对 De Jong 等人(2023 年)的论文 "让我们谈谈证据--探究式教学与直接教学相结合的理由 "的回应

IF 9.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research Review Pub Date : 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584
John Sweller , Lin Zhang , Greg Ashman , William Cobern , Paul A. Kirschner
{"title":"对 De Jong 等人(2023 年)的论文 \"让我们谈谈证据--探究式教学与直接教学相结合的理由 \"的回应","authors":"John Sweller ,&nbsp;Lin Zhang ,&nbsp;Greg Ashman ,&nbsp;William Cobern ,&nbsp;Paul A. Kirschner","doi":"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>De Jong et al. (2023) objected to the evidence presented by Zhang et al. (2022) to support their concerns about the unreserved acceptance and promotion of inquiry-based learning and problem solving in current policy documents related to the teaching of science. In their response, De Jong et al. (2023) reiterated their advocacy for inquiry approaches, arguing that an emphasis on a mixture of inquiry learning and explicit instruction is needed. The present article rebuts De Jong et al. (2023), in which we: 1) challenge their view of and approach to scientific methods in establishing the efficacy of different instructional approaches; 2) indicate that an underpinning theory to explain the cognitive machinery that drives inquiry-based instructional approaches is missing from their argument; and 3) address the empirical issues arising in their argument. We also highlight potential agreement with De Jong et al. (2023) on the essential role of explicit instruction and thus raise a call to the field to revise current science educational policies and standards to reflect such a role. Our agreements and disagreements advance the debate to a new focus concerning when and how inquiry-based learning and explicit instruction should be used and combined. While De Jong et al. (2023), in their theory-free paper, provided no answer to how explicit instruction and inquiry learning should be combined, we offer our suggestions based on evolutionary psychology and the expertise reversal effect from cognitive load theory.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48125,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000775/pdfft?md5=c58809fd5ab1ab4dac376031279ab6f8&pid=1-s2.0-S1747938X23000775-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction”\",\"authors\":\"John Sweller ,&nbsp;Lin Zhang ,&nbsp;Greg Ashman ,&nbsp;William Cobern ,&nbsp;Paul A. Kirschner\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>De Jong et al. (2023) objected to the evidence presented by Zhang et al. (2022) to support their concerns about the unreserved acceptance and promotion of inquiry-based learning and problem solving in current policy documents related to the teaching of science. In their response, De Jong et al. (2023) reiterated their advocacy for inquiry approaches, arguing that an emphasis on a mixture of inquiry learning and explicit instruction is needed. The present article rebuts De Jong et al. (2023), in which we: 1) challenge their view of and approach to scientific methods in establishing the efficacy of different instructional approaches; 2) indicate that an underpinning theory to explain the cognitive machinery that drives inquiry-based instructional approaches is missing from their argument; and 3) address the empirical issues arising in their argument. We also highlight potential agreement with De Jong et al. (2023) on the essential role of explicit instruction and thus raise a call to the field to revise current science educational policies and standards to reflect such a role. Our agreements and disagreements advance the debate to a new focus concerning when and how inquiry-based learning and explicit instruction should be used and combined. While De Jong et al. (2023), in their theory-free paper, provided no answer to how explicit instruction and inquiry learning should be combined, we offer our suggestions based on evolutionary psychology and the expertise reversal effect from cognitive load theory.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000775/pdfft?md5=c58809fd5ab1ab4dac376031279ab6f8&pid=1-s2.0-S1747938X23000775-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000775\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research Review","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X23000775","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

De Jong等人(2023)反对Zhang等人(2022)提出的证据,这些证据支持他们对当前与科学教学相关的政策文件中毫无保留地接受和促进研究性学习和问题解决的担忧。在他们的回应中,De Jong等人(2023)重申了他们对研究性方法的支持,认为需要强调研究性学习和明确教学的结合。本文反驳了De Jong等人(2023)的观点,其中我们:1)挑战他们对科学方法的看法和方法,以确定不同教学方法的有效性;2)表明在他们的论证中缺少解释驱动探究性教学方法的认知机制的基础理论;3)解决他们争论中出现的经验问题。我们还强调了与De Jong等人(2023)关于明确教学的重要作用的潜在共识,从而呼吁该领域修改当前的科学教育政策和标准,以反映这种作用。我们的共识和分歧将辩论推进到一个新的焦点,即探究性学习和显性教学应该何时以及如何使用和结合。虽然De Jong等人(2023)在他们没有理论的论文中没有回答明确的教学和探究性学习应该如何结合,但我们基于进化心理学和认知负荷理论的专业知识逆转效应提出了我们的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let's talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction”

De Jong et al. (2023) objected to the evidence presented by Zhang et al. (2022) to support their concerns about the unreserved acceptance and promotion of inquiry-based learning and problem solving in current policy documents related to the teaching of science. In their response, De Jong et al. (2023) reiterated their advocacy for inquiry approaches, arguing that an emphasis on a mixture of inquiry learning and explicit instruction is needed. The present article rebuts De Jong et al. (2023), in which we: 1) challenge their view of and approach to scientific methods in establishing the efficacy of different instructional approaches; 2) indicate that an underpinning theory to explain the cognitive machinery that drives inquiry-based instructional approaches is missing from their argument; and 3) address the empirical issues arising in their argument. We also highlight potential agreement with De Jong et al. (2023) on the essential role of explicit instruction and thus raise a call to the field to revise current science educational policies and standards to reflect such a role. Our agreements and disagreements advance the debate to a new focus concerning when and how inquiry-based learning and explicit instruction should be used and combined. While De Jong et al. (2023), in their theory-free paper, provided no answer to how explicit instruction and inquiry learning should be combined, we offer our suggestions based on evolutionary psychology and the expertise reversal effect from cognitive load theory.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Research Review
Educational Research Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
19.40
自引率
0.90%
发文量
53
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Educational Research Review is an international journal catering to researchers and diverse agencies keen on reviewing studies and theoretical papers in education at any level. The journal welcomes high-quality articles that address educational research problems through a review approach, encompassing thematic or methodological reviews and meta-analyses. With an inclusive scope, the journal does not limit itself to any specific age range and invites articles across various settings where learning and education take place, such as schools, corporate training, and both formal and informal educational environments.
期刊最新文献
A meta-analysis of the correlation between teacher self-efficacy and teacher resilience: Concerted growth and contextual variance A systematic review on how educators teach AI in K-12 education Translating neuroscience to early childhood education: A scoping review of neuroscience-based professional learning for early childhood educators What is next in mobile-assisted reading? Insights from a decade of eye tracking research into cognitive processes Teaching for paradigm shifts: Supporting the drivers of radical creativity in management education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1