My blog last week was on whether children under the age of seven’s education should purely be discovery learning based, after some interesting comments and discussions after the associated talk I have decided to write this week blog on the debate of pure discovery learning versus guided discovery learning. Guided discovery learning (GDL) is essentially discovery learning with a little bit of instruction. Research into the debate is very mixed, with strong arguments for each side and with both helping to make education more creative and engaging for students of all ages.
Within most lessons, discovery learning will incorporate trial and error, until the student successfully works out how to solve the problem. Research suggests that if time is not essential and students can continue with the problem without interruptions then discovery learning is better than GDL. However, if time is restricted then GDL is more effective as students can solve the problems quicker with some instruction (Brunstein, Betts & Anderson, 2009). Roughead and Scandura (1968) suggests that the longer process of discovery learning is better as it leaders to higher order thinking and improved problem solving skills. Further research has looked into the acquisition time of discovery learning and GDL and found GDL to be much quicker although there is no difference in the ability to be able to apply the learnt skills to new problems or retention rate of the learnt information (Craig, 1956). The above research indicates that although discovery learning is a longer process, there are no losses occurred from this process compared to GDL and the process utilises higher order thinking that is not associated with GDL.
However, research reveal that if students do not have the basic knowledge and skills needed to solve the problem or work out a solution then discovery learning is not effective and the process is overwhelming (Egan & Greeno, 1973). This indicates that lessons’ teaching the basic skills needs to be implemented before the discovery learning, highlighting guided discovery learning to be more effective. Furthermore, Tuovinen and Sweller (1999) found that teaching the basic skills needed to solve a problem and leaving the student to explore the problem (GDL) is more effective than teaching students the step by step the solution. They concluded that spoon-feeding students is not an effective teaching method and students do not have the problem solving abilities to be able to implement the solution to a different problem. In addition to the problem solving ability gains, GDL leads to higher levels of motivation, more revising of learnt material and students being more persistent with complex problems (Kersh, 1962). The above research signifies the gains of discovery learning and guided discovery learning and highlights the difference between them can be reliant on the situation or the restraints of the subject.
A meta-analysis of 164 studies found that guided discovery learning is the most successful and effective method for students learning (Alfiere, Brooks, Aldrich & Tenenbaum, 2011). However research reveals discovery learning is more effective with independent learners compared to dependent learners who rely on the teachers assistance (Andrews, 1984). This highlights that some students might struggle with discovery learning and benefit from some instruction that is included in GDL, it also indicates that discovery learning should be integrated throughout education from the very beginning to the very end, stopping students becoming overly dependent on teachers help.
Overall, the research reveals many positives and negatives to both pure discovery learning and guided discovery learning, but the research implies that GDL is more effective in some situations. Guided discovery learning is easily implemented within the classroom whilst still sticking to the curriculum, for example, practical science lessons could surround the students finding the answers to problem through mixing the right chemicals together to create the desired outcome. Personally, I believe it depends on the individual to whether they would prefer guidance whilst problem solving and the research indicates some guidance to be better than none, or too much.
References:
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P.J., Aldrich, N.J. & Tenenbaum, H.R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1-18.
Andrews, J.D.W. (1984). Discovery and expository learning compared: Their effects on independent and dependent students. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 80-89.
Brunstein, A., Betts, S. & Anderson, J.R. (2009). Practice enables successful learning under minimal guidance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 790-802.
Craig, R.C. (1956). Directed versus independent discovery of established relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 223-234.
Egan, D.E. & Greeno, J.G. (1973). Acquiring cognitive structure by discovery and rule learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 85-97.
Kersh, B.Y. (1962). The motivating effect of learning by directed discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 65-71.
Roughead, W.G. & Scandura, J.M. (1968). What is learned in mathematical discovery. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 283-289.
Tuovinen, J.E. & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334-341.
The Science of Education 
We may see evidence that in the ideal world ones learning will be better if it is completely unguided, however I think this suggestions falls under the same banner as the notion of instant feedback leading to ‘higher achievement’. The issue is that neither of these scenarios exists in the real world, so lack internal validity (Bjork, 1994). If an individual cannot thrive under the influence of others, they cannot function in a connected world.
At the same time, I find this concept of dependent learning style vs. independent learning style interesting. Andrews’ (1984) research categorised these two learning styles via a self-report questionnaire, so his conclusions could be rephrased as saying ‘students who prefer not to work independently do better when spoon-fed’. As a result, I agree that guided discovery learning is an acceptable compromise, and an environment that has cooperative ties and external expectations constitute a necessary environment for such learning to be beneficial later in life.
Andrews, J. D. (1984). Discovery and expository learning compared: Their effects on independent and dependent students. The Journal of Educational Research, 80-89.
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings.
Very interesting topic! I am repeating myself in my blogs and comments when emphasizing the importance of the implications of research findings providing evidence for the benefits of autonomy support in education (Deci, Ryan & Williams, 1996; Guay, Ratelle, Larose, Vallerand & Vitaro, 2013; McLachlan & Hagger, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Discovery learning goes in line with autonomy support.
In the classrooms in California where students are learning with the support of the Khan Academy teachers can monitor their students’ learning progress and intervene whenever a student needs help (skip to minute 5:57: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxJgPHM5NYI). These classrooms do not use lectures nor textbooks. Although further evaluation of the outcome of this learning model is still needed this provides an example of a real life approach to education implementing some significant implications of the research in educational psychology (e.g. autonomy support, discovery learning, mastery classroom goal structure etc.).
Guidance or support should still generally be an essential part of education. It is important to note that not every child may need an equal amount of guidance or support. However, since education plays such an important role in an individual’s life it is essential to provide feedback in order for the student to be able take well grounded decisions that significantly change his or her life (e.g. when choosing core subjects, discussing pros and cons of future jobs, choosing an “adequate” form of educational institution etc.).
For many students discovery learning may be beneficial (as you stated in this blog and the previous referring to Emma’s blog as well). Whether discovery learning yields benefits in education or not may strongly depend on the way it is implemented into education (e.g. pure discovery learning vs. guided discovery learning) and the level or form of formal education (e.g. preschool, primary, secondary or higher education). Whereas the kind of discovery learning may vary I am convinced that students on all levels of formal education would profit from it.
References
Ciani, K. D., Middleton, M. J., Summers, J. J. and Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: The importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35 (1), 88–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.11.001
Deci, E. L., Ryan, M. R. and Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning, Learning and Individual Differences, 8 (3), 165-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90013-8.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C., Larose, S., Vallerand, R. J. and Vitaro, F. (2013). The number of autonomy-supportive relationships: Are more relationships better for motivation, perceived competence, and achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 (4), 375–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.005
McLachlan, S. and Hagger, M. S. (2010). Effects of an autonomy-supportive intervention on tutor behaviors in a higher education context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (5), 1204–1210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.01.006
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Child or adult, at some point or other all of us need some guidance. It would not be suitable to suggest that any individual can get by in any walk of life completely on their own. Also, as Chris mentions in his comment above, this concept lacks internal validity as guidance is always apparent in the real world whether we want it or not. Thus whilst there is no doubt that discovery learning has its benefits I am in favour of guidance learning rather than discovery learning in schools.
An article by Mayer (2004) presents some very compelling research in favour of guidance in learning. Firstly Craig et al (1956) puts forward the issue of problem solving rules. In this study, students were asked to distinguish between the following words: Cycle, Seldom, Sawdust, Sausage and Cellar. One group of students were given no clues at all, (the discovery group), others were given hints (the guidance group) some were given the answer (Cycle-due to the difference in sounds between the words). The guidance group showed signficantly better performance than the other two groups. These findings were further supported by numerous similar studies (Kittel, 1957; Gagne & Brown, 1961). Furthermore, according to Shuman and Keisler (1966) overall, guidance learning is more effective in terms of transfer in learning than pure discovery learning as it allows for students to gain appropriate knowledge and intergrate new incoming knowledge with that exsisting knowledge base.
The evidence clearly puts forward a logical arguement in favour of guidance learning. Leaving students to thier own devices may encourage such things as creative thinking and exploration but children require a knolwedge base for this to occur (Amible,1999). Whilst children do gain knowledge through exploration and experience, they do need to be guided in the right direction and kept on track, as we all do from time to time.
References:
Amabile, T.M. (1999). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, september-october, 1998, 77-87.
Craig, R. C. (1956). Directed versus independent discovery of established
relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 223–234
Gagne, R. M., & Brown, L. T. (1961). Some factors in the programming
of conceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62,
313–321
Kittel, J. E. (1957). An experimental study of the effect of external
direction during learning on transfer and retention of principles. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 48, 391–405.
Mayer (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?
The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction.University of California, Santa Barbara
Shulman, L. S., & Keisler, E. R. (1966). Learning by discovery. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Deep-level reasoning can be attained if the learner has a tutor to aid them by asking and being asked questions by the learner, especially if these questions are hypothetical “what-ifs” to do with a subject, as this will help aid the learner to understand how a subject works. Asking questions creates an awareness of the subject in the learner’s mind (Rosenshine et al, 1996; King, 1989; King; 1994; Craig et al, 2006). I believe that in the context of higher education, wherein concepts are ill-structured, we need a tutor to guide us through these subjects, helping us discover things without spoon-feeding us, as we cannot all make huge cognitive jumps to connect pieces of information together in order to all attain the same level of education. If we are stranded, with no idea where to go, a tutor can guide us, enabling us to carry on learning, showing us connections or revelations that we may have missed. I believe one is vital to education, in order to keep us regulated and staying on track, rather than floundering without an idea of where to go.
Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level-reasoning-question effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 565-591.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effect of teaching children how to question and explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 338–368.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to ask questions: A review of intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
Pingback: Discovery Learning, Still Not Convinced? | The Science of Education
Reblogged this on Psychined Index.