“少教不教”真的不管用吗?——与《为什么“少教不教”不管用》一文商榷

Minimal Guidance during Instruction Might Work:A Commentary on "Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does not Work"

基尔希纳、斯维勒、克拉克基于文献分析以及设计精良的控制性实验指出,"少教不教"教学方式"不管用",并使用人类认知框架与认知负荷理论对为什么"不管用"进行理论解释。本文从理论辨析与实证研究两个方面指出,基尔希纳等人的观点值得商榷。理论方面,对于人类的认知框架,阿特金森和希夫林的短时记忆模型已陈旧;对于认知负荷理论,其前提假设不可证伪、无法分离并测量三类认知负荷;实践方面,基尔希纳等的文献引用存在证实性偏见,大量文献指出"少教不教"在知识技能上的教学效果不弱于指导性教学,并且教学成果可以保持更持久,在发展学生灵活应变的能力方面更具优势。最后,本文认为指导性教学与发现式教学是一个连续体的两端,两者间未必非此即彼,有指导的发现式学习是一种非常有效的教学方式。

Based on literatures analysis and well- designed,controlled experimental studies,Kirschner,Sweller,and Clark asserted that minimally guided instructions were ineffective and inefficient. In Kirschner＇s view,these approaches ignored both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies. We argue that the points from Kirschner et al. are problematic from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Theoretically,one of the two bases for Kirchner＇s argument,the human cognitive architecture based on Atkinson and Shiffrin＇s study,which is outdated. Further,the cognitive load theory does not constitute a scientific theory because its two fundamental assumptions cannot be empirically tested and are thus not falsifiable. In practice,the confirmation bias in Kirchner＇s citations leading to flaws in his theory. Abundant literature shows that the minimally guided instruction can not only act as well as direct instruction in teaching knowledge and skills but also has an advantage in developing learner＇s higher level thinking abilities. Direct instruction and minimally guided instruction are two ends of a continuum. We do not necessarily have to choose one over another between the two approaches. In our teaching practices,we find guided discovery learning to be a very effective way of teaching. However,studies are still needed for its further development.