Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work (2006) [pdf]
After skimming the paper, I get the sense that there&#x27;s this underlying assumption that the goal of education is to get students to learn specific facts, i.e. that a physics student should learn the formula that force equals mass times acceleration.<p>While there is of course lots of value in ensuring that students can learn specific facts and figures, the criticism (if I recall correctly) is that an approach that dictates specificity of recall as the end goal is not an approach that induces a lifelong love of learning. Most of the value in an experiential-based approach is not limited to the specificity of facts learned during the experiences, but in the cognitive linking of learning with the dynamism of the experience, which encourages independent growth.<p>This leads back to the philosophical question of whether our school systems should focus on graduating students who know specific knowledge (an approach that leads to standardized testing), or students who have become independently capable lifelong learners (a more holistic approach that tries to adapt to students&#x27; individual strengths). Which approach better prepares students for life after school, and equally important, which approach can prove to scale to the levels required for public education?