Productive failure in mathematical problem solving

Instructional Science

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 523-550

  Kapur, Manu ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Classroom based research; Failure in problem solving; Ill structured problems; Mathematical problem solving; Persistence

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958476079     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Multiple representations in 8th grade algebra classrooms: Are learners really getting it? In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 2, pp. 57-64). Melbourne: PME.
2. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth.
3. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307-359. doi: 10. 1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.
4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls0202_2.
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
6. Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. doi: 10. 1207/s15516709cog0502_2.
8. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
9. Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22. doi: 10. 1007/BF02505022.
10. Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 108-120.
11. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Abram, P. L., Scarloss, B. A., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Can groups learn? Teachers College Record, 104(6), 1045-1068. doi: 10. 1111/1467-9620. 00196.
12. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
13. Dixon, J. A., & Bangert, A. S. (2004). On the spontaneous discovery of a mathematical relation during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 28, 433-449.
14. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(1), 105-121. doi: 10. 1016/S0732-3123(99)80063-7.
15. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls1301_3.
16. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac: Erlbaum.
17. Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students' problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38. doi: 10. 1007/BF02504515.
18. Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Review, 62, 32-41. doi: 10. 1037/h0048826.
19. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395-429.
20. Goldin, G. A. (2002). Representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 197-218). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
21. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361-367.
22. Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood: Ablex.
23. Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 17(5), 627-638.
24. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262-272). New York: Freeman.
25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. doi: 10. 1023/B: EDPR. 0000034022. 16470. f3.
26. Janvier, C. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
27. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Towards a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. doi: 10. 1007/BF02300500.
28. Kapur, M. (2006). Productive failure. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on the learning sciences (pp. 307-313). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
29. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424. doi: 10. 1080/07370000802212669.
30. Kapur, M., Dickson, L., & Toh, P. Y. (2008). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1717-1722). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
31. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 4(1), 21-46.
32. Kaput, J. (1999). Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: A kaleidoscope of windows. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2), 265-281. doi: 10. 1016/S0364-0213(99)80062-7.
33. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
34. Kohl, P. B., Rosengrant, D., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Strongly and weakly directed approaches to teaching multiple representation use in physics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics. Education Research, 3, 1-10.
35. Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.
36. Lesh, R. R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
37. Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20. doi: 10. 3102/0013189X032001017.
38. Marton, F. (2007). Sameness and difference in transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499-535. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls1504_3.
39. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(1), 51-62. doi: 10. 1037/h0087352.
40. Mestre, J. (2005). Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich: Information Age.
41. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12. doi: 10. 1207/s15326985ep4001_1.
42. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls1303_2.
43. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of education. New York: Macmillan Reference.
44. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207-217. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 1992. tb00029. x.
45. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522. doi: 10. 1207/s1532690xci1604_4.
46. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184. doi: 10. 1207/s1532690xci2202_1.
47. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, R. P., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., Shechtman, N., Kaput, J., & Hopkins, B. (2008). Scaling up innovative technology-based mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 248-286. doi: 10. 1080/10508400801986090.
49. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1982). Inquiry processes in program development. Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 103-118. doi: 10. 1002/1520-6629(198204)10: 2< 103:: AID-JCOP2290100202> 3. 0. CO; 2-9.
50. VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209-249. doi: 10. 1207/S1532690XCI2103_01.
51. Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods. London: Sage Publications.
52. Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin's model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19, 321-329. doi: 10. 1007/s10503-005-4419-6.
53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
54. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89-100. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1469-7610. 1976. tb00381. x.
55. Zeitz, P. (1999). The art and craft of problem solving. New York: John Wiley.