IPL Instructional Principles

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

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, namely: - The need for design in the invention process - The need for debugging in the invention process

It is being hypothesizes, though has not been tested empirically yet, that the set comparison tasks should use contrasting cases and not isomorphic cases.

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)

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