A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components

This paper replicates and extends my earlier work on productive failure in mathematical problem solving (Kapur, doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x, 2009). One hundred and nine, seventh-grade mathematics students taught by the same teacher from a Singapore school experienced one of three learning designs: (a) traditional lecture and practice (LP), (b) productive failure (PF), where they solved complex problems in small groups without any instructional facilitation up until a teacher-led consolidation, or (c) facilitated complex problem solving (FCPS), which was the same as the PF condition except that students received instructional facilitation throughout their lessons. Despite seemingly failing in their collective and individual problem-solving efforts, PF students significantly outperformed their counterparts in the other two conditions on both the well-structured and higher-order application problems on the post-test, and demonstrated greater representation flexibility in working with graphical representations. The differences between the FCPS and LP conditions did not reach significance. Findings and implications of productive failure for theory, design of learning, and future research are discussed.

[1]  M. Chi,et al.  The Nature of Expertise , 1988 .

[2]  Andra A. DiSessa.  Inventing Graphing: Meta­ Representational Expertise in Children , 1991 .

[3]  R. Sawyer.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[4]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Designing for productive failure in mathematical problem solving , 2009 .

[5]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[6]  K. VanLehn,et al.  Why Do Only Some Events Cause Learning During Human Tutoring? , 2003 .

[7]  J. Bruner,et al.  The role of tutoring in problem solving. , 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[8]  Claude Janvier.  Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics , 1987 .

[9]  Muthu Kumar,et al.  Educational Technology , 2019, Lean in the Classroom.

[10]  Richard Lesh,et al.  Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching , 2003 .

[11]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Productive failure in CSCL groups , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[12]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors , 2007 .

[13]  P. Cobb,et al.  Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom practice. , 1993 .

[14]  R. Schmidt,et al.  New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training , 1992 .

[15]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: A History of Conceptual Change Research , 2005 .

[16]  Michael J. Jacobson,et al.  Emergence of learning in computer-supported, large-scale collective dynamics: a research agenda , 2007, CSCL.

[17]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[18]  Manu Kapur.  Productive Failure , 2006, ICLS.

[19]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[20]  J. Piaget.  The Psychology Of Intelligence , 1951 .

[21]  Alan H. Schoenfeld,et al.  Research methods in (mathematics) education , 2008 .

[22]  Manu Kapur.  Productive failure in mathematical problem solving , 2010 .

[23]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction , 2004 .

[24]  Dirk van Rijn,et al.  Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2003 .

[25]  M. Clifford,et al.  Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure , 1984 .

[26]  J. Bruner.  Actual minds, possible worlds , 1985 .

[27]  John Sweller,et al.  What Human Cognitive Architecture Tells Us About Constructivism , 2009 .

[28]  S. Puntambekar,et al.  Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed? , 2005 .

[29]  John B. Black,et al.  Insights into the Emergence of Convergence in Group Discussions , 2006, ICLS.

[30]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Playing Epistemic Games in Science and Mathematics Classrooms. , 2010 .

[31]  G. Goldin,et al.  Perspectives on representation in mathematical learning and problem solving , 2008 .

[32]  Ellin Kofsky Scholnick,et al.  Conceptual Development : Piaget's Legacy , 1999 .

[33]  Lyn D. English,et al.  Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education , 2002 .

[34]  K. McRae,et al.  Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. , 2008 .

[35]  Barry J. Wadsworth.  Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development , 1984 .

[36]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[37]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

[38]  R. Catrambone,et al.  Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2010 .

[39]  N. Minick,et al.  Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children's Development , 1993 .

[40]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Productive failure in learning the concept of variance , 2012 .

[41]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  The assistance dilemma in CSCL , 2009, CSCL.

[42]  Manu Kapur,et al.  Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment , 2007 .

[43]  F. Manganello.  Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? , 2010 .