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 \u2018guided autonomy\u2019.<\/p>\n
The last\/third stage of 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.<\/p>\n Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2017). Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand.<\/em> Retrieved from https:\/\/www.cese.nsw.gov.au\/\/images\/stories\/PDF\/cognitive_load_theory_report_AA1.pdf<\/p>\n Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). 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<\/em>(2), 75-86.<\/p>\n Martin, A. J. (2016). Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement<\/em>. Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.<\/p>\n Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. G., & Paas, F. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10<\/em>(3), 251-296.<\/p>\n Winne, P. H., & Nesbit, J.C. (2010). The psychology of academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 61<\/em>, 653\u2013678.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 \u2018guided autonomy\u2019. 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 […]<\/p>\nLRI<\/code> 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.<\/p>\nReferences<\/h2>\n