Direct instruction vs. Discovery: The long view

Science Education

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 384-397

  Dean Jr , David ^a   Kuhn, Deanna ^a,b  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247468385     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20194     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
2. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2005). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University, Houston, TX.
3. Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.
4. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661-667.
5. Kuhn, D. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, 6, 133-139.
6. Kuhn, D. (2001). Why development does (and doesn't) occur: Evidence from the domain of inductive reasoning. In R. Siegler & J. McClelland (Eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Neural and behavioral perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16, 866-870.
8. Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how)? In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.
9. Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219-290.
10. National Research Council (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
11. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304.
12. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1-15.
13. Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence. Science Education, 89, 634-656.
14. Siegler, R. (2006). Microgenetic studies of learning. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.), D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
15. Siegler, R., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606-620.
16. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40, 211-223.
17. Zimmerman, C. (2006). The development of scientific reasoning skills: What psychologists contribute to an understanding of elementary science learning. Final draft of a report to the National Research Council Committee on Science Learning Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. Washington, DC: National Research Council.