A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components

Instructional Science

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 561-579

  Kapur, Manu ^a  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Complex problems; Failure; Mathematical problem solving; Multiple representations; Persistence

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958253115     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bielaczyc, K., & Kapur, M. (in press). Playing epistemic games in science and mathematics classrooms. Educational Technology.
2. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
3. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Carey, S. (1999). Sources of conceptual change. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, & P. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget's legacy (pp. 293-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. 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.
6. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 108-120.
8. Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1993). Discourse, mathematical thinking and classroom practice. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 91-119). New York: Oxford University Press.
9. diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117-160.
11. Goldin, G. A. (2008). Perspectives on representation in mathematical learning and problem solving. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 176-201). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
12. Janvier, C. (1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424.
14. Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-009-9093-x.
15. 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, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
16. Kapur, M., Hung, D., Jacobson, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Chen, D.-T. (2007). Emergence of learning in computer-supported, large-scale collective dynamics: A research agenda. In C. A. Clark, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference of computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 323-332). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2007). The effect of problem type on interactional activity, inequity, and group performance in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(5), 439-459.
18. Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 4(1), 21-46.
19. Kapur, M., & Lee, J. (2009). Designing for productive failure in mathematical problem solving. In N. Taatgen & V. R. Hedderick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2632-2637). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
20. Kapur, M., & Lee, J. (2010). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. In R. Catrambone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society (in press).
21. Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2009). The assistance dilemma in CSCL. In Proceedings of the computer-supported collaborative learning conference. Rhodes, Greece.
22. Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). Insights into the emergence of convergence in group discussions. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on the learning sciences (pp. 300-306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
24. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychological Review, 19(3), 239-264.
25. Lesh, R. R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts of learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.
27. Piaget, J. (1963). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2008). Research methods in mathematics education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 467-519). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
31. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
32. 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.
33. Sweller, J. (2010). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 127-143). New York, NJ: Routledge.
34. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2010). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure. New York, NJ: Routledge.
35. van Lehn, 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.
36. Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development. White Plains, NY: Longman.
37. 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.