View source

===Synonyms===


guided discovery, inductive method, activity learning, [[Constructivist Mathematics]], and learner-centered intruction

===Definition===  

The discovery method is a teaching technique that encourages students to take a more active role in their learning process by answering a series of questions or solving problems designed to introduce a general concept (Mayer 2003).  [http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner Jerome S. Bruner], a highly influential cognitive psychologist, is credited for its development into an accepted instructional technique.

===Overview===
  
The discovery method is based on the notion that learning takes place through classification and schema formation (Gellenstien 2004).  Three main principles guided Bruner’s development of this approach:

1.	Consideration should be given to “experiences and contexts�? that motivate the student’s interests

2.	There should be a [[spiral organization]] of the material forcing students to build upon previously acquired information

3.	The instruction should “facilitate extrapolation�? [http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html constructivist theory]

In this teaching approach, the instructor guides the student’s thought process by posing a series of questions whose responses would lead to the understanding of a concept before it is explicitly stated.  “Children act as detectives as they solve concept-attainment activities in stimulating learning environments.  In doing so, they place a newly introduced object in a category that they have previously discovered or identified�? (Gallenstien 2004).  This teaching method is believed to increase retention of material because the student organizes the new information and integrates it with information that has already been stored.

===Method outline===

A. Examples Manipulation

B. Practice with more examples

C. New concepts explained/defined (Hopkins 2002)    

Mayer describes these as pure discovery, guided discovery, and expository, respectively.


The Discovery method refers to how much guidance a teacher should give their students.  There are three levels of guidance in teaching:

1. Pure Discovery - The student recieves representative problems to solve with minimal teacher guidance (Mayer, 2003).

2. Guided Discovery - The student recieves problems to solve, but the teacher provides hints and directions about how to solve the problemto keep the student on track (Mayer, 2003).

3. Expository - The final answer or rule is presented to the student (Mayer, 2003).


===References===
''Constructivist Theory''. 2004. http://tip.psychology.org/bruner.html

Gallenstein, N.L. 2004. Creative Discover through Classification. ''Teaching Children 
Mathematics'', Vol. 11: 103-4.

Hopkins, M.T. 2002. The effect of computer based expository and discover methods of 
instruction on aural regonition of music concepts. ''Journal of Research in Music 
Education'', Vol. 50: 131-33.

Mayer, R.E. 2003. ''Learning and Instruction''. Pearson Education, Inc: Upper Saddle 
River, 287-88.



'''Implications of the Discovery Method''':

'''Pure Discovery'''

Pure discovery methods often require excessive amounts of learning time, result in low levels of initial learning, and result in inferior performance on transfer and long term retention (Mayer 68).  When the principle to be learned is obvious or when a strict criterion of initial learning is enforced, pure discovery students are likely to behave like guided discovery students.  Apparently, pure discovery encourages learners to get cognitively involved but fails to ensure that they will come into contact with the rule or principle to be learned (Mayer 68).

'''Guided Discovery'''

Guided discovery may require more or less timethan the third, expository instruction, depending on the task, but tends to result in better long term retention and transfer (Mayer 68).  Guided discovery both encourages learners to search actively for how to apply rules and makes sure that the learner comes into contact with the rule to be learned (Mayer, 68). 

'''Expository Instruction'''

Expository Instruction may sometimes result in less learning time than other methods and generally results in equivalent levels of initial learning as compared to guided discovery (Mayer 69).  If the goal of instruction is long-term retention and transfer, expository methods seem inferior to guided discovery.  Apparently expository instruction does not encourage the learner to actively think about the rule but does ensure that the rule is learned (Mayer, 69).

'''Reference''': Mayer, Richard, E. The Promise of Educational Psychology 
Volume II: Teaching for Meaningful Learning.  Pearson Education,
Inc., New Jersey, 2002.


===Testimonials===
I attended a high school in Aurora called the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.  It is publicly funded, but is a boarding school which takes the top 1/4%  or so of students across the state for soph to senior year of high school.  Unbeknownst to me at the time, it is actually a type of lab for teaching, to develop, test, and revise innovative curriculum and methods which can then be shared throughout the state.  One of the prime methods of learning is discovery method, especially in math and science classes.  For the students, it is an amazingly high quality education and very exciting to be with such brilliant peers.  <br>
In any case, my experience with discovery learning in the mathematics classroom was a mixture of joy and frustration.  I have always enjoyed math (and have since become a teacher of math) and loved the discovery.  I think discovery was what I had always liked about mathematics, even before being taught in a discovery method.  Indeed, I would rush ahead of what my teachers were telling us to try to discover the rule, pattern, etc. before they explained what it was.  We had a three semester series called Mathematical Investigations which covered Algebra II, Trig, and Pre-Calculus (usually covered in 2 - 3 years in most high schools, this was only 1 1/2).  It was entirely discovery based, and the teacher gave VERY limited guidance.  This was often a frustration to me, and I felt very slow.  In fact, near the end of my time in high school I had resolved that I "just wasn't very good at math".  I really enjoyed it, though, and found it fascinating.  Unfortunately, when I think I'm not good at something, I have very little patience for it.  <br>
It took me some time in college to start feeling competent again (in math, or in school in general) as I had lost much confidence in such an intense, competitive 
environment.  However, I found that this experience gave me a very solid grounding in mathematics and helped me to understand many concepts whereas having had a different approach I might have had only a rule-based understanding  of what the "right" thing to do was.  This has been an important part of my teaching as well as my learning of mathematics. --[[User:Ecox2|Ecox2]] 22:17, 20 Apr 2005 (CDT)
[[Category: EPSY400 ClassroomLearning]]
[[Category: EPSY490 ClassroomLearningAndManagement(CTER)]]

I am not sure I agree with the method you studied math, although I am a proponent of using the discovery method in my own classroom.  I would never want a student to feel they weren't good at science (my subject matter) because they didn't discover what they should have or that too much was left for discovering.  Perhaps I give more guidance than your teachers did.  It is rather interesting though that you  feel you have a "solid grounding" in math and then chose to pursue it as a career!

I am a propronent of the discovery method.  I teach high school mathematics and love seeing the look of excitement on my students' faces when they discover a mathematical concept.  But, I think there are two major flaws with discovery learning.  First, it requires a lot of planning time from the teacher especially if he or she does not have textbook that incorporates discovery into the curriculum.  Second, I have found that students have trouble learning through discovery if they have never encountered this learning style in the past.  Jenny Circello

Discovery learning works great with capable students.  But when you have a wide range of student abilities in the classroom it may not always work.  This is a good time to consider homogenous grouping.  Have three or four different ability groups and have them work on the same task.  Allow the higher learners to work on their own as much as possible.  Give the middle group guidance and leading questions along the way.  And allow yourself time to work with the lower learners in the attempt to get them to discover some of the material on their own.  Using homogenous groups some of the time forces the students who would normally sit back and watch to be active and engaged in their learning.