Are you learning backwards? Maybe you should: instead of memorizing abstract rules first, learn to engineer a "need to know" through guided discovery. The secret lies in what you do first.
Love the hook about a medical diagnosis! Your discussion of the inductive/deductive/guided discovery brings me back to lots of language teacher training debates, and I love how you sort it out while weaving it in with the Science of Learning research. BTW, I think that Task-based language learning also fits in nicely with this discussion.
I’m glad it resonated! It’s a fascinating topic because it’s the idea behind many of the greatest learning experiences but we need to be careful not to idealize what learners can do. And yes, as with inductive learning, task-based or project-based learning can boost motivation, but also there what’s important is the design of the learning experience: are you providing the clear explanation of the concepts and rules that learners must learn? Are you providing guidance? Don’t leave it up to them to find out what to generalize! Note that “task-based” has often been a term used to rebrand unguided discovery learning, which is what we should totally avoid!
That’s fair! In the article, I explain that people who are used to abstract thinking, such as scholars and academics, typically prefer deductive learning. They can “outsmart the induction” because they quickly see where the example leads. They also think induction is irrelevant because they can handle the general rule as stand-alone knowledge. However, most beginner learners find it hard to grasp or relate to a topic that is described in a general or abstract way without being grounded in concrete examples. My advice for you would be: be aware of the fact that most learners aren’t so well-versed in abstract thinking. As I say in the article: “I explain it the way I would understand it as a learner” is typically a poor framing for teaching or learning design.
Is the pupil always supposed to discover the entire theory/answer himself in the process of discovering. Example: is the pupil with guided discovery supposed to discover the law of gravity F=mg? Or more complex the rule for multiplication of two fractions? Because that seems like quite a hurdle to take for the student. And if yes, will this process really create better understanding instead of more confusing?
I go to great lengths in the article to explain that inductive learning doesn’t necessarily mean unguided discovery learning. There’s a whole section in the article explicitly about that. I cite the research pointing to how ineffective that is and I make very clear that learners who aren’t experts lack the tools to generalize and abstract through unguided observation. If you want to build a proper inductive learning experience (guided discovery) you could lead with questions such as: “Why do you think planets orbit around each other? Have ever wondered why does the Earth orbit around the Sun and not the other way round?” Have them share their thoughts and discuss with them about that for 5-10 min, then explain the rule, the formula f=mg. The discussion will give you plenty of examples you can refer to when you explain the rule (“James said it’s because the sun is bigger but the Earth wouldn’t orbit around a giant balloon. The real reason is what we call ‘mass’.”). This will make the rule relevant and clear by the time you introduce it, because it’s grounded in their concrete thoughts and knowledge of the world. The difference is: your question framed the observation/reflection, excluded the noise and led them to focus on the right ideas (mass). As I mention in the article, this approach (enhanced discovery) is proven to lead to longer lasting memory and less misconceptions. The research on that is also linked in the article.
I was indeed talking about guided discovery, not unguided. But I was unsure as to how far that discovery needs to go. There is a difference between thinking about planetary movement and actually coming up with the formula itself. Your example makes it clear for me now that students are not supposed to actually find the complete theory of the lesson. Just get more feeling with it and understand a few points of the subject on their own. Thanks for making that clear!
By the way, I was not critizing guided discovery. I use it myself for mathematics EVERY LESSON. But I wasn’t sure I did it right or i did something else. It seems now I am doing guided discovery indeed. In my lessons pupils get in interaction with the subject and that interaction forces them to think about the subject.
Exactly, you can check the section in the article called “Show, don’t tell… then tell” and consider the different lesson structures I suggest. It’s all about playing with how the information is presented rather than expecting learners to figure it out. If anything, it helps to make them feel they discovered it, even if they’ve been led to the right answer in a deliberate way.
Love the hook about a medical diagnosis! Your discussion of the inductive/deductive/guided discovery brings me back to lots of language teacher training debates, and I love how you sort it out while weaving it in with the Science of Learning research. BTW, I think that Task-based language learning also fits in nicely with this discussion.
I’m glad it resonated! It’s a fascinating topic because it’s the idea behind many of the greatest learning experiences but we need to be careful not to idealize what learners can do. And yes, as with inductive learning, task-based or project-based learning can boost motivation, but also there what’s important is the design of the learning experience: are you providing the clear explanation of the concepts and rules that learners must learn? Are you providing guidance? Don’t leave it up to them to find out what to generalize! Note that “task-based” has often been a term used to rebrand unguided discovery learning, which is what we should totally avoid!
I found that the is floating thing, the Deductive was much more effective and straight to the point. The inductive was more confusing for me.
That’s fair! In the article, I explain that people who are used to abstract thinking, such as scholars and academics, typically prefer deductive learning. They can “outsmart the induction” because they quickly see where the example leads. They also think induction is irrelevant because they can handle the general rule as stand-alone knowledge. However, most beginner learners find it hard to grasp or relate to a topic that is described in a general or abstract way without being grounded in concrete examples. My advice for you would be: be aware of the fact that most learners aren’t so well-versed in abstract thinking. As I say in the article: “I explain it the way I would understand it as a learner” is typically a poor framing for teaching or learning design.
Is the pupil always supposed to discover the entire theory/answer himself in the process of discovering. Example: is the pupil with guided discovery supposed to discover the law of gravity F=mg? Or more complex the rule for multiplication of two fractions? Because that seems like quite a hurdle to take for the student. And if yes, will this process really create better understanding instead of more confusing?
I go to great lengths in the article to explain that inductive learning doesn’t necessarily mean unguided discovery learning. There’s a whole section in the article explicitly about that. I cite the research pointing to how ineffective that is and I make very clear that learners who aren’t experts lack the tools to generalize and abstract through unguided observation. If you want to build a proper inductive learning experience (guided discovery) you could lead with questions such as: “Why do you think planets orbit around each other? Have ever wondered why does the Earth orbit around the Sun and not the other way round?” Have them share their thoughts and discuss with them about that for 5-10 min, then explain the rule, the formula f=mg. The discussion will give you plenty of examples you can refer to when you explain the rule (“James said it’s because the sun is bigger but the Earth wouldn’t orbit around a giant balloon. The real reason is what we call ‘mass’.”). This will make the rule relevant and clear by the time you introduce it, because it’s grounded in their concrete thoughts and knowledge of the world. The difference is: your question framed the observation/reflection, excluded the noise and led them to focus on the right ideas (mass). As I mention in the article, this approach (enhanced discovery) is proven to lead to longer lasting memory and less misconceptions. The research on that is also linked in the article.
I was indeed talking about guided discovery, not unguided. But I was unsure as to how far that discovery needs to go. There is a difference between thinking about planetary movement and actually coming up with the formula itself. Your example makes it clear for me now that students are not supposed to actually find the complete theory of the lesson. Just get more feeling with it and understand a few points of the subject on their own. Thanks for making that clear!
By the way, I was not critizing guided discovery. I use it myself for mathematics EVERY LESSON. But I wasn’t sure I did it right or i did something else. It seems now I am doing guided discovery indeed. In my lessons pupils get in interaction with the subject and that interaction forces them to think about the subject.
Exactly, you can check the section in the article called “Show, don’t tell… then tell” and consider the different lesson structures I suggest. It’s all about playing with how the information is presented rather than expecting learners to figure it out. If anything, it helps to make them feel they discovered it, even if they’ve been led to the right answer in a deliberate way.