• Rafi’ SafadiEmail author
  • Edit Yerushalmi


We compared the materialization of knowledge integration processes in class discussions that followed troubleshooting (TS) and problem-solving (PS) tasks and examined the impact of these tasks on students’ conceptual understanding. The study was conducted in two sixth-grade classes taught by the same teacher, in six lessons that constituted a third of a unit on simple electric circuits. In these lessons, one class was assigned PS tasks where students were asked to solve conceptual problems. Later they were asked to share their work in a class discussion. The other class was assigned TS tasks where students were asked to identify, explain, and correct the mistakes in “teacher-made” erroneous solutions to these same problems. They were also engaged later in a class discussion. We found that students’ performance on subsequent transfer problems was significantly higher for the TS class, in particular for students with low prior knowledge. We account for the difference in learning outcomes by the differences in the learning process: the TS tasks elicited more naïve ideas both in students’ worksheets as well as in class discussions, and the TS discussions involved more episodes where students developed criteria to discern scientifically acceptable and naive ideas. We also found differences in the format of students’ participation, where lower-achieving students participated in the TS discussions. The implications of these findings for future research are discussed.


class discussion conceptual understanding learning from erroneous solutions problem solving simple electric circuits 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2013_9461_MOESM1_ESM.docx (232 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 232 kb)


  1. Asterhan, C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 374–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayalon, M. (2011). Argumentation and school mathematics. Rehovot, Israel: The Weizmann Institute of Science (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  3. Azmon, S., Hershkowitz, R. & Schwarz, B. (2006). The role of the teacher in turning claims to arguments. The role of the teacher in turning claims to arguments. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka & N. Stelinkova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30 th International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 5. Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, (pp. 65–72)Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Educational Research, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
  5. Cazden, B. C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Closset, J. L. (1983). Sequential reasoning in electricity. In Research on Physics Education. Proceedings of the First International Workshop. Editions du CNRS, La Londe les Maures (pp. 313–319).Google Scholar
  9. Curry, L. A. (2004). The effects of self-explanations of correct and incorrect solutions on algebra problem-solving performance. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the cognitive science society (p. 1548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Durkin, K. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eilam, B. (2002). Passing through a western-democratic teacher education: The case of Israeli-Arab teachers. Teacher College Record, 104(8), 1656–1701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisenmann, T. & Even, R. (2011). Enacted types of algebraic activity in different classes taught by the same teacher. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 867–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Große, C. S. & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Härtel, H. (1982). The electric circuit as a system: A new approach. European Journal of Science Education, 4, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heller, P. M. & Finley, F. N. (1992). Variable uses of alternative conceptions: A case study in current electricity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Lubienski, S. T. & Id-Deen, L. (2006). Reconsidering the study of mathematics instructional practices: The importance of curricular context in understanding local and global teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hieggelke, C. J., Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L. & Kanim, S. (2006). E&M TIPERs: Electricity & magnetism tasks. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Jabot, M. & Henry, D. (2007). Mental models of Elementary and Middle School Students in analyzing simple battery and bulb circuits. School Science and Mathematics, 107, 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Labudde, P., Reif, F. & Quinn, L. (1988). Facilitation of scientific concept learning by interpretation procedures and diagnosis. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linn, M. C. & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 511–544). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. McLaren, B. M., Adams, D., Durkin, K., Goguadze, G., Mayer, R. E., Rittle-Johnson, B., Sosnovsky, S., et al (2012). To err is human, to explain and correct is divine: A study of interactive erroneous examples with middle school math students. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. Delgado Kloos & D. Hernándex-Leo (Eds.), Proceedings of EC-TEL 2012: Seventh European conference on technology enhanced learning, LNCS 7563 (pp. 222–235). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Melis, E., Sander, A. & Tsovaltzi, D. (2010). How to support meta-cognitive skills for finding and correcting errors. In Proc of the AAAI Fall 2010 Symposium (pp. 64–68).Google Scholar
  23. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains (pp. 82–83). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  25. Reif, F. & Scott, L. (1999). Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other. American Journal of Physics, 67, 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D. & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Schwartz, D. L. & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for learning: The hidden efficiency of original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition & Instruction, 22, 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shipstone, D. M. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D. C. circuits. European Journal of Science Education, 6, 185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Garnott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying development and learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, J. P., DiSessa, A. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sohmer, R., Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C. & Resnick, L. (2009). Guided construction of knowledge in the classroom: The troika of talk, tasks and tools. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 105–129). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Summers, M., Kruger, C. & Mant, J. (1998). Teaching electricity effectively in the primary school: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsovaltzi, D., Melis, E., McLaren, B. M., Meyer, A.-K., Dietrich, M. & Goguadze, G. (2010). Learning from erroneous examples: When and how do students benefit from them? In M. Wolpers, P. A. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), Proceedings of the EC-TEL 2010 fifth European conference on technology enhanced learning, LNCS 6383 (pp. 357–373). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Vardi-Rath, E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (2005). The lesson as an asymmetric speech event: A study of the participant structure in the Israeli classroom. In I. Kupferberg & E. Olstein (Eds.), Discourse in education: Researching educational events (pp. 385–417). Tel-Aviv: Mofet Institution.Google Scholar
  35. Yackel, E. (2002). What we can learn from analyzing the teacher’s role in collective argumentation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yerushalmi, E., Puterkovski, M. & Bagno, E. (2012). Knowledge integration while interacting with an online troubleshooting activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology. doi: 10.1007/s10956-012-9406-8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Research and EvaluationThe Academic Arab College For Education in IsraelHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Science TeachingWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations