Robust effects of the efficacy of explicit failure-driven scaffolding in problem-solving prior to instruction: A replication and extension

Although Productive Failure has shown to be effective (Kapur, 2016; Loibl, Roll, & Rummel, 2017), it is not clear if failure in problem-solving is necessary. Initial work in a quasi-experimental setting suggests that explicitly designing for experiences of failure leads to better learning outcomes than designing for success. We build on this to report on a controlled experimental study where students are exposed to failure-driven, success-driven, or no explicit scaffolding in problem-solving prior to instruction. For assessments of non-isomorphic conceptual understanding, our results align with those from prior work. Despite the similarity in posttest scores, students exposed to failure-driven scaffolding demonstrate higher quality of constructive reasoning than those receiving success-driven scaffolding. Additionally, our study reveals learning benefits of failure-driven scaffolding (for both posttest scores and reasoning quality) on assessments of transfer. Several cognitive, affective and meta-cognitive mechanisms are investigated to explain robust learning benefits of failure-driven scaffolding in preparatory problem-solving.

Automated summary

Research suggests that designing for failure experiences can lead to better learning outcomes compared to designing for success experiences, particularly in promoting higher quality of constructive reasoning and knowledge transfer.