Skip to main content
Log in

Unpacking the hidden efficacies of learning in productive failure

  • Published:
Learning Inquiry

Abstract

This paper describes a framework for learning where learners undergo experimentations with the phenomena at hand according to progressive and staged goals. Bowling is used as a case study in this paper. The premise for experimentations is that learners can experience hidden efficacies, including the formation of “bad habits.” A distinction is made between productivity in learning and performance in terms of learning outcomes. In other words, productivity in learning may not necessarily manifest in successful performance, hence the term productive failure. To emphasize the need for self-regulation during problem-solving process, we discuss the movements within the productive–unproductive and success–failure dimensions through three-staged self-regulatory processes and draw implications to learning and instruction.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1996). Stolen knowledge. In H. McLellen (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 47–56). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, D., & Chen, D.-T. (2008). Learning within the worlds of reifications, selves, and phenomena: Expanding on the thinking of Vygotsky and Popper. Learning Inquiry, 2, 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and instruction, 26, 379–424.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, J. G., & Hoefler, V. B. (1989). The student teacher who wouldn’t go away: Learning from failure. Journal of Experiential Education, 12(2), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognitive behavior consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 197–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrkemper, M., & Corno, L. (1988). Success and failure on classroom tasks: Adaptove learning and classroom teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R., Berman, T., & Macpherson, K. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol II): A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 397–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. Pintrich (Ed.), New directions in college teaching and learning: Understanding self-regulated learning (pp. 13–27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seo Hong Lim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hung, D., Chen, V. & Lim, S.H. Unpacking the hidden efficacies of learning in productive failure. Learn Inq 3, 1–19 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-008-0037-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-008-0037-1

Keywords

Navigation