Direct instruction vs. discovery: The long view

Abstract

D. Klahr and M. Nigam (2004) make a case for the superiority of direct instruction over discovery learning in students' mastery of the control-of-variables strategy central to the scientific method. In the present work, we examine acquisition of this strategy among students of the same age as those studied by Klahr and Nigam, as well as follow central features of their design in directly comparing the two methods. In contrast to their design, however, we follow progress over an extended time period and a range of equivalent tasks. Three groups of 15 fourth-grade students, of diverse socioeconomic background, were compared. One group engaged in 12 sessions over 10 weeks working on problems that required the control-of-variables strategy for effective solution. Another group engaged in the same activity, preceded by a session involving direct instruction on the controlof-variables strategy. A third group received only the initial direct instruction, without subsequent engagement and practice. In this longer term framework, direct instruction appears to be neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for robust acquisition or for maintenance over time. The patterns of attainment observed here point instead to a gradual and extended process of acquisition and consolidation.

Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component

“…However, a recent study by Dean and Kuhn (2007) show different results. These researchers followed students' mastery of the control of variables strategy over a time period of almost 6 months across varied contents.…”

“…In effect, the content of the instruction described in these studies consisted of many of the elements that appear in the definition of MSK such as when or why to use the control of variables strategy. Nevertheless, these studies make no reference whatsoever to the concept of MSK, or to any other term pertaining to meta-level knowledge (e.g., Ross 1988;Chen and Klahr 1999;Toth et al 2000;Klahr and Nigam 2004;Dean and Kuhn 2007), thereby illustrating the "fuzzy borders" between the cognitive and metacognitive level.…”

Realist Review of Literature on Catering for Different Instructional Needs with Preteaching and Extended Instruction

“…Direct instruction in "which the teacher provides strong instructional support, scaffolding, and feedback" [2] (p. 46), may be seen as pivotal to fostering students' learning [3,4]. However, as heterogeneity in classes increases, the challenge of tailoring instruction to students' instructional needs becomes increasingly difficult.…”

¿Qué es una buena clase en ingeniería desde el punto de vista de los estudiantes?

“…Es decir, lo que es efectivo en términos pedagógicos para las tareas abiertas, como la elaboración de explicaciones teóricas, no lo es necesariamente para las tareas cerradas, como por ejemplo el control de variables [14]. Por ejemplo, las prácticas de instrucción directa, donde el docente asume el rol de transmisor de información, son más efectivas en tiempos cortos de instrucción, mientras que procesos de aprendizaje por descubrimiento guiado son más efectivos en tiempos instruccionales más largos [15].…”