Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, advances in learning and instruction series. New York: Elsevier Science Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, C. (2016). Discovering and addressing errors during mathematics problem-solving—A productive struggle? The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 42, 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häkkinen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in Learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 14406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mislevy, R. J., & Haertel, G. (2006). Implications of evidence-centered design for educational testing (Draft PADI Technical Report 17). Menlo Park: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Y. (2014). “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Computers & Education, 74, 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Yanjie Song

Authors
  1. Yanjie Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanjie Song.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9600-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation