DI students relied on notes rather than exploring the agent-based models, while PF classes showed lively collaborative exploration and questioning¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q1
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Qualitative classroom observations indicated DI students spent most of their time checking notes and rarely used the models to reason, whereas PF students discussed ideas and explored the models collaboratively. → Jacobson 2017

Evidence¶

Jacobson 2017¶

Jacobson, Michael, Markauskaite, Lina, Portolese, Alisha, Kapur, Manu, Lai, Polly, & Roberts, Gareth (2017). Designs for learning about climate change as a complex system. Learning and Instruction, 52, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.007

q1 · i? · causal · r?

Daily qualitative observational notes by the research team in the four classes. DI students rarely asked questions during instruction and showed little dyad discussion, while PF students discussed ideas with partners, asked questions during Consolidation, and tried parameter settings like the teacher's.

"Rather than using the computer models to reason about the problems, the DI students seemed to assume the answers to the problems were in the notes, and so they spent much of their time looking at the notes instead of running computer experiments and trying to reason with the computer models."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• After-school setting offered richer activity diversity, dialogue, and peer interaction than regular classrooms — related
• PF students scored significantly higher than DI students on climate explanatory knowledge — related