Instructional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 523–538 | Cite as

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

  • N. G. Holmes
  • James Day
  • Anthony H. K. Park
  • D. A. Bonn
  • Ido Roll
Article

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.

Keywords

Invention activities Productive Failure Scaffolding Interactive learning environments 

Supplementary material

11251_2013_9300_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2580 kb)
11251_2013_9300_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (2.7 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 2734 kb)
11251_2013_9300_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (847 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 847 kb)

References

  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–5223. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  31. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation (pp. 31–58). Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. G. Holmes
    • 1
  • James Day
    • 1
  • Anthony H. K. Park
    • 1
  • D. A. Bonn
    • 1
  • Ido Roll
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and Special EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations