The article examines the effectiveness of discovery learning versus explicit instruction through two meta-analyses. The first meta-analysis compared unassisted discovery learning with explicit instruction, finding that explicit instruction was more effective (d = −0.38, 95% CI [−.44, −.31]). The second meta-analysis compared enhanced discovery learning (e.g., guided discovery, elicited explanations) with other instructional methods, finding that enhanced discovery was more effective (d = 0.30, 95% CI [.23, .36]). The findings suggest that unassisted discovery does not benefit learners, while feedback, worked examples, scaffolding, and elicited explanations do. The study also explored various moderators such as publication rank, domain, participant age, and type of dependent variable, which influenced the outcomes. Overall, the results indicate that explicit instruction and enhanced discovery methods are more effective than unassisted discovery and other forms of instruction.The article examines the effectiveness of discovery learning versus explicit instruction through two meta-analyses. The first meta-analysis compared unassisted discovery learning with explicit instruction, finding that explicit instruction was more effective (d = −0.38, 95% CI [−.44, −.31]). The second meta-analysis compared enhanced discovery learning (e.g., guided discovery, elicited explanations) with other instructional methods, finding that enhanced discovery was more effective (d = 0.30, 95% CI [.23, .36]). The findings suggest that unassisted discovery does not benefit learners, while feedback, worked examples, scaffolding, and elicited explanations do. The study also explored various moderators such as publication rank, domain, participant age, and type of dependent variable, which influenced the outcomes. Overall, the results indicate that explicit instruction and enhanced discovery methods are more effective than unassisted discovery and other forms of instruction.