Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a Theory of When and How Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Supports Learning

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, there has been a growing interest in learning approaches that combine two phases: an initial problem-solving phase followed by an instruction phase (PS-I). Two often cited examples of instructional approaches following the PS-I scheme include Productive Failure and Invention. Despite the growing interest in PS-I approaches, to the best of our knowledge, there has not yet been a comprehensive attempt to summarize the features that define PS-I and to explain the patterns of results. Therefore, the first goal of this paper is to map the landscape of different PS-I implementations, to identify commonalities and differences in designs, and to associate the identified design features with patterns in the learning outcomes. The review shows that PS-I fosters learning only if specific design features (namely contrasting cases or building instruction on student solutions) are implemented. The second goal is to identify a set of interconnected cognitive mechanisms that may account for these outcomes. Empirical evidence from PS-I literature is associated with these mechanisms and supports an initial theory of PS-I. Finally, positive and negative effects of PS-I are explained using the suggested mechanisms.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. For a discussion on the different processes triggered by contrasting cases in comparison to rich problems, see Loibl and Rummel (2014b).

  2. Naturally, some wording is expected to differ by condition (e.g., “invent a formula/strategy for the following problem” vs. “solve the problem using this formula/strategy”), which is not counted as confound.

  3. In the studies in no. 19, the instruction and the worksheets with contrasting cases were held constant across conditions. However, students in the I-PS condition received an additional reminder of the formula and a worked example prior to solving each worksheet, whereas students in the PS-I condition were told what invention means and what they need to invent prior to their first problem-solving attempt.

References

*Papers included in overview (Table 1)

  • Acuña, S. R., García-Rodicio, H., & Sánchez, E. (2010). Fostering active processing of instructional explanations of learners with high and low prior knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(4), 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    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.

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCaro, D. A., DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). Achievement motivation and knowledge development during exploratory learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 13–26.

  • *DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552-568

  • diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B. L., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(Whole No. 270).

  • Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 206–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2011). Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16(3), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fyfe, E. R., DeCaro, M. S. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2014). An alternative time for telling: when conceptual instruction prior to problem solving improves mathematical knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 502-519.

  • *Glogger-Frey, I., Fleischer, C., Grüny, L., Kappich, J., & Renkl, A. (2015). Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 72-87.

  • Heckler, A. F., Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2008). Learning associations that run counter to biases in learning: overcoming overshadowing and learned inattention. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. (pp. 511-516). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society

  • Holmes, N. G., Day, J., Park, A. H., Bonn, D. A., & Roll, I. (2014). Making the failure more productive: scaffolding the invention process to improve inquiry behaviours and outcomes in productive failure activities. Instructional Science, 42(4), 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hsu, C.-Y., Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2015). When should guidance be presented in physics instruction? Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3(1), 37-53.

  • Kalyuga, S., & Singh, A.-M. (2015). Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523-550.

  • *Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561-579.

  • *Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651-672.

  • Kapur, M. (2014). Comparing learning from productive failure and vicarious failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 651–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kapur, M. (2014b). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008-1022.

  • Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Classroom-based experiments in productive failure. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2812–2817). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • *Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45-83.

  • Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction (KLI) framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 757–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., Van der Vleuten, C., & Van Merrienboer, J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: the scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Loehr, A. M., Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2014). Wait for it … delaying instruction improves mathematics problem solving: a classroom study. Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 36-49.

  • *Loibl, K. & Rummel, N. (2014a). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74-85.

  • *Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014b). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305-326.

  • *Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). 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.

  • Mazziotti, C., Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Does collaboration affect learning in a productive failure setting? In: J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Ju-row, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, T., & L. D’Amico, Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2014), Vol. 3 (pp. 1184-1185). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.

  • Mazziotti, C., Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2015). Collaborative or individual learning within productive failure. Does the social form of learning make a difference? In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschman, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the material conditions of learning: the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (Vol. 2, pp. 570–575). Gothenburg: ISLS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J. (1998). Knowledge and situational feedback in a learning environment for algebra story problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments, 5(1), 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J., Alibali, M. W., Masarik, D. K., Stephens, A. C., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Enhancing middle school students’ representational fluency: a classroom-based study. WCER Working Paper Series no, 2010-9. Wisconsin Center for Educational Research: Madison, WI. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/Publications/workingPapers/Working_Paper_No_2010_09.pdf.

  • Needham, D. R., & Begg, I. M. (1991). Problem-oriented training promotes spontaneous analogical transfer: memory-oriented training promotes memory for training. Memory & Cognition, 19(6), 543–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, A. M. (2012) Why floundering is good. Time Magazine. Retrieved June 28, 2013, from http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/25/why-floundering-is-good/.

  • Prediger, S. (2008). The relevance of didactic categories for analysing obstacles in conceptual change: revisiting the case of multiplication of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between statistics word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16, 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2014). Towards an instructionally-oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford handbook of numerical cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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.

    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 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.

  • *Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). 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.

  • Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40(4), 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Wiese, E., Long, Y., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2014). Tutoring self- and co-regulation with intelligent tutoring systems to help students acquire better learning skills. In R. Sottilare, A. Graesser, X. Hu, & B. Goldberg (Eds.), Design recommendations for adaptive intelligent tutoring systems: volume 2—adaptive instructional strategies (pp. 169–182). Orlando: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, E., García Rodicio, H., & Acuña, S. R. (2009). Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse? Instructional Science, 37(6), 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Exploratory models in the processing of science texts: the role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 610–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.

  • *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.

  • *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.

  • 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 

  • Sears, D. A. (2006). Effects of innovation versus efficiency tasks on collaboration and learning. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, California. Retrieved November 07, 2012, from http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~iase/publications/dissertations/06.Sears.Dissertation.pdf.

  • Siegler, R. S. (1983). How knowledge influences learning. American Scientist, 71, 631–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: a cognitively-based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 423–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (1999). Rule learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: an evaluation of cascade. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(1), 71–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3), 209–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2004). Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 445–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40(4), 673–689.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Education Freiburg, Kunzenweg 21, 79117, Freiburg, Germany

    Katharina Loibl

  2. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Ido Roll

  3. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Nikol Rummel

Authors
  1. Katharina Loibl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ido Roll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikol Rummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Loibl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loibl, K., Roll, I. & Rummel, N. Towards a Theory of When and How Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Supports Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 29, 693–715 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9379-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9379-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation