Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in Guided Invention Activities
- First Online:
- 1k Downloads
Invention and Productive Failure activities ask students to generate methods that capture the important properties of some given data (e.g., uncertainty) before being taught the expert solution. Invention and Productive Failure activities are a class of scientific inquiry activities in that students create, implement, and evaluate mathematical models based on data. Yet, lacking sufficient inquiry skills, students often do not actualize the full potential of these activities. We identified key invention strategies in which students often fail to engage: exploratory analysis, peer interaction, self-explanation, and evaluation. A classroom study with 134 students evaluated the effect of supporting these skills on the quality and outcomes of the invention process. Students in the Unguided Invention condition received conventional Invention Activities; students in the Guided Invention condition received complementary metacognitive scaffolding. Students were asked to invent methods for calculating uncertainties in best-fitting lines. Guided Invention students invented methods that included more conceptual features and ranked the given datasets more accurately, although the quality of their mathematical expressions was not improved. At the process level, Guided Invention students revised their methods more frequently and had more and better instances of unprompted self-explanations even on components of the activity that were not supported by the metacognitive scaffolding. Classroom observations are used to demonstrate the effect of the scaffolding on students’ learning behaviours. These results suggest that process guidance in the form of metacognitive scaffolding augments the inherent benefits of Invention Activities and can lead to gains at both domain and inquiry levels.
KeywordsInvention Activities Productive Failure Metacognitive scaffolding Inquiry learning Guided discovery
- Chase, C. C., Shemwell, J. T., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Explaining across contrasting cases for deep understanding in science: An example using interactive simulations. In S. Goldman & J. Pellegrino (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 153–160). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.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
- de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.Google Scholar
- Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science (this issue).Google Scholar
- Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2812–2817). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Koedinger, K. R., Aleven, V., Roll, I., & Baker, R. S. J.d. (2009). In vivo experiments on whether supporting metacognition in intelligent tutoring systems yields robust learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 383–412). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lovett, M. (1998). Cognitive task analysis in service of intelligent tutoring system design: A case study in statistics. In B. P. Goettl, et al. (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 234–243). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Finding out how they find it out: An empirical analysis of inquiry learners’ need for support. International Journal of Science Education, 1–21.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 N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1169–1174). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011a). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2824–2829). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 189–215). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334–370). New York: MacMillan.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. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment—Transition Processes In Development And Learning (pp. 30–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction—evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8.
- Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y.