Abstract
The paper reports on an empirical study adopting a mixed research method, aiming at improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based learning with productive failure (PF) instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Two Grade Six classes participated in a project-based learning of “Plant Adaptations”. In Class 1 with 27 students, the project-based learning was conducted with PF instructional design; in Class 2 with 26 students, the project-based learning was conducted without PF instructional design. The learning activities spanned across farm, class, home and online spaces supported by mobile devices. Data collection includes various students’ created artifacts in groups in the inquiry process, student reflections, student focus group interviews and pre- and post-domain tests. Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods were employed. The research findings show that compared to Class 2, the students in Class 1 gained deeper understanding of conceptual knowledge and produced better group artifacts in collaborative problem-solving quality than those in Class 2; and the students in Class 1 were more positive in facing the challenges in their project-based learning process, and developed a sense of ownership of their learning. The findings imply that PF instructional design is conducive to developing primary students’ collaborative solving competency in science learning in a seamless learning environment.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Ainsworth, S., Crook, C., O’Malley, C., & Wright, M. (2012). Creating personal meaning through technology-supported science inquiry learning across formal and informal settings. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 251–273.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369–398.
Brundiers, K., & Wiek, A. (2013). Do we teach what we preach? An international comparison of problem-and project-based learning courses in sustainability. Sustainability, 5(4), 1725–1746.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301.
Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, advances in learning and instruction series. New York: Elsevier Science Inc.
Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3), 202–210.
Fiore, S. M., et al. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting process in complex collaborative contexts. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53, 203–224.
Granberg, C. (2016). Discovering and addressing errors during mathematics problem-solving—A productive struggle? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 42, 33–48.
Häkkinen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088.
Häkkinen, P., Järvelä, S., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K., Ahonen, A., Näykki, P., & Valtonen, T. (2017). Preparing teacher-students for twenty-first-century learning practices (PREP 21): A framework for enhancing collaborative problem-solving and strategic learning skills. Teachers and Teaching, 23(1), 25–41.
Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37–56). Netherlands: Springer.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.
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 behaviors and outcomes in invention activities. Instructional Science, 42(4), 523–538.
Järvelä, S., Veermans, M., & Leinonen, P. (2008). Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: A process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 299–322.
Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.
Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31.
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in Learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.
Ke, F., & Hsu, Y. C. (2015). Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 33–41.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 14406.
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11.
Khaddage, F., Müller, W., & Flintoff, K. (2016). Advancing mobile learning in formal and informal settings via mobile app technology: Where to from here, and how? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 16.
Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A., Passarelli, A., & Sharma, G. (2014). On becoming an experiential educator: The educator role profile. Simulation & Gaming, 45(2), 204–234.
Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149–159.
Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technology-supported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education, 45(3), 337–356.
Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715.
Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85.
McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne Effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 30.
Mioduser, D., & Betzer, N. (2007). The contribution of project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 59–77.
Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing (Draft PADI Technical Report 17). Menlo Park: SRI International.
Moore, E. B., Herzog, T. A., & Perkins, K. K. (2013). Interactive simulations as implicit support for guided-inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(3), 257–268.
PISA. (2017). PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. Retrieved from goo.gl/Yp6j8L
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655–660.
Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 491–508.
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.
Song, Y. (2014). “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Computers & Education, 74, 50–60.
Song, Y. (2016). “We found the ‘black spots’ on campus on our own”: Development of inquiry skills in primary science learning with BYOD (Bring Your Own Device). Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 291–305.
Song, Y., & Kapur, M. (2017). How to flip the classroom- “productive failure or traditional flipped classroom” pedagogical design? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 292.
The Fourth Strategy on IT in Education. (2014). Realising IT potential and unleashing learning power—A holistic approach. Retrieved from goo.gl/VVgQJf.
Van Zele, E. (2004). Improving the usefulness of concept maps as a research tool for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1043–1064.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.
Wong, L. H., Chai, C. S., Aw, G. P., & King, R. B. (2015). Enculturating seamless language learning through artifact creation and social interaction process. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 130–157.
Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.
Acknowledgement
This study was funded by The Education University of Hong Kong under Dean’s Research Fund BFRS-1/4th round (2016-18).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Song, Y. Improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 979–1008 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9600-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9600-3