Knowing what you don't know makes failure productive

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 34, Issue , 2014, Pages 74-85

  Loibl, Katharina ^a   Rummel, Nikol ^a  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparison; Delaying instruction; Knowledge gap; Learning from errors; Productive failure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907176073     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Acuña S.R., Garci´a-Rodicio H., Sa´nchez E. Fostering active processing of instructional explanations of learners with high and low prior knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education 2010, 26(4):435-452.
2. Asterhan C.S.C., Schwarz B.B. The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:373-399.
3. Belenky D.M., Nokes T.J. Motivation and transfer: the role of achievement goals in preparation for future learning. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2009, 1163-1168. Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, Netherlands. N.A. Taatgen, H. van Rijn (Eds.).
4. Belenky D.M., Nokes-Malach T.J. Motivation and transfer: the role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2012, 21(3):399-432.
5. Chi M.T.H. Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology 2000, 161-238. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. R. Glaser (Ed.).
6. Cress U. The need for considering multi-level analysis in CSCL research - an appeal for the use of more advanced statistical methods. International Journal of Computer - Supported Collaborative Learning 2008, 3(1):69-84.
7. Diakidoy I.A.N., Kendeou P., Ioannides C. Reading about energy: the effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2003, 28:335-356.
8. Durkin K., Rittle-Johnson B. The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(3):206-214.
9. Gadgil S., Nokes-Malach T.J., Chi M.T.H. Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22(1):47-61.
10. Glogger I., Kappich J., Schwonke R., Holza¨pfel L., Nu¨ckles M., Renkl A. Inventing prepares learning motivationally, but a worked-out solution enhances learning outcomes. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2013, 2416-2421. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, I. Wachsmuth (Eds.).
11. Große C.S., Renkl A. Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: can this foster learning outcomes?. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(6):612-634.
12. Kapur M. A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instructional Science 2010, 39(4):561-579.
13. Kapur M. Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science 2012, 40(4):651-672.
14. Kapur M., Bielaczyc K. Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2011, 2812-2817. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, T.F. Shipley (Eds.).
15. Kapur M., Bielaczyc K. Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2012, 21(1):45-83.
16. Koedinger K.R., Corbett A.T., Perfetti C. The knowledge-learning-instruction framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science 2012, 36(5):757-798.
17. Loibl K., Rummel N. The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students' inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science 2014, 42(3):305-326.
18. Maas C.J.M., Hox J. Sufficient samples sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 2005, 1(3):86-92.
19. Mullins D., Rummel N., Spada H. Are two heads always better than one? Differential effects of collaboration on students' computer-supported learning in mathematics. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2011, 6(3):421-443.
20. Naylor F.D. A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist 1981, 16(2):172-183.
21. Nokes T.J., Belenky D.M. Incorporating motivation into a theoretical framework for knowledge transfer. Cognition in education 2011, Vol. 55:109-135. Academic Press, San Diego. J.P. Mestre, B.H. Ross (Eds.).
22. Renkl A., Atkinson R.K. Interactive learning environments: contemporary issues and trends. An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19(3):235-238.
23. Rittle-Johnson B., Siegler R., Alibali M. Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: an iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93(2):346-362.
24. Roll I., Aleven V., Koedinger K.R. Helping students know 'further' - increasing the flexibility of students' knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society 2009, 1169-1174. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX. N.A. Taatgen, H. van Rijn (Eds.).
25. Roll I., Aleven V., Koedinger K.R. Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2011, 2824-2829. Cognitive Science Society, Boston, Massachusetts. L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, T.F. Shipley (Eds.).
26. Roll I., Holmes N., Day J., Bonn D. Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science 2012, 40(4):691-710.
27. Sa´nchez E., Garci´a-Rodicio H., Acuña S.R. Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse?. Instructional Science 2009, 37(6):537-563.
28. Schoenfeld A.H. Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning 1992, 334-370. MacMillan, New York. D. Grouws (Ed.).
29. Schwartz D.L., Martin T. Inventing to prepare for future learning: the hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction 2004, 22(2):129-184.
30. Sears D.A. Effects of innovation versus efficiency tasks on collaboration and learning 2006, (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, California). Retrieved November 07, 2012, from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/dissertations/06.Sears.Dissertation.pdf.
31. Sleeman D., Kelly A.E., Martinak R., Ward R.D., Moore J.L. Studies of diagnosis and remediation with high school algebra students. Cognitive Science 1989, 13:551-568.
32. Smith J.P., diSessa A.A., Roschelle J. Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1994, 3(2):115-163.
33. Teasley S.D. The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology 1995, 31(2):207-220.
34. VanLehn K. Rule learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: an evaluation of cascade. Journal of the Learning Sciences 1999, 8(1):71-125.
35. VanLehn K., Siler S., Murray C., Yamauchi T., Baggett W.B. Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring?. Cognition and Instruction 2003, 21(3):209-249.
36. Westermann K., Rummel N. Delaying instruction: evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science 2012, 40(4):673-689.
37. Wiedmann M., Leach R.C., Rummel N., Wiley J. Does group composition affect learning by invention?. Instructional Science 2012, 40(4):711-730.