“Pure discovery – even when it involves lots of hands on activity and large amounts of group discussion – may fail to promote the first cognitive process, namely, selecting relevant incoming information” (Mayer, 2004, p. 17).
What comes to mind when you read the previous statement? For me, I equate pure discovery learning to that special realm known as project- or problem-based learning (PBL). The one true difference between the two would be that in a more traditional PBL sense, one may be working within a scaffolded framework with even the possibility of support from a facilitator.
I’ve spoken with educators 4-5 times the last two weeks about this particular topic and it’s interesting to come across it again while reading this article. In fact, the last blog I wrote focused on a similar topic, however, I’m compelled to create an argument for Mayer’s stance regarding the learner’s inability to determine pertinent information (p.17). My biggest qualm with this statement is that it discounts what has proven to be the biggest hurdle of creating successful learning opportunities for all through PBL.
Jerome Bruner coined the term, discovery learning and in doing so, connected it to constructivist theories in which learning occurs in situations that incorporate real-world problems forcing the learner to retrieve and interpret prior knowledge leading to plausible solutions or answers (Discovery Learning (Bruner), 2017). In this statement, we find the true problem with Mayer’s theory, that of the learner being unable to determine which aspects of the information learned as the most valuable. The true issue at large here, is that of the variety of learning experiences and prior knowledge that each learner is able to bring to the situation. Each learner presents their own unique life experiences and learned and interpreted knowledge to every problem they or address, leading to diverse, and often diverging viewpoints and opportunities for success in this specific learning environment.
In stating all of this, I’m going to revisit the work of John Hattie, much as I did in my previous post. There, I was able to explain that in Hattie’s research, he concluded the low effect size of project-based learning was much do in part to this lack of background knowledge, or common learned information from one individual to the next (p. 211). Mayer’s understanding and analyses of these three studies has some validation as well, however, the meta analyses which Hattie carried out is much more thorough and much more reliable. 285 individual studies focused specifically on project-based learning would lead me to trust the outcome and the results much more so, than three.
References
Discovery Learning (Bruner). (2017, February 2). Learning Theories. Retrieved February 23, 2023, from https://learning-theories.com/discovery-learning-bruner.html
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
Leave a Reply