I seem to have contradictory instincts. I’m enormously sympathetic to Inquiry-based learning and Constructivism, yet I also find myself quite persuaded by the undeniable effects of more instructionalist methods: I like textbooks; I use a Spaced repetition memory system; I’m excited about the Mnemonic medium; I believe in problem-solving practice. But I find Programmed instruction and Direct Instruction repulsive. These preferences seem, on their surface, to be at odds.
How can I square all this? Why is it that I sometimes find myself really believing in highly linear, structured learning methods, and other times I just want a playground?
See some relevant notes in 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. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86, and also in the Situated learning flame war references.
Related: Some activities (piano, cooking) offer a situated venue for targeted practice activities
More recently: 2024-05 Talk at UCSD - Strategies for synthesizing situated learning and cognitivism
https://x.com/mbateman/status/1683487946131795970?s=20
Many of the components of education thought to be low agency are actually perfectly suited for high agency education.
Practice. Repetition. Memorization. These are good methods by which to intentionally shape your own soul.
(Matt Bateman on agency)