Productive failure in mathematical problem solving

By Manu Kapur. 2010

319 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4379d9389ec95917adb98c014052c67339adf972

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning (2016, background): “Research on productive failure (Kapur, 2008, 2010, 2014) and preparation for future learning (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998; Schwartz & Martin, 2004) also represent teaching methods that are more effective than direct instruction.”
Conceptualizing Perseverance in Problem Solving as Collective Enterprise (2017, background): “Productive struggle allows students to advance their conceptual understanding and apply what they learn to novel problems (NCTM, 2014; Kapur, 2010, 2014).”
A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components (2011, methodology): “This study was designed to replicate and extend the findings reported in Kapur (2009) .”
Learning from productive failure (2015, methodology): “The same study design as in Kapur (2010) was used except that in addition to the PF and DI conditions, a third condition – the guided generation condition – was added.”
Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. (2011, background): “Kapur (2008, 2010) also compared “delay of structure” treatments with T&P instruction in a series of studies on Newtonian physics and rate–time–distance problems.”
Towards a Theory of When and How Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Supports Learning (2017, background): “In other studies (e.g., Kapur 2010, 2011, 2012; Loibl and Rummel 2014b; Roll et al. 2011), instruction includes an additional component in that the teacher builds on typical student-generated solutions before explaining the structurally relevant components of the canonical solution.”
Designing for Productive Failure (2012, background): “A deeper conceptual understanding should result in better performance in solving problems on average speed on the posttest, be they standard well-structured problems often found in textbooks or more complex problems (Kapur, 2009).”
Comparing Learning From Productive Failure and Vicarious Failure (2014, background): “Over a series of studies, I have demonstrated the efficacy of the PF learning design over a direct instruction design in terms of significantly better conceptual and transfer gains without a compromise in procedural fluency (Kapur, 2010, 2011a, 2012; Kapur & Bielaczyc, 2012).”
Does group composition affect learning by invention? (2012, background): “Indeed, the benefits of invention activities were first demonstrated with gifted students in the United States, and students from Singapore who generally have excellent math skills according to PISA (Kapur 2009; OECD 2010; Schwartz and Martin 2004).”
Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? (2013, background): “For instance, Kapur (2009) showed that learners given ill-structured problems often exhibited low confidence in their solutions, suggesting they were aware of their shortcomings before instruction.”