Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invention activities are Productive Failure activities in which students attempt (and often fail) to invent methods that capture deep properties of a construct before being taught expert solutions. The current study evaluates the effect of scaffolding on the invention processes and outcomes, given that students are not expected to succeed in their inquiry and that all students receive subsequent instruction. While socio-cognitive theories of learning advocate for scaffolding in inquiry activities, reducing students’ agency, and possibly their failure rate, may be counter-productive in this context. Two Invention activities related to data analysis concepts were given to 87 undergraduate students in a first-year physics lab course using an interactive learning environment. Guided Invention students outperformed Unguided Invention students on measures of conceptual understanding of the structures of the constructs in an assessment two months after the learning period. There was no effect, however, on measures of procedural knowledge or conceptual understanding of the overall goals of the constructs. In addition, Guided Invention students were more likely to invent multiple methods during the Invention process. These results suggest that the domain-general scaffolding in Invention activities, when followed by instruction, can help students encode deep features of the domain and build on their failures during Productive Failure. These results further suggest not all failures are equally productive, and that some forms of support help students learn form their failed attempts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Pre-test differences between students who missed at least one activity and students who completed both activities for both conditions: t(128) = 0.59, p = .557; pre-test differences for the GI condition: t(63) = 1.672, p = .099; CDPA10973-differences for both conditions: t(128) = 0.84, p = .402; CDPA differences for GI students: t(63) = 0.17, p = .864.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.591717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–5223. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation (pp. 31–58). Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, which is funded by the National Science Foundation, award number (#SBE-0836012), and by the University of British Columbia through the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada

    N. G. Holmes, James Day, Anthony H. K. Park, D. A. Bonn & Ido Roll

  2. Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada

    Ido Roll

Authors
  1. N. G. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Day
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony H. K. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. A. Bonn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ido Roll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. G. Holmes.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holmes, N.G., Day, J., Park, A.H.K. et al. Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instr Sci 42, 523–538 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9300-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9300-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation