about other things.
2. The complex issue of approaches to learning and teaching is presented as a two-sided argument. Presenting complex issues in an oversimplified way invariably obscures rather than clarifies the debate.
3. The authors appeal to a model of working memory that’s almost half a century old, rather than one revised six years before their paper came out and widely accepted as more accurate. Why would they do that?
4. They give the distinct impression that long-term memory isn’t subject to working memory constraints, when it is very much subject to them.
5. They completely omit any mention of the biological mechanisms involved in processing information. Understanding the mechanisms is key if you want to understand how people learn.
6. They conclude that explicit, direct instruction is the only viable teaching approach based on the existence of a single constraining factor – the capacity of working memory to process yet-to-be learned information (though exactly what they mean by yet-to-be learned isn’t explained). In a process as complex as learning, it’s unlikely that there will be only one constraining factor.
Kirschner, Sweller & Clark appear to have based their conclusion on a model of memory that was current in the 1970s (I know because that’s when I first learned about it), to have ignored subsequent research, and to have oversimplified the picture at every available opportunity.
What also concerns me is that some teachers appear to be taking what Kirschner, Sweller & Clark say at face value, without making any attempt to check the accuracy of their model, to question their presentation of the problem or the validity of their conclusion. There’s been much discussion recently about ‘neuromyths’. Not much point replacing one set of neuromyths with another.
Kirschner, PA, Sweller, J & Clark, RE (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, 75-86.