nach oben

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Erschienen in:

01.03.2009

Productive failure in CSCL groups

verfasst von: Manu Kapur, Charles K. Kinzer

Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning | Ausgabe 1/2009

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study was designed as a confirmatory study of work on productive failure (Kapur, Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424, 2008). N = 177, 11th-grade science students were randomly assigned to solve either well- or ill-structured problems in a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment without the provision of any external support structures or scaffolds. After group problem solving, all students individually solved well-structured problems followed by ill-structured problems. Compared to groups who solved well-structured problems, groups who solved ill-structured problems expectedly struggled with defining, analyzing, and solving the problems. However, despite failing in their collaborative problem-solving efforts, these students outperformed their counterparts from the well-structured condition on the individual near and far transfer measures subsequently, thereby confirming the productive failure hypothesis. Building on the previous study, additional analyses revealed that neither preexisting differences in prior knowledge nor the variation in group outcomes (quality of solutions produced) seemed to have had any significant effect on individual near and far transfer measures, lending support to the idea that it was the nature of the collaborative process that explained productive failure.

Vorheriger Artikel The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies

Nächster Artikel A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing and diffusion in a tween virtual world

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

As a rule of thumb, partial η² = .01 is considered a small, .06 medium, and .14 a large effect size (Cohen, 1977).

The software program Multiple Episode Protocol Analysis (MEPA) developed by Dr. Gijsbert Erkens was used for carrying out the LSA. See http://edugate.fss.uu.nl/mepa/index.htm.

It is important to note that in the initial study (Kapur, 2008), LSA analysis was triangulated through an interactional analysis of discussion excerpts explaining the various transitions and feedback loops.

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRef

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.CrossRef

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 301–329.CrossRef

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education, 24 (pp. 61–101). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication-and how they may be overcome. New York, NY: Springer.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Chatterji, M. (2003). Designing and using tools for educational assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Collins, H. (1985). Changing order. London: Sage.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.

de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, NL: Mouton.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen, NL: Open Universiteit Nederland.

Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 275–302). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., Prangsma, M., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Computer support for collaborative and argumentative writing. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning in videoconferencing using collaboration scripts and content schemes. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 213–236). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. (2007). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake, & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Giles, J. (2006). The trouble with replication. Nature, 442, 344–347.CrossRef

Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.CrossRef

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child Development and Education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: Freeman.

Hewitt, J. (2005). Towards an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589.CrossRef

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRef

Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Towards a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRef

Jonassen, D. H., & Kwon, H. I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer-mediated vs. face-to-face group problem solving. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(1), 35–52.CrossRef

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.CrossRef

Kapur, M., Dickson, L., & Toh, P. Y. (2008). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1717–1722). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2007). The effect of problem type on collaborative problem solving in a synchronous computer-mediated environment. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(5), 439–459.CrossRef

Kapur, M., Voiklis, J., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Sensitivities to early exchange in synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) groups. Computers and Education, 51, 54–66.CrossRef

Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe. New York: Oxford University Press.

King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 13–38). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hamalainen, R., Hakkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.CrossRef

Kyllonen, P. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude: Introduction to a special issue in honor of Richard E. Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38, 79–83.CrossRef

Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.CrossRef

Lund, K., Molinari, G., Sejourne, A., & Baker, M. (2007). How do argumentation diagrams compare when students pairs use them as a means for debate or as a tool for representing debate? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 273–296.CrossRef

Marton, F. (2007). Sameness and difference in transfer. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), 499–535.CrossRef

McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(1), 51–62.

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.CrossRef

Mestre, J. P. (2005). Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Mirza, N. M., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A., & de Pietro, J. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 247–272.CrossRef

Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Poole, M. S., & Holmes, M. E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communications Research, 22(1), 90–127.CrossRef

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.CrossRef

Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2007). Can people learn in computer-mediated collaboration by following a script? In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 39–56). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Sandberg, I. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Göteborg, Sweden: BAS.

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.CrossRef

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education. New York, NY: Macmillan Reference.

Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 2(2–3), 225–246.CrossRef

Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321–354.CrossRef

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

Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

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.CrossRef

Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, R. P., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext. In T. M. Duffy, & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1–5). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 79–90.CrossRef

Stahl, G. (2007). Scripting group cognition. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 327–336). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (ijCSCL), 1(3), 315–337.CrossRef

Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Voss, J. F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in ill-structured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods pp. 74–93. London: Sage Publications.

Voss, J. F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19, 321–329.CrossRef

Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interaction. In T.R. Kratochwill, & J.R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 93–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191–212). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.CrossRef

Titel: Productive failure in CSCL groups
verfasst von: Manu Kapur
Charles K. Kinzer
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2009
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning / Ausgabe 1/2009
Print ISSN: 1556-1607
Elektronische ISSN: 1556-1615
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2009

Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model

The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies

Yes we can!

A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing and diffusion in a tween virtual world

The power of natural frameworks: Technology and the question of agency in CSCL settings

Premium Partner