Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2004

DOI

10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14

Link

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14

Cited from

education_pedagogy

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Constructivist Learning
  • It is not pure discovery learning without scaffolding or guidance (unstructured exploration often leads to misconception, frustration, and inefficiency), a critique Mayer (2004) advanced in arguing for a "three-strikes rule" against pure discovery learning

    This sourceSynthesis arguing pure discovery learning has repeatedly failed to outperform guided instruction (supports D48-048).

• Inquiry-Based Learning
  • Time spent on inquiry practices is time not spent on content coverage; emphasis on process sophistication may come at the cost of content depth or breadth, the failure pattern Mayer (2004) calls the "three-strikes rule" against pure-discovery instruction in his synthesis of fifty years of empirical evidence.

    This sourceSynthesis of fifty years of empirical evidence arguing that pure discovery learning has repeatedly failed to outperform guided instruction; foundational citation for the content-versus-process tension in inquiry pedagogy.

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:773db0160308 · see in the full table