Inductive Learning: Examples, Definition, Pros, Cons

Inductive Learning: Examples, Definition, Pros, ConsReviewed by Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

inductive learning vs deductive learning

Inductive learning is a teaching strategy where students discover operational principles by observing examples.

It is used in inquiry-based and project-based learning where the goal is to learn through observation rather than being ‘told’ the answers by the teacher.

It is consistent with a constructivist approach to learning as it holds that knowledge should be constructed in the mind rather than transferred from the teacher to student.

Inductive Learning Definition

Inductive learning involves the students ‘constructing’ theories and ideas through observation. We contrast it to deductive learning, where the teacher presents the theories then students examine examples.

It is argued that learning with the inductive approach results in deep cognitive processing of information, creative independent thinking, and a rich understanding of the concepts involved.

It can also lead to long memory retention and strong transferability of knowledge to other situations.

Prince and Felder (2006) highlight that this concept explains a range of approaches to teaching and learning:

“Inductive teaching and learning is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of instructional methods, including inquiry learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based teaching, discovery learning, and just-in-time teaching” (Prince & Felder, 2006, p. 124).

Inductive Learning vs Deductive Learning

While both inductive and deductive learning are used in education, they are distinct in terms of their underlying principles and teaching methods.

Generally, inductive learning is a bottom-up approach meaning the observations precede the conclusions. It involves making observations, recognizing patterns, and forming generalizations.

On the other hand, deductive learning is a top-down approach meaning that it involves a teacher presenting general principles which are then examined using scientific research.

Both are legitimate methods, and in fact, despite its limitations, many students get a lot of pleasure out of doing deductive research in a physics or chemistry class.

Below is a table comparing the differences:

Inductive LearningDeductive Learning
Learning ApproachBottom-up approach starting with examples and experiencesTop-down approach starting with general principles and theories
Reasoning ProcessStudents go from specific examples and observations to concluding with general principles or rules.Students move from general principles or rules (e.g. theories, hypotheses, and presuppositions) to specific examples in order to test the theories.
Teacher’s RoleThe teacher facilitates discovery and exploration of new concepts and ideas in an inquiry-based classroom environment.The teacher presents an idea then guides students through exploring and testing concepts and ideas.
Learner’s RoleThe student is an active participant in the learning process, discovering new information on their own.The student starts as a passive receiver of information, but the act of testing theories is active and still involves critique and analysis.
Thinking SkillsInductive reasoning, creative thinking, critical thinking, hypothesizing Deductive reasoning, analyzing, debunking, critical thinking
Real-life ApplicationsMore suitable for real-life situations where students must use trial-and-error to find solutions.More suitable for abstract and theoretical concepts where students must apply principles and rules to specific examples.

Inductive Learning Strengths and Limitations

Inductive learning is praised as an effective approach because it involves students constructing knowledge through observation, active learning and trial and error.

As a result, it helps develop critical thinking skills and fosters creativity because students must create the theories rather than being presented with them at the beginning of the lesson.

However, inductive learning isn’t always beneficial. To start with, students often don’t understand what the end goal of the activity is, which leads to confusion and disillusionment.

Secondly, it can be more challenging for novice learners who don’t have strong frameworks for systematic analysis and naturalistic observation.

Below is a table summary of the strengths and weaknesses:

Strengths of Inductive LearningLimitations of Inductive Learning
Encourages Active Learning: Students must learn through experimentation, observation, and trial-and-error.Requires Extensive Time and Effort: Teachers have minimal time to present concepts in a crowded curriculum. Often, it makes more sense to use deductive learning, especially if it leads to the same learning outcomes.
Helps Develop Critical Thinking Skills: Students are encouraged to think critically and actively analyze what they observe in their experiments.May Not Provide Clear Guidelines for Learning: One of the biggest challenges I’ve faced as both a learner and teacher is ensuring students understand the direction and point of each lesson. The teacher wants students to discover information for themselves, but the students also need guidance and scaffolding to stay on track.
Can Lead to New Insights: Because students aren’t given the information at the outset, students often come to conclusions that are surprising and innovative.May not End with Correct Answers: When students construct information themselves, they may use faulty logic or methodologies. To address this, the teacher needs to set in place strong guidelines on how to observe and experiment while still leaving open possibilities for surprising conclusions.

Inductive Learning Examples

  • Mrs. Williams shows her art students a wide range of masterpieces from different genres. Students then develop their own categorical definitions and classify the artwork accordingly.   
  • Children in third grade are shown photos of different musical instruments and then asked to categorize them based on their own definitions.
  • A company has customers try out a new product while the design team observes behind a two-way mirror. The team tries to identify common concerns, operational issues, and desirable features.
  • A team of researchers observes the verbal interactions between parents and children in households. They then try to identify patterns and characteristics that affect language acquisition.
  • A biologist observes the foraging and hunting behavior of the Artic fox to determine types of terrain and environmental features conducive to survival.
  • Researchers interested in group dynamics and decision-making analyze the functional statements of personnel during meetings and try to find patterns that facilitate problem-solving
  • Chef Phillips presents 5 desserts to his students and asks them to identify the qualities that make each one distinct….and tasty.
  • Dr. Guttierrez gives each team of students in his advertising class a set of effective and ineffective commercials. Each team then develops a set of criteria for what makes a good commercial. 
  • The Career Center shows a range of video-recorded job interviews and asks students to identify the characteristics that make some of them impressive and others not.
  • Kumar demonstrates different yoga poses in a Far East Religions class and then the students try to identify the areas of the body and problem each pose is meant to address.

Case Studies and Research Basis

1. Inductive Learning in an Inquiry-Based Classroom

On the surface, this would appear to be a very straightforward question with a very straightforward answer. Many formal definitions share several common characteristics: existence of a metabolism, replication, evolution, responsiveness, growth, movement, and cellular structure.

However, Prud’homme-Généreux (2013) points out that in one popular biology textbook there are 48 different experts offering different definitions.

In this inductive learning class activity by Prud’homme-Généreux (2013), the instructor prepares two sets of cards (A and B). Each card in set A contains an image of a living organism; each card in set B contains an image of an object that is not living.

Before distributing the cards, teams of 3 are formed and asked:

Why do we need a definition of life?

Each team then generates a new definition of life. Afterwards, the teams receive 3 cards from both sets.

For class discussion, one characteristic of a team’s definition is written on the board. Teams examine their cards and determine if that characteristic applies.

Prud’homme-Généreux states:

“…that the approach elicits curiosity, triggers questions, and leads to a more nuanced understanding of the concept…leads to confidence in their ability to think.”

2. Inductive Learning in Peer Assessment

Inductive learning methods can be applied in a wide range of circumstances. One strategy is aimed at helping students understand grading criteria and how to develop a critical eye for their work and the work of others.

The procedure involves having students form teams of 3-5. The instructor then supplies each team with 5 essays that vary in terms of quality and assigned grade.

Each team examines the essays, discuss them amongst themselves, and then try to identify the grading criteria.

Class discussion can ensue with the instructor projecting new essays on the board and asking the class to apply their team’s criteria.

This activity is an excellent way for students to develop a deeper understanding of the grading process.

3. Problem-Based Inductive Learning in Medical School

The conventional approach to teaching involves the teacher presenting the principles of a subject and then having students apply that knowledge to different situations. As effective as that approach is, medical schools have found that student learning is more advanced with a problem-based inductive approach.

So, instead of students being told what the symptoms are for a specific disease, students are presented with a clinical case and then work together to identify the ailment.

Although each team is assigned an experienced tutor, they try to provide as little assistance as possible.

Medical schools have found that this form of inductive learning leads to a much deeper understanding of medical conditions and helps students develop the kind of advanced critical-thinking skills they will need throughout their careers.

4. Inductive Learning in Traffic Management

Traffic management involves controlling the movement of people and vehicles. The goal is to ensure safety and improve flow efficiency. In the early days of traffic management, personnel would monitor traffic conditions at various times of the day, and try to identify patterns in traffic dynamics and the causal factors involved.

Those insights were then extrapolated to the broader city context and various rules and regulations were devised.

Today, much of that inductive analysis is conducted through sophisticated software algorithms. Through carefully placed cameras, the software tracks traffic flow, identifies operating paramenters, and then devises solutions to improve flow rate and safety.

For example, the software will monitor average traffic speed, congestion detection, journey times between key locations, as well as vehicle counts and flow rate estimates.

Traffic management is an example of software that is capable of inductive learning.

5. Inductive Learning in Theory Development

Inductive learning is a key way in which scholars and researchers come up with ground-breaking theories. One example is in Mary Ainsworth’s observational research, where she used observations to induce a theory, as explained below.

Although most people mention the Strange Situations test developed by Dr. Mary Ainsworth, she conducted naturalistic observations many years prior to its initial creation.

For two years, starting in 1954, she visited the homes of families in Uganda. She took detailed notes on infant/caregiver interactions, in addition to interviewing mothers about their parenting practices.

Through inductive reasoning and learning, she was able to identify patterns of behavior that could be categorized into several distinct attachment profiles.

Along with her work with John Bowlby, these notes formed the basis of her theory of attachment.

As reported by Bretherton (2013),

“…secure-attached infants cried little and engaged in exploration when their mother was present, while insecure-attached infants were frequently fussy even with mother in the same room” (p. 461).


Inductive learning is when students are presented with examples and case studies from which they are to derive fundamental principles and characteristics.

It many ways, it is the opposite of conventional instructional strategies where teachers define the principles and then students apply them to examples.

Inductive learning is a powerful approach. It leads to students developing a very rich understanding of the subject under study, increases student engagement, prolongs retention, and helps build student confidence in their ability to learn.

We can see examples of inductive learning in the world’s best medical schools, research that has had a profound impact on our understanding of infant/caregiver relations, and even its use by sophisticated algorithms that control traffic in our largest cities.


Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bretherton, I. (2013). Revisiting Mary Ainsworth’s conceptualization and assessments of maternal sensitivity-insensitivity. Attachment & Human Development, 15(5–6), 460–484.

Prince, M. & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123-137.

Prud’homme-Généreux, A. (2013). What Is Life? An Activity to Convey the Complexities of This Simple Question. The American Biology Teacher, 75(1), 53-57.

Shemwell, J. T., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2015). Seeking the general explanation: A test of inductive activities for learning and transfer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 58-83.

Lahav, N. (1999). Biogenesis: Theories of life’s origin. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press.

 | Website

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

 | Website

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *