The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students' inventions and learning outcomes

Instructional Science

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 305-326

  Loibl, Katharina ^a   Rummel, Nikol ^a  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Discovery learning; Guidance; Invention; Problem solving; Productive Failure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897028132     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Aberson, C. (2002). Interpreting null results: Improving presentation and conclusions with confidence intervals. Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 1(3), 36-42.
2. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
3. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
4. DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552-568.
5. 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). Herleen: Open Universiteit Nederland.
6. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B. L., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117-160.
7. Diziol, D., & Rummel, N. (2010). How to design support for collaborative e-learning: A framework of relevant dimensions. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-Collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments (pp. 162-179). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
8. Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment. Psychological Review, 62, 32-41.
9. Kapur, M. (2010). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561-579.
10. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651-672.
11. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2812-2817). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
12. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45-83.
13. Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2009). The assistance dilemma in CSCL. In A. Dimitracopoulou, C. O'Malley, D. Suthers, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices-CSCL 2009 Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 37-42). Berlin: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
14. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction-effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661-667.
15. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757-798.
16. Kultusministerkonferenz (2003). Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für den Mittleren Bildungsabschluss [Learning standards for mathematics for intermediate secondary education] (Beschluss vom 4. 12. 2003). Neuwied, Luchterhand.
17. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
18. OECD (2010). PISA 2012 mathematics framework. Retrieved from http://www. oecd. org/pisa/pisaproducts/46961598. pdf.
19. Renkl, A. (2008). Lehren und Lernen im Kontext der Schule [Teaching and learning in school contexts]. In A. Renkl (Ed.), Lehrbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 109-153). Bern: Huber.
20. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). The power of comparison in learning and instruction: Learning outcomes supported by different types of comparisons. In B. Ross & J. Mestre (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 199-226). San Diego: Elsevier.
21. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R., & Alibali, M. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346-362.
22. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know 'further'-increasing the flexibility of students' knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1169-1174). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
23. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2824-2829). Boston: Cognitive Science Society.
24. Roll, I., Holmes, N., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 691-710.
25. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: MacMillan.
26. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
27. 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.
28. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775.
29. Sears, D. A. (2006). Effects of innovation versus efficiency tasks on collaboration and learning. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://www. stat. auckland. ac. nz/~iase/publications/dissertations/06. Sears. Dissertation. pdf.
30. Sleeman, D., Kelly, A. E., Martinak, R., Ward, R. D., & Moore, J. L. (1989). Studies of diagnosis and remediation with high school algebra students. Cognitive Science, 13(4), 551-568.
31. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 14-21.
32. van Joolingen, W. (1999). Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 385-397.
33. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 671-688.
34. VanLehn, K. (1989). Problem solving and cognitive skill acquisition. In M. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 527-579). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. 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.
36. Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40(4), 673-689.
37. Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40(4), 711-730.