Talk:Discovery learning

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Mid‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biased and confusing

It is not clear in this article what discovery learning is understood to be (or what are the existing ambiguities). F.i. how much guidance is permissible under this category. Also the evidence provided seems to me biased against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.154.54 (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmelo-Silver et al ?

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan and Chinn wrote a response to Kirschner et al's and I think it brought up some excellent points. Check it out as you may want to edit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescreendoorslams (talk • contribs) 04:15, 8 August 2007

Reference missing

The work of Marzano 2011 is not included in the list of references.89.12.184.238 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference can be found here:http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept11/vol69/num01/The-Perils-and-Promises-of-Discovery-Learning.aspx

It was published in September 2011 | Volume 69 | Number 1 Promoting Respectful Schools Pages 86-87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.58.112 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research attributed to Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark

I removed the following statements from the Criticism section:

According to Kirschner et al, learners should be given some direct instruction first, and then later, be allowed to apply what they have learned.

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark never argue that constructivist methods (including discovery learning) should be used. From the article cited: "Not only is unguided instruction normally less effective; there is also evidence that it may have negative results when students acquire misconceptions or incomplete or disorganized knowledge." They call it a "failure" and use medical residents as an example of students who should not use even the more structured project-based learning. This is original research attributed incorrectly to this source. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that quote doesn't imply that Kirschner et al support constructivist methods. Direct instruction followed by the opportunity to practice seems to be exactly what they recommend. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.92.202 (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneur

Activities in discover ideas 102.151.133.158 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]