Learning Theories Paper

Christa Brediger

How do we engage our students in taking ownership of their learning? What does a
student-centered learning environment (SCLE) look like in the classroom? The purpose of this
paper is to inform and familiarize the reader with the fundamental principles and practices of
the Discovery Learning Theory, an advocating theory for a SCLE.
A SCLE requires four primary componentsthat are used variously depending on the
goals and contexts in which they are applied (Land, Hannafin, & Oliver, 2012). These four
components are: contexts, tools, resources, and scaffolding.
The Discovery Learning Theory is a method of inquiry-based instruction (Learning
Theories, 2007-2013). This type of instruction, also known as Higher-Order Thinking, often
refers to [using] a form of curriculum in which students are exposed to particular questions and
experiences in such a way that they discover for themselves the intended concepts.
(Hammer, 1997).
The Discovery Learning Theory follows the major school of thought of a constructivist.
This thinking approach says that what we know of the world stems from our own
interpretation of our experiences. (Ertmer, Newby, 1993) Many philosophers and theorists,
Howard Gardner, Marie Montessori, and Jean Piaget, to name a few, have created theories that
stem from this idea that through exploration, reflection, and experimenting, a person is able to
cultivate his or her own desire for knowledge and construct truth.
The major contributor to the Discovery Learning Theory is Jerome Bruner. While
studying at Harvard, Bruner wrote a book, The Process of Education, which had major
influence in many fields of study including education. The book is probably best considered
today as one of the earliest and most influential responses in the field of educational
psychology to B.F. Skinners radical behaviorism (Quantz, 1997). It was at this time when
educational instruction took a turn. Learning through discovery and exploration opened a
whole new perspective and approach to education.
So, what does Discovery Learning look like in the classroom? How does it support
SCLE? At face value one may think that this style of learning means that the student is set free
to explore on his or her own terms. However, true Discovery Learning requires a great deal of
preparation on the instructors part. One model used in classrooms is the Learning Cycle. This
cycles includes three phases: 1) exploration, 2) discussion and presentation of new content, and
3) application and explanation (Bevevino, Dengel, Adams, 1999). In our fourth grade
curriculum we do an Oregon Trail simulation. The students are placed into families, and then
grouped into wagon trains. Throughout the unit they experience a series of scenarios including
a variety of possible solutions to choose from. Together they must develop a proposal for
which solution they would choose. Eventually the students construct and present their own
solutions. After each discussion, the groups are given time to collaborate and finalize their
proposal. Throughout the entire simulation we track our decisions on maps displayed in the
classroom. At the conclusion of the simulation we review the different decisions made along
the way and discuss what was done well and what could have been adjusted.
Discovery Learning is very much an advocate for SCLE. This type of learning allows
students to construct meaning and personal appreciation of what they study. Knowledge and
education are no longer just about information intake, but rather about active engagement to
make sense of the things around us.
References

(2007-2013). Discovery learning (bruner). Learning Theories. Retrieved from:
http://www.learning-theories.com/discovery-learning-bruner.html


Bevevino, M.M., Dengel, J., & Adams, K. (1999). Constructivist theory in the classroom.
Professional Development Collection, 72(5), 275-278. Retrieved from:
http://bit.ly/12YejZJ


Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for
effective learning design. Computers and Education, 43(1-2). Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/science/article/pii/S03601315030
01404?np=y


Ertmer P. A., & Newby T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing
critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 6(4). Retrieved from:
http://edtech.mrooms.org/file.php/517/EDTECH504_Module2/504Module2_ErtmerNe
wby.pdf


Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction,
15(4), 485-529. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/stable/3233776?seq=6


Horton, R.M., & Marshall, J.C. (2011). The relationship of teacher-facilitated, inquiry-based
instruction to student higher-order thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 111(3),
93-101. Retrieved from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1949-
8594.2010.00066.x/abstract


Land, S.M., Hannafin, M.J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments. In
Jonassen, D. & Land, S. (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (3-
21). NewYork: Routledge.

McLeod, S. (2008). Bruner. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html


Quantz, R.A. (1997). Jerome bruner the culture of education. Educational Studies, 28(3-4),
292. Retrieved from: http://bit.ly/14j2CZY