Discovery Learning

The article I read is found at Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

http://www.aare.edu.au/97pap/tuovj113.htm

Discovery Learning became popular in the 1960's by Jerome Bruner. Bruner made three major claims about discovery leaning. He believed that learning by discovery is beneficial. He also asserted that a goal of learning is to learn to discover for oneself. Lastly though he cautions that learning by discovery is inefficient and should not be used as the main means of education.

This article asserts that there are deficiencies in discovery learning compared to instruction based on cognitive load theory. This theory considers our cognitive architecture includes limited working memory, an effectively unlimited long-term memory holding large number of schemas that vary in degree of automaticity. This cognitive architecture interacts with instructional materials in various ways.

Work in the Cognitive Load Theory framework resulted in two major findings that help to clarify the usefulness of discovery learning. The first is goal-free problem solving. They found that if students were given freedom in problem solving instead of requiring one specific answer then learning improved. Students only had to process with their limited working memories the possibilities with the given information and limited variables. This worked well in physics, but not so with geometry. The difference being that the search space, the size of possible answers with the given information to process was larger with geometry. Instead they found the heavy use of worked examples to be a more effective way to teach geometry along with other disciplines.

One example they gave was with students learning to use databases. The students were given conventional lessons and then they were given the freedom to explore the database operations or read through multiple worked examples before the test. They found that there was no difference in learning between the two groups on lower levels of mastery. There was a difference when the material to be mastered required a higher level of competency. Discovery learning worked fine for the students who had previous experience with databases even with the more difficult material. Those who had no prior experience with databases did not do well with discovery learning. They did do just as well as the experienced users if they had participated in the worked examples of database operations.

What does this mean for me. Well I have found over my years of teaching computer operations that students who have had alot of experience learning to use the computer do feel more at ease at the computer. They tend to want to demonstrate the cool things they have learned to do such as how to change the desktop, mouse and other features. They usually have basic word processing skills, experience in Powerpoint, and Paint. When it comes to learning Excel or more advanced Word features some fail to complete their exercises because the lessons take them out of their comfort zone of playing around. Others who are academic achievers do a little better than the novices because they are not afraid to experiment, and they are more familiar with the Windows interface.