The Seductive Appeal of Discovery Learning
I’m often asked why, if discovery learning doesn’t work, it’s so popular. Here’s an attempt to answer that question.
The idea that children learn better if they discover something themselves is attractive for many different reasons despite the fact that empirical research tells a very different story. These empirical studies consistently show that teacher-guided or explicit instruction is more effective (you learn more), more efficient (it takes both less time and less mental effort), and more fulfilling (you feel successful and are motivated to learn more). What follows is a chronicle of ten key psychological, ideological, and educational reasons why the appeal of discovery learning endures despite all evidence to the contrary.
1. The Romantic Ideal of Learning
The notion of self-discovery aligns with a romantic Rousseauian (is that a word?) view of children, where they are seen as naturally curious and capable of constructing knowledge independently if just given the right environment. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s romantic ideal of learning emphasises the natural development of the child, guided by curiosity and personal experience rather than rigid instruction. In his work Émile, or On Education (Émile, ou De l’éducation, 1762)[1], he argues that education should nurture the child’s innate goodness and allow learning to unfold organically through direct interaction with nature and real-world experiences. Rousseau criticizes traditional schooling for imposing artificial constraints and instead advocates for an approach where children learn through discovery, exploration, and personal engagement with their surroundings. This romanticised idea is deeply ingrained in educational thought and resists empirical challenges.
2. The Appeal of Active Learning
People often conflate actively engaging with material (which CAN in certain cases be beneficial if done correctly) with being cognitively engaged with the material (which IS beneficial). In discovery learning learners are indeed engaged in a process, but it’s a discovery process (what am I looking for, what do I need, is this useful, what is it worth…?) carried out in what’s known as a weak problem-solving[2] approach and NOT a learning process. Also, most discovery-based learning is often nothing more than trial-and-error, so even if the learner hits on something important, they often have no idea what they did or how they got there. As I once wrote with John Sweller and Dick Clark, problem-solving is a very poor way to learn how to solve problems[3]. Research shows that active learning enhances retention, but it does not follow that pure discovery learning is the best way to achieve this. Well-guided discovery and explicit instruction can still be highly interactive and engaging.
3. The Overgeneralisation of Scientific Thinking
There’s a widespread belief that since scientists and experts make discoveries, students should learn in the same way. However, experts have extensive background knowledge that allows them to explore effectively. Actually, experts see the world or a phenomenon quite differently than novices. Novices lack this foundation, making discovery inefficient and often leads to misconceptions. Derek Hodson summed this misconception up in one great sentence: Scientists do science, students learn science. I discussed this at some length in my article Epistemology or pedagogy: That is the question.[4]
4. The Illusion of Understanding
When students struggle through the discovery learning process, it can feel like they’re learning deeply because their effort and engagement are high. However, research shows that effortful learning doesn’t always lead to better retention or understanding. Sometimes it just leads to frustration, incorrect conclusions, and misconceptions. This is a question of cognitive dissonance. They have the idea that it’s not possible to not have learnt because they’ve invested so much time and effort in the discovery process. The illusion of understanding can also reinforce cognitive dissonance because students may not even realise they’re misunderstanding the material—they feel like they “get it” because of their effort, making them resistant to correction. If educators don’t provide timely feedback or guided instruction, students may entrench their misconceptions rather than refine their knowledge.
5. The Constructivist (Teaching) Fallacy
The theory of constructivism (that learners construct their own knowledge) is often misinterpreted to mean that direct instruction is ineffective. While constructivism is a valid description of how knowledge is built in the mind (that is, it’s a perfectly valid and imho true philosophical stance), it does not imply that discovery is the best way to teach and/or learn. Richard Mayer used the term constructivist teaching fallacy which equates active learning with active teaching[5]. Under this definition, the constructivist fallacy in education is the mistaken assumption that if learning is active and constructive, then teaching should avoid direct instruction and make students physically active at all times. This fallacy conflates a constructivist theory of learning (how people learn best by integrating new information into their existing knowledge structures) with a constructivist theory of teaching (an instructional approach where teachers provide minimal guidance).
6. The Confirmation Bias in Education
Confirmation bias in education refers to the tendency of students, teachers, or policymakers to favour information that confirms their existing beliefs, expectations, or assumptions, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. This cognitive bias can subtly influence how people interpret learning outcomes, evaluate teaching methods, and make educational decisions. Specifically here, educators who have seen some success with discovery-based methods may selectively remember those successes and overlook the countless failures. This confirmation bias reinforces the belief that discovery learning is effective, even when controlled studies show otherwise.
7. The Progressive Education Movement
For over a century, progressive education has championed the idea that learning should be student-centred and driven by curiosity. It emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was championed by philosophers and pedagogues like John Dewey. It ‘reshaped’ (I would say misshaped) educational thinking by rejecting rote memorisation and so-called passive instruction in favour of student-centred, experiential learning. Its core ideals—learning by doing, promoting democratic values, and respecting the child’s natural curiosity—were powerful. Over time, these ideas laid fertile ground for misconceptions about how learning works, particularly the belief that discovery learning is inherently superior to direct instruction. These ideas became deeply embedded in teacher education. Terms like “guide on the side” vs. “sage on the stage” were popularized, reinforcing the idea that teachers should step back. Many teacher prep programs taught that the best learning is self-directed, with minimal scaffolding—especially in early grades.
While this movement may have contributed some valuable ideas to how we think about teaching and learning, it has also led to resistance against more structured approaches that are demonstrably effective. I would advise everyone to read Progressively Worse: : The Burden of Bad Ideas in British Schools by Robert Peal[6].
8. The Anti-Authority Sentiment
Discovery learning is often linked to a broader rejection of traditional, authority-based education. This anti-authority sentiment embodies a cultural and philosophical mistrust of hierarchical control, centralised expertise, and imposed knowledge. As such, it has been a powerful force behind the enduring appeal of discovery learning. In some radical education circles, particularly those influenced by thinkers like Ivan Illich (Deschooling Society, 1971) or Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970), traditional education is seen as a tool of social control. The teacher, who is seen as the voice of the system, is viewed with suspicion and mistrust. From this perspective, explicit instruction became equated with indoctrination, while discovery learning was seen as a path to emancipation. This sentiment casts teacher-led instruction as oppressive and learner autonomy as liberating. In this cultural context, discovery learning isn’t just a teaching method. It becomes a symbol of freedom, self-determination, and resistance to authority.
9. Its Cultural and Political Appeal
The idea of self-directed learning resonates with values of independence and creativity, which are highly valued in Western societies. It fits well with broader cultural narratives about innovation, self-reliance, and breaking free from outdated traditions. Culturally, it resonates with deeply rooted ideals of individualism, personal growth, and creativity, aligning with the belief that learning should be a natural, self-directed process. It reflects the earlier discussed romantic notion of the child as an inherently curious and capable learner who thrives when free from adult interference.
Politically, discovery learning connects with progressive ideals such as equity, empowerment, and the democratisation of knowledge, challenging traditional classroom hierarchies by repositioning the teacher from authority figure to facilitator. This appeals to those who view formal instruction as potentially oppressive or outdated; the school as factory or even prison! At the same time, discovery learning finds support in more libertarian or anti-authoritarian circles, where it represents freedom from bureaucratic control and standardised systems.
10. Superficial Success Stories
Finally, it is the case that some students can thrive with discovery-based approaches, especially those who are already highly motivated and have a strong foundation of prior knowledge. Unfortunately, these cases are not representative of the general student population, and especially those children with underprivileged backgrounds.
The Reality: Explicit Instruction Works Better in Most Cases
Despite its intuitive appeal, research consistently supports structured and guided instruction as a more effective, efficient, and fulfilling approach to teaching and learning. Studies in cognitive science consistently demonstrate that students learn best when they’re first explicitly taught foundational concepts before engaging in problem-solving or exploration. Scaffolding and well-designed instructional sequences allow students to explore and apply knowledge meaningfully after they have been given the necessary tools. This doesn’t mean that learning should be passive. Well-designed instruction incorporates active engagement, inquiry, and critical thinking, but within a framework that provides necessary support.
The persistent appeal of discovery learning, despite its limitations, reflects a mix of cognitive biases, ideological commitments, and cultural narratives rather than strong empirical support.
[1] Emile, or Education. Translated by Barbara Foxley. E.P. Dutton. https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2256/Rousseau_1499_EBk_v6.0.pdf
[2] Weak problem solving refers to a general, unspecialized approach to solving problems, relying on broad strategies like trial and error, means-ends analysis, or analogy rather than domain-specific knowledge.
[3] Clark, R., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 5-11. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Clark.pdf
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (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(2), 75–86. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
[4] Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://lexiconic.net/pedagogy/epist.pdf
[5] Mayer, R. (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. https://tinyurl.com/4b8sc97p
[6] https://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ProgressivelyWorsePeal.pdf
