Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction.

The author's thesis is that there is sufficient research evidence to make any reasonable person skeptical about the benefits of discovery learning--practiced under the guise of cognitive constructivism or social constructivism--as a preferred instructional method. The author reviews research on discovery of problem-solving rules culminating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strategies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO programming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each case, guided discovery was more effective than pure discovery in helping students learn and transfer. Overall, the constructivist view of learning may be best supported by methods of instruction that involve cognitive activity rather than behavioral activity, instructional guidance rather than pure discovery, and curricular focus rather than unstructured exploration.

[1]  L. Rue,et al.  Psychology for Teachers , 1921, The School Review.

[2]  R. Craig.  Directed versus independent discovery of established relations. , 1956 .

[3]  Jack E. Kittell.  An experimental study of the effect of external direction during learning on transfer and retention of principles. , 1957 .

[4]  J. Bruner.  The act of discovery. , 1961 .

[5]  R. Gagne,et al.  Some factors in the programming of conceptual learning. , 1961 .

[6]  D. Ausubel,et al.  Learning by discovery , 1961 .

[7]  R. Sprott,et al.  INDUCING NUMBER CONSERVATION IN CHILDREN. , 1964, Child development.

[8]  H. Bellin.  Learning and operational convergence in logical thought development , 1965 .

[9]  R. Gelman.  Conservation acquisition: A problem of learning to attend to relevant attributes☆ , 1969 .

[10]  G. Hermann.  Learning by Discovery: A Critical Review of Studies. , 1969 .

[11]  J. Piaget.  Science of education and the psychology of the child , 1970 .

[12]  C. Brainerd.  Reinforcement and reversibility in quantity conservation acquisition , 1972 .

[13]  R. B. May,et al.  Variations of Learning-Set Training and Quantity Conservation. , 1977 .

[14]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[15]  David Fontana.  Psychology for Teachers , 1981 .

[16]  R. Slavin.  When does cooperative learning increase student achievement , 1983 .

[17]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming: A Critical Look. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[18]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[19]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Children's Mental Models of Recursive Logo Programs , 1985 .

[20]  C. Atman,et al.  How people learn. , 1985, Hospital topics.

[21]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Demands and Requirements of Computer Programming: A Literature Review , 1985 .

[22]  J. Bruer.  Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom , 1993 .

[23]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Benefits of Teaching Design Skills before Teaching Logo Computer Programming: Evidence for Syntax-Independent Learning , 1994 .

[24]  Ann Thompson,et al.  Guided Instruction in Logo Programming and the Development of Cognitive Monitoring Strategies among College Students , 1997 .

[25]  John Sweller,et al.  Instructional Design in Technical Areas , 1999 .

[26]  J. Wertsch.  Constructivism in Education , 2000 .

[27]  Learning and cognitive development , 2000 .

[28]  Richard D. Rush,et al.  Where Students Learn. , 2001 .

[29]  Y. Lincoln,et al.  Scientific Research in Education , 2004 .

[30]  Jean Piaget, learning research, and American education. , 2003 .

[31]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Educational psychology : a century of contributions , 2003 .