Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities

Instructional Science

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 523-538

  Holmes, N G ^a   Day, James ^a   Park, Anthony H K ^a   Bonn, D A ^a   Roll, Ido ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Interactive learning environments; Invention activities; Productive Failure; Scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942040117     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: 15731952     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9300-7     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alfieri, L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist,48(2), 87–113. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.775712.
2. Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences,21(3), 399–432. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.651232.
3. Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In J. Metcalfe & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
4. Bulu, S., & Pedersen, S. (2010). Scaffolding middle school students’ content knowledge and ill-structured problem solving in a problem-based hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 507–529. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9150-9
5. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science,18(3), 439–477. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7.
6. Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2011). Development of the concise data processing assessment. Physical Review Special Topics,7(1), 010114. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010114.
7. Day, J., Nakahara, H., & Bonn, D. (2010). Teaching standard deviation by building from student invention. The Physics Teacher,48(8), 546. doi:10.1119/1.3502511.
8. de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen, R. E. Clark, & J. Lowyck (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 107–128). Howard House: Emerald Group Publishing.
9. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist,42(2), 99–107. doi:10.1080/00461520701263368.
10. Holmes, N. G. (2011). The invention support environment: using metacognitive scaffolding and interactive learning environments to improve learning from invention. Circle: UBC’s Digital Repository: Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) 2008 +. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/37904.
11. Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instructional Science,39(4), 561–579. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3.
12. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science,40(4), 651–672. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6.
13. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2812–2817).
14. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences,21(1), 45–83. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591717.
15. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
16. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review,19(3), 239–264. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0.
17. Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2013). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science,1, 22. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5.
18. Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2007). Software scaffolds to promote regulation during scientific inquiry learning. Metacognition and Learning,2(2–3), 141–155. doi:10.1007/s11409-007-9012-y.
19. Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2012). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science,41(3), 621–634. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z.
20. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,101(3), 529–544. doi:10.1037/a0014224.
21. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science,17(3), 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.
22. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know ‘further’-increasing the flexibility of students’ knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1169–74).
23. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). The invention lab: Using a hybrid of model tracing and constraint- based modeling to offer intelligent support in inquiry environments. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 115–24). Berlin: Springer.
24. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011a). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in Invention activities. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (p. 2824–2829).
25. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011b). Improving students’ help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and Instruction,21(2), 267–280. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004.
26. Roll, I., Holmes, N., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science,40(4), 691–710. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7.
27. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction,16(4), 475–5223. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4.
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. doi:10.1037/a0025140.
29. 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.
30. Schwartz, D. L., Sears, D., & Chang, J. (2007). Reconsidering prior knowledge. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 319–344). New York: Routledge.
31. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation (pp. 31–58). Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning.
32. Strand-Cary, M., & Klahr, D. (2008). Developing elementary science skills: Instructional effectiveness and path independence. Cognitive Development,23(4), 488–511. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.09.005.
33. VanLehn, K. (1988). Toward a theory of impasse-driven learning. In D. H. Mandl & D. A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 19–41). New York: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-6350-7_2.
34. Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science,40(4), 673–689. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8.
35. Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science,40(4), 711–730. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y.
36. Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. In T. Duffy & Tobias (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: success or failure.