Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviors and outcomes in invention activities
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.
KeywordsInvention activities Productive Failure Scaffolding Interactive learning environments
- 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
- 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
- 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., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2812–2817).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.CrossRefGoogle 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).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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).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
- 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.
- 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.Google Scholar