Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- instructional_design:discovery_learning [2011/05/06 12:01]
jpetrovic [Criticisms]
+++ instructional_design:discovery_learning [2023/06/19 18:03] (current)
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
   * **taking responsibility for learning** in terms oft he ability of learners to choose their own learning pace, and
   * **building new knowledge** from the existing.
+The characteristics in which discovery learning differs from clasical learning are(([[http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/Litreviews/vol1no1/castronova_litr.pdf|J. Castronova. Discovery learning for the 21st century: what is it and how does it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st century. Literature Reviews, Action Research Exchange 1, no. 2, 2002.]])):
+  * active rather than passive learning,
+  * learning is process-oriented rather than content-oriented,
+  * failure is important,
+  * feedback is necessary, and
+  * understanding is deeper.
@@ Line 46: / Line 54: @@
 ===== Criticisms =====
-Discovery learning has been subjected to many criticisms lately, with more and more studies showing:
+Discovery learning has been subjected to many criticisms lately (see: [[learning_paradigms:constructivism&#criticisms|criticisms of constructivism]]), with more and more studies showing:
+  * **inefficiency** of pure discovery learning, especially for novice learners, and
+  * strong positive effects of guided instruction and worked examples, mostly excluded from learning by discovery(([[http://www.katharinenewman.com/Research/Desktop/amp-59-1-14.pdf|Mayer, R. E. Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?. American Psychologist 59, no. 1: 14. 2004.]]))(([[http://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.169.8810%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=Why%20minimal%20guidance%20during%20instruction%20does%20not%20work&ei=yvSuTaKGCoySOuetze4B&usg=AFQjCNGIE4wsl4Fg5fVtGlt3UdZOoLrP2A&cad=rja|Kirschner, P. A, J. Sweller, and R. E Clark. 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, no. 2: 75–86. 2006.))(([[http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/sweller_kirschner_clark_reply_ep07.pdf|Sweller, J., P. A Kirschner, and R. E Clark. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist 42, no. 2: 115–121. 2007.]]))(([[http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-79951777254&origin=resultslist&sort=cp-t&src=s&imp=t&sid=Ug84tfmOFqClrogsKqiEWMQ%3a50&sot=inw&sdt=a&sl=42&s=AU-ID%28%22Tenenbaum%2c+Harriet+R.%22+35367227500%29&relpos=3&relpos=3&searchTerm=AU-ID%28\|Alfieri, Louis, Patricia J. Brooks, Naomi J. Aldrich, and Harriet R. Tenenbaum. Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology 103, no. 1: 1-18. February 2011.]]))(([[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VDC-4V6YSYJ-1-1&_cdi=5979&_user=3875467&_pii=S0747563208002161&_origin=gateway&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2009&_sk=999749997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkzS&md5=c56371507f94d74cb7effdbb3f2aec57&ie=/sdarticle.pdf|Schwonke, Rolf, Alexander Renkl, Carmen Krieg, Jörg Wittwer, Vincent Aleven, and Ron Salden. The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior 25, no. 2: 258-266. March 2009.]])).
+  * "//In summary, learners encounter problems with all processes characteristic of discovery learning such as stating hypotheses, designing experiments, interpreting data and regulating the learning process (monitoring and planning).//"(([[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.143060.x/pdf|de Jong, T., W. R. van Joolingen, J. Swaak, K. Veermans, R. Limbach, S. King, and D. Gureghian. Self-directed learning in simulation-based discovery environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 14, no. 3: 235-246. September 1998.]]))
+Still, this debate is ongoing as various researchers still find that guided discovery can result in better learning than explicit instruction(([[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WYD-527MP37-8&_user=3875467&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2011&_alid=1742826362&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_cdi=7184&_sort=r&_st=13&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=4194&_acct=C000050661&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3875467&md5=81152b81dd692fdedbfe57a59a8c8ff0&searchtype=a|Alfieri, Louis, Patricia J. Brooks, Naomi J. Aldrich, and Harriet R. Tenenbaum. Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology 103, no. 1: 1-18. February 2011.]])).
-  * inefficiency of pure discovery learning, especially for novice learners, and
-  * strong positive effects of guided instruction and worked examples, mostly excluded from learning by discovery((Mayer, R. E. Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?. American Psychologist 59, no. 1: 14. 2004.))((Kirschner, P. A, J. Sweller, and R. E Clark. 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, no. 2: 75–86. 2006.))((Sweller, J., P. A Kirschner, and R. E Clark. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist 42, no. 2: 115–121. 2007.))((Alfieri, Louis, Patricia J. Brooks, Naomi J. Aldrich, and Harriet R. Tenenbaum. Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning? Journal of Educational Psychology 103, no. 1: 1-18. February 2011.)).
 ===== Keywords and most important names =====

Learning Theories

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools