published in:

Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York:
Springer Science & Business Media

Neber, Heinz

Discovery Learning
Synonyms
inquiry learning, guided discovery learning, example-based learning, inductive teaching,
learning by experimentation, learning by design, socratic questioning

Definition
Discovery Learning denotes a general instructional approach that represents the first broad
development of constructivist learning for school-based learning environments. Jerome
Bruner (1963) derived discovery learning from contemporary studies in cognitive psychology,
and stimulated the development of more specific instructional methods. The most important
defining characteristic of discovery learning is that learners have to generate units and
structures of abstract knowledge (like concepts and rules) using their own inductive reasoning
about non-abstracted learning materials (Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett & Thagard, 1986). Only
these materials are provided by the learning environment. The learning materials may consist
in examples of general concepts, cases of general approaches and procedures (e.g., a teaching
method or a leadership style), ill-defined questions and other kinds of situated problems (like
how to motivate students in a passive classroom), or phenomena that have to be causally
explained by the learners (e.g., why a liquid changes the colour). Another characteristic is the
amount of guidance within the learner’s inductive reasoning processes. In discovery learning,
the level of guidance offered may vary adaptively, dependent on the difficulty of the learning
material, the complexity of the intended conceptual and procedural knowledge, and the
cognitive and motivational prerequisites of the learners. For this reason, the level of guidance
or structuredness of the learning environment is not fixed, but represents a variable, non-
defining characteristic of discovery learning. This is important to point out because in some
recent discussions, discovery learning has been confused with unguided instruction, which is
erroneous (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007). In fact, in all currently implemented
versions of discovery learning, the reasoning processes of the learners are significantly guided
or scaffolded.
Learning by examples, which is probably the earliest method of discovery learning,
exemplifies a high level of guidance. This method of discovery learning represents a rather
direct instructional application of Bruner’s procedure for investigating concept attainment by
children. Concept attainment requires the induction of defining and non-defining
characteristics or attributes from examples or instances of the concept or category (e.g.,
concepts like pet animal, metacognition, cooperative learning). In learning by examples,
carefully selected examples and non-examples are presented in planned and prescribed
sequences (e.g., always beginning with a positive example). The learners analyze the features
of each presented example, compare examples, decide on the definitional status of each
feature, and receive feedback on the correctness of the decision. This cycle of searching,
deciding, and testing is repeated until the learners are able to define the concept in terms of its
induced abstract characteristics. Guidance is provided by presenting series of well-designed
published in:
Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York:
Springer Science & Business Media
instances, in prescribing and facilitating the steps of searches and comparisons to the learners
(e.g., by providing prompts and rubrics), as well as in providing feedback on the correctness
of the assumptions and hypotheses of the learners. Learning by examples, as a basic form of
discovery learning, belongs to the repertoire of well-established models of teaching that are
derived from information-processing studies in cognitive psychology (Joyce & Weil, 2008).

Meanwhile, the spectrum of methods of discovery learning has been considerably expanded.
The most widely used and investigated method is learning by experimentation (Neber, 2010)
or synonymously called scientific inquiry (de Jong et al., 2005; Joyce & Weil, 2008). In
experimenting, learners generate causal knowledge for explaining instructionally provided
phenomena. In contrast to learning by examples, they do not get an automatic feedback on the
correctness of their assumptions or hypotheses about causal variables. This method is
challenging for learners because they also have to design situations (experiments) for testing
their provisional explanations (hypotheses) on their own. In terms of Herbert Simon’s Dual
Space Search Discovery (DSSD) model, rules (causal knowledge) and examples or instances
to test the rules have to be generated in a coordinated way by the learners in laboratory-based
hands-on experimentation or in technology-based virtual learning environments (like
microworlds)(de Jong et al., 2005).
Learning by Design or Design-based Learning represents an even more challenging discovery
learning method. In contrast to the other two methods, learners do not get issues (e.g.,
examples, phenomena) that have to be retrospectively analyzed, defined or causally
explained. With this method, learners have to create a product (e.g., a machine, program, text,
or a model) that attains prescribed functions or meets given criteria and constraints. For
designing products that attain the provided prespecified functions or criteria, domain-specific
knowledge has to be searched and generated by the learners.
The shortly described methods of discovery learning may be realized in isolation. On the
other hand, these methods (in particular learning by experimentation and by design) constitute
components in more complex instructional approaches like Project-Based Learning or
Problem-Based Learning (PBL). As stand-alone solutions as well as in integrated instructional
approaches, methods of discovery learning can be implemented in learning environments that
are augmented by educational technology and by collaboratively distributed knowledge-
generation processes. Both computer-based technology and collaboration scripts may be used
as tools and supports for the inductive reasoning processes that are required in all methods of
discovery learning.

Theoretical Background
In general, discovery learning expands the range of cognitive processes for learners, and
contributes to promote cognitively driven activities of the learners. Thus, the implementation
of discovery learning methods may contribute to attain higher levels of thinking, which is an
important general goal of education. The cognitive processes that are required in all methods
of discovery learning may be conceived and investigated on different levels of decomposition.
On a macro-level the sequence of cognitive or inductive reasoning processes is analyzed in
terms of inquiry cycles, and analogously as investigation webs, learning cycles, or as cyclical
regulatory phases (Neber, 2010). These cycles consist in sequences of macroprocesses like
published in:
Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York:
Springer Science & Business Media
accessing prior knowledge, questioning, hypothesizing, searching for information, deciding,
explaining, and reviewing. The expanded range of processes that is required to generate
knowledge is difficult, at least for novice learners. Many studies revealed that in discovery
learning environments, learners often remained non-intentional, did not frame questions and
hypotheses, and had deficits in coordinating evidence and explanations; e.g., they did not
provide arguments for their explanations in terms of available data or by referring to the
generated domain-specific knowledge. In these cases, discovery learning remains ineffective.
As a consequence of such results, some of these macroprocesses of inquiry cycles have
further been decomposed and investigated on microlevels that inform about the procedural
complexity, and provide the basis for developing instruments and tools for procedural support
and scaffolding. The actual research focuses in particular on questioning, hypothesizing,
argumenting, and explaining (Neber & Anton, 2010).
Principles for guiding and supporting discovery processes on different levels have been
theoretically derived from conceptions of learning, and further developed by empirical
studies. A first principle is based on positive findings by presenting discovery tasks in stages
of increasing complexity of the concepts, rules or theories that the learners have to generate
(e.g., well established approaches are progressive inquiry, or the concept of model
progression in technology-based virtual learning environments; de Jong et al, 2005). A second
principle consists in the stepwise, adaptive and systematic fading or reduction of structure
provided for the macrophases of inquiry cycles (e.g., as proposed by the National Science
Foundation for discovery learning by experimentation in all science subjects). An example of
a fading procedure for framing questions by the learners is first prescribing a question to the
learners, then offering alternative questions for selecting, followed by only providing a script
or prompt to formulate own questions (Neber & Anton, 2008).
In order to realize these principles for guiding and structuring cycles of discovery processes,
scaffolding techniques and support tools have been developed. The broad range of such
techniques can be distinguished into three categories (Neber, 2010). Techniques for
supporting knowledge-generation processes (e.g., prompts like question stems, pre-specified
templates for hypotheses, planning grids for exploring the spaces of knowledge and examples,
or self-explanation prompts and modelling tools), techniques for supporting regulative
processes (e.g., metacognitive and reflection prompts), and techniques for supporting
collaborative activities (e.g., constructive controversy, and other cooperative scripts for
distributing roles for knowledge-generation and regulative processes). Computer-based
learning environments offer special advantages for proximally adapting techniques and
scaffolds to online information about frequencies and qualities of learners’ activities (e.g.,
SimQuest as an example for designing discovery-learning environments with integrated
guidance and support facilities).

Important Scientific Research and Open Questions

Bruner (1963) argued that discovery learning is more effective than what is called didactic
teaching or non-constructivist receptive learning. Positive effects should be seen in
memorization of knowledge, solving transfer problems, general learning or self-regulation
strategies, and for intrinsic motivation. Bruner derived these assumed effects from laboratory-
published in:
Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York:
Springer Science & Business Media
based studies in cognitive psychology. However, the range of variables and their interactions
are much less constrained in learning environments like classrooms. This may explain the
many discrepancies in findings in regards to such effects of discovery learning in school-
based investigations. The attainment of positive cognitive and motivational effects interacts
with other conditions in the specific context, or may be achieved in less efficient ways,
requiring more time and other resources than contrasting approaches, e.g., like direct
instruction. The ongoing discussion about guided-vs.-pure discovery learning is a
consequence of the discrepant findings, and indicates the need for further studies on what and
how to guide and scaffold in all forms of discovery learning, in particular if it is conducted
under less structured conditions.
A second open question is if the assumed positive effects of discovery learning have really
been investigated by adequate research designs and measurement instruments used to assess
the effects. What seems to be neglected are long-term effects, effects on general competencies
including the self-system development of learners, and effects on the attainment of non-inert
knowledge, including its structure.
A third category of open questions concerns the context or environment of discovery learning.
Only few studies have focused on collaborative discovery learning, and on how to adequately
integrate discovery learning with and into other instructional approaches. Even that a
considerable spectrum of scaffolding and support tools have already been developed and
tested, further investigations seem to be reasonable. In particular how such tools relate and
interact with inquiry cycles, and determine cognitive processes on micro-levels of
decomposition. Finally, further studies on teacher development and teacher education for
discovery learning may help in implementing this instructional approach, and in attaining the
expected effects.

Cross-References
→ Concept formation
→ Constructivist Learning
→ Creative Inquiry
→ Example-based Learning
→ Generative Learning
→ Guided Discovery Learning
→ Inductive Reasoning
→ Learning by Design
→ Learning Cycles
→ Learning from Questions
→ Problem-Based Learning
→ Socratic Questioning
→ Inquiry Learning
published in:
Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York:
Springer Science & Business Media

References

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational Review, 31, 21-32.

De Jong, T., Beishuizen, J., Hulshof, C., Prins, F., van Rijn, H., van Somereren, M.,
Veenman, M. & Wilhelm, P. (2005). Determinants of discovery learning in a complex
simulation environment. In P. Gärdenfors & P. Johansson, Eds., Cognition, education, and
communication technology (pp. 257-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).
Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.

Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction. Processes
of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (2008). Models of teaching. 8th revised edition. Boston: Ally & Bacon.

Neber, H. (2010). Entdeckendes Lernen (Discovery Learning). In D. H. Rost, Ed.,

Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (Dictionary of Educational Psychology) (p. 124-
132). Weinheim: Beltz.

Neber, H., & Anton, M. A. (2008). Promoting pre-experimental activities in high-school

chemistry: Focusing on the role of epistemic questions. International Journal of Science
Education, 30, 1801-1821.

Internet sources:
General description and illustration of discovery learning; live from classroom “Discovery
Learning Center”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcuyHnVRJcE
(for use, observe YouTube regulations: http://www.youtube.com/t/terms)

Example of Discovery Learning by Experimentation (scientific discovery): SimQuest as an

authoring system for simulation-based discovery-learning environments
http://www.simquest.nl/simquest/index.htm
(developed by T. De Jong et al., University of Twente, NL)

Example of Discovery Learning by Examples: Concept Attainment model of teaching

(Powerpoint presentation):
published in:
Seel. N. (Ed.). (2012) Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1009-1012). New York:
Springer Science & Business Media
http://imet.csus.edu/imet3/drbonnie/portfolio/conceptattain/conattainppt.pdf