Is having more prerequisite knowledge better for learning from productive failure?
A critical assumption made in Kapur’s (Instr Sci 40:651–672, 2012) productive failure design is that students have the necessary prerequisite knowledge resources to generate and explore solutions to problems before learning the targeted concept. Through two quasi-experimental studies, we interrogated this assumption in the context of learning a multilevel biological concept of monohybrid inheritance. In the first study, students were either provided or not provided with prerequisite micro-level knowledge prior to the generation phase. Findings suggested that students do not necessarily have adequate prior knowledge resources, especially those at the micro-level, to generate representations and solution methods for a multilevel concept such as monohybrid inheritance. The second study examined how this prerequisite knowledge provision influenced how much students learned from the subsequent instruction. Although the prerequisite knowledge provision helped students generate and explore the biological phenomenon at the micro- and macro-levels, the provision seemingly did not confer further learning advantage to these students. Instead, they had learning gains similar to those without the provision, and further reported lower lesson engagement and greater mental effort during the subsequent instruction.
KeywordsProductive failure Prior knowledge Multilevel scientific concepts Monohybrid inheritance
The research was funded by a Ministry of Education (Singapore) Grant to the second author through the Office of Education Research of the National Institute of Education of Singapore. The authors would like to thank the principal, teachers and students for their support and participation.
- Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
- Bielaczyc, K., & Kapur, M. (2010). Playing epistemic games in science and mathematics classrooms. Educational Technology, 50(5), 19–25.Google Scholar
- Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., Kinzer, C., & Black, J. (2006). Insights into the emergence of convergence in group discussions. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 300–306). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2013). Delaying instruction alone doesn’t work: Comparing and contrasting student solutions is necessary for learning from problem-solving prior to instruction. In N. Rummel, Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL 2013) (Vol. 1, pp. 296–303). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.Google Scholar
- Tay, B. (2010). Biology insights. ‘O’ level (pp. 305, 341–343). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.Google Scholar
- Woo, M. L. (2008). ‘O’ level biology examination armoury. Singapore: Panpac Education (an imprint of Marshall Cavendish International (Singapore) Pte Ltd).Google Scholar