Naturalistic Vs. Instructional: The Naturalic Learning Argument

Naturalistic vs. Instructional: Which one is better? The naturalistic learning argument can be defined through instruction strategies where “learners, rather than being presented with essential information, must discover or construct essential information for themselves” (Sweller, Kirschner, & Clark 2007). Concisely, naturalistic learning places learners in an environment where they are allowed to explore their own capabilities through problem based learning and develop inquiry skills; students guide themselves with their own motivation and learn the skills they are interested in through minimal support and guidance from educators (Kuhn, 2007). By allowing students develop their own content, strategies, self-directed learning skills, and

Providing the explicit information they need through instruction is practical because it takes into account cognitive load theory, the link between working memory and long-term memory. Studies observing students in a classroom discovered that “when students learn science in classrooms with pure-discovery methods and minimal feedback, they often become lost and frustrated, and their confusion can lead to misconceptions” due to the lack of instruction (Kirschner et al., 2006). On the other hand, studies involving strongly guided learning showed that students learn more deeply and their quality of education is improved when they are given instruction and feedback on their work. Instructed learning provides a superior quality and amount of learning because it decreases cognitive load, provides worked examples that show students how to solve a problem, and employs methods such as process worksheets which assists students in providing more accurate answers than students who rely on discovery learning (Kirscher et al.,