IPL Instructional Principles
Contents
Brief statement of principle
Asking student to invent solutions to carefully designed challenges prior to receiving instruction can promote learning from subsequent instruction.
Description of principle
Operational definition
Students should attempt to rank alternatives in an invention task by comparing sets of contrasting cases, before receiving direct instruction and practice.
Examples
The following example is a preparation for future learning about variance
Experimental support
Laboratory experiment support
In vivo experiment support
Schwartz & Martin (2004) found that IPL activities help students learn from subsequent instruction. Roll, Aleven, Schwartz and Koedinger are currently carrying out another classroom study on the topic.
Theoretical rationale
(These entries should link to one or more learning processes.)
Conditions of application
Several conditions are being investigated in the current IPL study
Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views
Several researchers object any form of discovery activity, and argue that direct instruction is always the superior alternative (Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, J.E., 2004)
Variations (descendants)
Generalizations (ascendants)
References
- Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, J.E. (2004). 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.
- Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning:
The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 2004, pp. 129-184
