A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from American Psychologist
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure
Discovery Learning?
The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction
Richard E. Mayer
University of California, Santa Barbara
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 constructiv-
ism—as a preferred instructional method. The author re-
views research on discovery of problem-solving rules cul-
minating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strategies
culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO pro-
gramming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each
case, guided discovery was more effective than pure dis-
covery 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 unstruc-
tured exploration.
As constructivism has become the dominant view
of how students learn, it may seem obvious to
equate active learning with active methods of
instruction. Thus, educators who wish to use constructivist
methods of instruction are often encouraged to focus on
discovery learning—in which students are free to work in
a learning environment with little or no guidance. Under
the banner of social constructivism, the call for discovery
learning remains, but with a modest shift in form—students
are expected to work in groups in a learning environment
with little or no guidance. My thesis in this article 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.
I review research on discovery of problem-solving rules
culminating in the 1960s, discovery of conservation strat-
egies culminating in the 1970s, and discovery of LOGO
programming strategies culminating in the 1980s. In each
case, guided discovery has been 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 enable deep understanding
of targeted concepts, principles, and strategies—even
when such methods involve guidance and structure. In
short, there is increasing evidence that effective methods
for promoting constructivist learning involve cognitive ac-
tivity rather than behavioral activity, instructional guidance
rather than pure discovery, and curricular focus rather than
unstructured exploration. The self-correcting nature of sci-
entific research can be useful in guiding educational deci-
sions about which instructional methods work under which
circumstances for which learners.
The Search for Constructivist Teaching
Methods
The constructivist revolution has brought new conceptions
of learning and teaching (Marshall, 1996; Phillips, 1998;
Steffe & Gale, 1995). Although constructivism takes many
forms (Phillips, 1998), an underlying premise is that learn-
ing is an active process in which learners are active sense
makers who seek to build coherent and organized knowl-
edge. I start this article with the premise that there is merit
in the constructivist vision of learning as knowledge con-
struction (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Bruer,
1993; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Mayer, 2003).
My goal is to examine how the constructivist view of
learning translates into a constructivist view of teaching. A
common interpretation of the constructivist view of learn-
ing as an active process is that students must be active
during learning. According to this interpretation, passive
venues involving books, lectures, and on-line presentations
are classified as nonconstructivist teaching whereas active
venues such as group discussions, hands-on activities, and
interactive games are classified as constructivist teaching.
The idea that constructivist learning requires active
teaching methods is a recurring theme in the field of edu-
cation. For example, in a textbook for teachers, Lefrancois
(1997) summarized the field by noting that “the construc-
tivist approach to teaching . . . is . . . based on the assump-
tion that students should build (construct) knowledge for
themselves. Hence, constructivist approaches are basically
discovery oriented” (p. 206). This statement—and similar
prescriptions—may be interpreted to mean that a construc-
tivist theory of learning in which the learner is cognitively
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard E.
Mayer, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Bar-
bara, CA 93106-9660. E-mail: mayer@psych.ucsb.edu
14 January 2004 ●American Psychologist
Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/04/$12.00
Vol. 59, No. 1, 14–19 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
This
document
is
copyrighted
by
the
American
Psychological
Association
or
one
of
its
allied
publishers.
This
article
is
intended
solely
for
the
personal
use
of
the
individual
user
and
is
not
to
be
disseminated
broadly.
