If you are an educator, it’s no secret that every few years there is a “pendulum swing” in best practices. The push of the last few years, especially in subjects like math and science, has been to allow students to drive their learning with Discovery-Based Learning. Now, I’m not here to bash discovery, otherwise known as inquiry, because I truly feel that there is a time and a place for it. But when is it a time for discovery, and when is it time for direct instruction?
Discovery-Based Learning is, by definition, “a method of Inquiry-Based Instruction” (Mirzoyan, 2026) where students discover the learning objective on their own. For example, instead of telling students that multiplication can be done using repeated addition, you pose a problem for them to solve and help them with the discovery. The key word here is “help” because unassisted inquiry does not always give the results expected. This learning theory is based on the fact that students will figure out the main idea through trial and error. When a teacher isn’t there to offer appropriate questions and support, students may spend 20 minutes going down the rabbit hole of their idea and not getting to the point. While best practice seems to be a mix of both, a study found that Inquiry-Based Learning that lacked a strong structure resulted in students scoring lower than direct instruction or a mix of the two with strong structures (Bryant, 2017).
Here’s where my opinion, based on my interpretation of the research, comes in. When districts jump into this Discovery-Based model with little to no professional development, teachers are being set up to fail. Truly teaching with this learning model is incredibly hands on, even though it doesn’t seem like it. It’s heavy with guiding questions, perfectly timed corrections, and nudges in all of the right directions. And that is needed for each individual student. (Yes – it can be as exhausting as it sounds). Without your constant guidance, students will most likely miss the skill or information needed.
I’m all about teaching the student. I love workshop models and believe teaching reading from a chapter book is much more beneficial for them as readers than short passages and comprehension questions, BUT let’s be realistic. Schools, districts, teachers, and especially students are judged on their test scores. So, while I see guided inquiry type learning as beneficial in certain situations, I also think that students still have to be able to solve an equation or answer a multiple choice question.
When and why? In my opinion, discovery should be saved mostly for information being learned in the way of cause and effect, such as science or social studies. There are some subjects in math that could benefit from inquiry and discovery. But I also feel that there are many instances where direct instruction is needed. Sometimes, students need to be shown and told how to solve an equation, then they need to practice.
So, Discovery-Based vs Direction Instruction. Students need a healthy mix of both! Don’t let resources and publishers convince you that every lesson can be an inquiry. Remember that sometimes, and some students just in general, directly teaching the skill is beneficial to your learners!
Sources:
Bryant, J., Dorn, E., Kihn, P., Krawitz, M., Mourshed, M., & Sarakatsannis, J. (2017). https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/public%20and%20social%20sector/our%20insights/drivers%20of%20student%20performance%20insights%20from%20north%20america/drivers-of-student-performance-insights-from-north-america.pdf
Mirzoyan, V. (2021, June 17). Discovery-Based Learning: Definition, Principles, and Techniques. Uteach.Io. https://uteach.io/articles/discovery-based-learning-definition-principles-and-techniques
Leave a Reply