Discovery Learning - Criticism of Pure Discovery Learning

Criticism of Pure Discovery Learning

A debate in the instructional community now questions the effectiveness of this model of instruction (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). The debate dates back to the 1950s when researchers first began to compare the results of discovery learning to other forms of instruction (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2011).

In support of the fundamental concept of discovery learning, Bruner (1961) suggested that students are more likely to remember concepts if they discover them on their own as opposed to those that are taught directly. This is the basis of discovery learning.

In pure discovery learning, the learner is required to discover new content through conducting investigations or carrying out procedures while receiving little, if any, assistance. "For example, a science teacher might provide students with a brief demonstration of how perceptions of color change depending on the intensity of the light source and then ask them to design their own experiment to further examine this relationship" (Marzano, 2011, p. 86). In this example the student is left to discover the content on his/her own. Because students are left to self-discovery of topics, researchers worry that learning taking place may have errors, misconceptions or be confusing or frustrating to the learner (Alfieri et al., 2011).

While his article is cited as the fundamental framework for discovery learning, Bruner also cautioned that such discovery could not be made prior to or without at least some base of knowledge in the topic (Alfieri et al., 2011). Today's research, like that of Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) reports that there is little empirical evidence to support pure discovery learning. Specifically, Kirschner et al. suggest that fifty years of empirical data do not support those using these unguided methods of instruction. The meta-analyses conducted by Alfieri and colleagues reconfirmed such warnings.

Mayer (2004) argues that unassisted discovery learning tasks do not help learners discover problem-solving rules, conservation strategies, or programming concepts. He does acknowledge, however that while under some circumstances constructivist-based approaches may be beneficial, pure discovery learning lacks structure in nature and hence will not be beneficial for the learner.

Mayer also points out that interest in discovery learning has waxed and waned since the 1960s. He argues that in each case the empirical literature has shown that the use of pure discovery methods is not suggested, yet time and time again researchers have renamed their instructional methods only to be discredited again, to rename their movement again.

Additionally, several groups of educators have found evidence that pure discovery learning is less effective as an instructional strategy for novices, than more direct forms of instruction (e.g. Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999). Mayer asked the question "Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning?" While discovery for oneself may be an engaging form of learning, it may also be frustrating.

The main idea behind these critiques is that learners need guidance (Kirschner et al., 2006), but later as they gain confidence and become competent then they may learn through discovery.