Discovery-based instruction has been scrutinized for its effectiveness in learning, with recent meta-analyses revealing that explicit instruction is generally more effective than unassisted discovery learning. The first meta-analysis compared unassisted discovery learning with explicit instruction and found that explicit instruction led to better learning outcomes (d = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.44, -0.31]). The second meta-analysis compared enhanced discovery learning (with feedback, scaffolding, and guided discovery) with other instructional methods and found that enhanced discovery learning was more effective (d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.23, 0.36]). These findings suggest that unassisted discovery learning does not benefit learners, while enhanced discovery learning with guidance is more effective. Discovery learning is often associated with constructivist approaches, where learners actively explore and construct knowledge. However, research indicates that unassisted discovery learning may not be as effective as explicit instruction, especially for complex tasks. The meta-analyses highlight that while discovery learning can be beneficial, it often lacks structure and may overwhelm learners' cognitive resources. Enhanced discovery learning, which includes feedback, scaffolding, and guided discovery, is more effective because it provides learners with the necessary support to construct knowledge. The effectiveness of discovery learning also depends on the domain, the age of the learners, and the type of dependent measure used. For example, verbal and social skills, problem solving, and science benefited most from explicit instruction. Adolescents were found to benefit more from explicit instruction than adults. Additionally, the type of discovery learning condition and the comparison condition influenced the outcomes. Worked examples were found to be more effective than direct teaching, and feedback and explanations were useful aids to learning. The meta-analyses also revealed that the type of publication and the domain of study moderated the results. Studies published in first-tier journals showed greater benefits for explicit instruction than those in second-tier journals. The domain of study also influenced the outcomes, with physical/motor skills, computer skills, and verbal/social skills benefiting most from enhanced discovery learning. Overall, the findings suggest that while discovery learning can be beneficial, it is often less effective than explicit instruction, especially when it lacks guidance. Enhanced discovery learning, which includes feedback, scaffolding, and guided discovery, is more effective because it provides learners with the necessary support to construct knowledge. The results highlight the importance of balancing discovery learning with explicit instruction to optimize learning outcomes.Discovery-based instruction has been scrutinized for its effectiveness in learning, with recent meta-analyses revealing that explicit instruction is generally more effective than unassisted discovery learning. The first meta-analysis compared unassisted discovery learning with explicit instruction and found that explicit instruction led to better learning outcomes (d = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.44, -0.31]). The second meta-analysis compared enhanced discovery learning (with feedback, scaffolding, and guided discovery) with other instructional methods and found that enhanced discovery learning was more effective (d = 0.30, 95% CI [0.23, 0.36]). These findings suggest that unassisted discovery learning does not benefit learners, while enhanced discovery learning with guidance is more effective. Discovery learning is often associated with constructivist approaches, where learners actively explore and construct knowledge. However, research indicates that unassisted discovery learning may not be as effective as explicit instruction, especially for complex tasks. The meta-analyses highlight that while discovery learning can be beneficial, it often lacks structure and may overwhelm learners' cognitive resources. Enhanced discovery learning, which includes feedback, scaffolding, and guided discovery, is more effective because it provides learners with the necessary support to construct knowledge. The effectiveness of discovery learning also depends on the domain, the age of the learners, and the type of dependent measure used. For example, verbal and social skills, problem solving, and science benefited most from explicit instruction. Adolescents were found to benefit more from explicit instruction than adults. Additionally, the type of discovery learning condition and the comparison condition influenced the outcomes. Worked examples were found to be more effective than direct teaching, and feedback and explanations were useful aids to learning. The meta-analyses also revealed that the type of publication and the domain of study moderated the results. Studies published in first-tier journals showed greater benefits for explicit instruction than those in second-tier journals. The domain of study also influenced the outcomes, with physical/motor skills, computer skills, and verbal/social skills benefiting most from enhanced discovery learning. Overall, the findings suggest that while discovery learning can be beneficial, it is often less effective than explicit instruction, especially when it lacks guidance. Enhanced discovery learning, which includes feedback, scaffolding, and guided discovery, is more effective because it provides learners with the necessary support to construct knowledge. The results highlight the importance of balancing discovery learning with explicit instruction to optimize learning outcomes.