The Guided Discovery Principle in Multimedia Learning

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.015

14 - The Guided Discovery Principle in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Ton de Jong

Edited by

Richard Mayer

Show author details

Ton de Jong: Affiliation:
Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, University of Twente
Richard Mayer: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

Inquiry or scientific discovery learning environments are environments in which a domain is not directly offered to learners but in which learners have to induce the domain from experiences or examples. Because this is a difficult task the discovery process needs to be combined with guidance for the learner. The most effective way to provide this guidance is to integrate it in the learning environment. Guidance may be directed at one or more of the discovery learning processes, for example, hypothesis generation or monitoring, or at structuring the overall process. With adequate guidance discovery learning can be an effective learning approach in which mainly “intuitive” or “deep” conceptual knowledge can be acquired. Inquiry learning now finds new directions in collaborative inquiry and modeling environments.

Guided Discovery Learning

In the design of learning environments the emphasis in the learning process is often placed on the learning material or the teacher. In this way instruction that explains principles and rules in a domain to a learner is created. This instructive mode of teaching and learning can be contrasted with an inductive learning mode in which the emphasis in the learning process is with the learner. This scientific discovery (or inquiry) learning is characterized by the induction of principles from experiences and/or examples (Swaak & de Jong, 1996). The learner's knowledge acquisition process progresses by stating rules or hypotheses on the basis of concrete situations and by subsequently testing these hypotheses in new situations.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 215 - 228

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ainsworth, S., & Labeke, N. (in press). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and InstructionGoogle Scholar

Alessi, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 40–47Google Scholar

Alessi, S. M. (2000a). Building versus using simulations. In Spector, J. M. & Anderson, T. M. (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology (pp. 175–196). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar

Alessi, S. M. (2000b). Designing educational support in system-dynamic-based interactive learning environments. Simulation and Gaming, 31, 178–196CrossRef Google Scholar

Alessi, S. M. (2000c). Simulation design for training and assessment. In O'Neil, J. H. F. & Andrews, D. H. (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 197–222). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 317–338CrossRef Google Scholar

Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344–370CrossRef Google Scholar

Bangert-Drowns, R., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 12, 59–68Google Scholar

Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36A, 209–231CrossRef Google Scholar

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–51CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, D., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualisations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1–23CrossRef Google Scholar

Cunningham, J. B. (1984). Assumptions underlying the use of different types of simulations. Simulations & Games, 15, 213–234CrossRef Google Scholar

Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology, foundations of inference and research in the behavioural sciences. The Hague, The Netherlands: MoutonGoogle Scholar

Hoog, R., Jong, T., & Vries, F. (1991). Interfaces for instructional use of simulations. Education and Computing, 6, 359–385CrossRef Google Scholar

Jong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education and Computing, 6, 217–229CrossRef Google Scholar

de Jong, T., Beishuizen, J., Hulshof, C. D., Prins, F., van Rijn, H., van Someren, M., et al. (in press). Determinants of discovery learning. In Gärdenfors, P., Riis, U., & Johansson, P. (Eds.), Cognition, education and communication technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Jong, T., Hoog, R., & Vries, F. (1993). Coping with complex environments: The effects of overviews and a transparent interface on learning with a computer simulation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 621–639CrossRef Google Scholar

de Jong, T., & Njoo, M. (1992). Learning and instruction with computer simulations: Learning processes involved. In Corte, E., Linn, M., Mandl, H., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.), Computer-based learning environments and problem solving (pp. 411–429). Berlin, Germany: Springer-VerlagCrossRef Google Scholar

Jong, T., & Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–202CrossRef Google Scholar

Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 63–103CrossRef Google Scholar

Dunbar, K. (2001). What scientific thinking reveals about the nature of cognition. In Crowley,, K.Schunn,, C. D. & Okada, T. (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. (1990). Learning scientific reasoning skills in microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 173–191CrossRef Google Scholar

Gijlers, H., & Jong, T. (in press). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science TeachingGoogle Scholar

Gijlers, H., & de Jong, T. (submitted). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative scientific discovery learning

Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity in training system design. New York: Springer-VerlagCrossRef Google Scholar

Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 495–538CrossRef Google Scholar

Hulshof, C. D. (in press). Log file analysis. In Kempf-Leonard, K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement. San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Hulshof, C. D., & de Jong, T. (submitted). Using just-in-time information to support discovery learning about geometrical optics in a computer-based simulation

Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 803–821CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaartinen, S., & Kumpulainen, K. (2002). Collaborative inquiry and the construction of explanations in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 12, 189–213CrossRef Google Scholar

Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (in press). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science TeachingGoogle Scholar

Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921CrossRef Google Scholar

Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48CrossRef Google Scholar

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–668CrossRef Google Scholar

Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495–523CrossRef Google Scholar

Levin, J. A., & Waugh, M. (1988). Educational simulations, tools, games, and microworlds: Computer-based environments for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 12, 71–79Google Scholar

Lewis, E. L., Stern, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33, 45–58Google Scholar

Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380CrossRef Google Scholar

Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Inquiry and technology. In Linn, M., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Löhner, S., Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31, 395–418CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1987). Educational psychology, a cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown and CompanyGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?American Psychologist, 59, 14–19CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185CrossRef Google Scholar

Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B., J, Merrill, S. K., & Landes, S. (1995). Tutoring: Guided learning by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 315–372CrossRef Google Scholar

Miller, R., & Leroux-Demers, T. (1992). Business simulations: Validity and effectiveness. Simulation/Games for Learning, 22, 261–285Google Scholar

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113CrossRef Google Scholar

Njoo, M., & Jong, T. (1993). Exploratory learning with a computer simulation for control theory: Learning processes and instructional support. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 821–844CrossRef Google Scholar

Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21, 109–146CrossRef Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modelling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1–37Google Scholar

Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337–387CrossRef Google Scholar

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation and Gaming, 23, 261–276CrossRef Google Scholar

Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 9–20CrossRef Google Scholar

Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. In Stahl, G. (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 255–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, T. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Carver, S. M. & Klahr, D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty five years of progress (pp. 263–305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318–328CrossRef Google Scholar

Rieber, L. P., & Parmley, M. W. (1995). To teach or not to teach? Comparing the use of computer-based simulations in deductive versus inductive approaches to learning with adults in science. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 359–374CrossRef Google Scholar

Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S., & Tribble, K. (in press). Discovery learning, representations, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix. Learning and InstructionGoogle Scholar

Robinson, N. (1992). Evaluating simulations and games: An economist's view. Simulations/Games for Learning, 22, 308–325Google Scholar

Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 127–152CrossRef Google Scholar

Shute, V. J., & Glaser, R. (1990). A large-scale evaluation of an intelligent discovery world: Smithtown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1, 51–77CrossRef Google Scholar

Slotta, J. (2004). The web-based inquiry science environment (WISE): Scaffolding knowledge integration in the science classroom. In Linn, M., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Swaak, J., & Jong, T. (1996). Measuring intuitive knowledge in science: The development of the what-if test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22, 341–362CrossRef Google Scholar

Swaak, J., Jong, T., & Joolingen, W. R. (2004). The effects of discovery learning and expository instruction on the acquisition of definitional and intuitive knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 225–234CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312CrossRef Google Scholar

Touvinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341CrossRef Google Scholar

Vahey, P., Enyedy, N., & Gifford, B. (2000). Learning probability through the use of a collaborative, inquiry-based simulation environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 51–84Google Scholar

van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2004). Learning with multiple representations: Supporting students' translation between representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA

Joolingen, W. R., & Jong, T. (1991). Supporting hypothesis generation by learners exploring an interactive computer simulation. Instructional Science, 20, 389–404CrossRef Google Scholar

Joolingen, W. R., & Jong, T. (1997). An extended dual search space model of learning with computer simulations. Instructional Science, 25, 307–346CrossRef Google Scholar

van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2003). SimQuest: Authoring educational simulations. In Murray, T., Blessing, S., & Ainsworth, S. (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology educational software: Toward cost-effective production of adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 1–31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar

Joolingen, W. R., Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E., & Manlove, S. (submitted). Co-Lab: Research and development of an on-line learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human BehaviorGoogle Scholar

Veermans, K. H., Jong, T., & Joolingen, W. R. (2000). Promoting self directed learning in simulation based discovery learning environments through intelligent support. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 229–255CrossRef Google Scholar

Veermans, K. H., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (submitted). Using heuristics to facilitate discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42, 99–157CrossRef Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Chen, Q., Sun, Y., & Reid, D. J. (2004). Triple scheme of learning support design for scientific discovery learning based on computer simulation: Experimental research. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 269–282CrossRef Google Scholar