LRI involves more direct/explicit instruction than has been fashionable in recent decades, during which constructivist approaches such as discovery-, problem- and enquiry-based learning have been favoured (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). CLT states that while a student is processing new information, asking them to simultaneously solve open-ended problems, conduct research, collaborate, etc. (hallmarks of constructivist pedagogy) creates excessive demands on working memory (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Instead, LRI works through a sequence in which initial learning involves ample direct instruction to convey new knowledge/skills. This is followed by supported, scaffolded practice wherein students are led through activities with ever-diminishing scaffolding. Finally, once students have had sufficient instruction and guided practice, they are ready for more open activities or ‘guided autonomy’. The last/third stage of LRI incorporates constructivist approaches, such as discovery-, problem- and enquiry-based learning. In this sense, unlike some proponents of CLT who have steadfastly opposed constructivist pedagogies (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006), LRI rather postpones them to a later stage in the learning sequence. By applying LRI, we can assist students in transferring new information from short-term working memory to schemas in long-term memory, ultimately facilitating expert-like automaticity within a domain. References Centre for Education Statistics and […]
