Productive failure in CSCL groups
Productive failure in CSCL groups
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Kinzer, Charles K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kapur, Manu;Kinzer, Charles K.
这项研究被设计为对生产性失败的工作的验证性研究（Kapur，认知与指导，26（3），379-424，2008）。N=177，11年级的理科学生被随机分配到计算机支持的协作学习（CSCL）环境中解决结构良好或结构不良的问题，而不提供任何外部支持结构或支架。在小组解决问题后，所有学生都单独解决了结构良好的问题，其次是结构不良的问题。与解决结构良好的问题的小组相比，解决结构不良的问题的小组在定义、分析和解决问题方面更加困难。然而，尽管他们在协作解决问题的努力中失败了，但这些学生随后在个人近距离和远距离迁移措施上的表现优于结构良好的条件下的同龄人，从而证实了富有成效的失败假设。在以前的研究的基础上，额外的分析表明，既不预先存在的差异，在先前的知识，也不组的结果（质量的解决方案）的变化似乎有任何显着的影响，对个人的近，远转移措施，贷款支持的想法，这是解释生产失败的协作过程的性质。
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.