Sinha, Tanmay; Kapur, Manu
When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure Artikel
In: Review of Educational Research, Bd. 91, Ausg. 5, S. 761–798, 2021, ISSN: 1935-1046.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Schlagwörter: A, direct instruction, learning through problem solvint, preparation for future learning, productive failure
@article{Sinha2021,
title = {When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure},
author = {Tanmay Sinha and Manu Kapur},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105},
doi = {10.3102/00346543211019105},
issn = {1935-1046},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-18},
urldate = {2021-06-18},
journal = {Review of Educational Research},
volume = {91},
issue = {5},
pages = {761–798},
abstract = {When learning a new concept, should students engage in problem solving followed by instruction (PS-I) or instruction followed by problem solving (I-PS)? Noting that there is a passionate debate about the design of initial learning, we report evidence from a meta-analysis of 53 studies with 166 comparisons that compared PS-I with I-PS design. Our results showed a significant, moderate effect in favor of PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.36 [95% confidence interval 0.20; 0.51]). The effects were even stronger (Hedge’s g ranging between 0.37 and 0.58) when PS-I was implemented with high fidelity to the principles of Productive Failure (PF), a subset variant of PS-I design. Students’ grade level, intervention time span, and its (quasi-)experimental nature contributed to the efficacy of PS-I over I-PS designs. Contrasting trends were, however, observed for younger age learners (second to fifth graders) and for the learning of domain-general skills, for which effect sizes favored I-PS. Overall, an estimation of true effect sizes after accounting for publication bias suggested a strong effect size favoring PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.87).},
keywords = {A, direct instruction, learning through problem solvint, preparation for future learning, productive failure},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
When learning a new concept, should students engage in problem solving followed by instruction (PS-I) or instruction followed by problem solving (I-PS)? Noting that there is a passionate debate about the design of initial learning, we report evidence from a meta-analysis of 53 studies with 166 comparisons that compared PS-I with I-PS design. Our results showed a significant, moderate effect in favor of PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.36 [95% confidence interval 0.20; 0.51]). The effects were even stronger (Hedge’s g ranging between 0.37 and 0.58) when PS-I was implemented with high fidelity to the principles of Productive Failure (PF), a subset variant of PS-I design. Students’ grade level, intervention time span, and its (quasi-)experimental nature contributed to the efficacy of PS-I over I-PS designs. Contrasting trends were, however, observed for younger age learners (second to fifth graders) and for the learning of domain-general skills, for which effect sizes favored I-PS. Overall, an estimation of true effect sizes after accounting for publication bias suggested a strong effect size favoring PS-I (Hedge’s g 0.87).