Metacognitive scaffolding during guided invention improved conceptual features, dataset ranking accuracy, and learning-strategy behaviors over unguided invention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Guided-invention students invented methods with more conceptual features and ranked datasets more accurately than unguided-invention students, though mathematical expression quality was not improved. → Manu Kapur 2012 q2 i? Guided-invention students showed more and better unprompted self-explanations and revised their methods more frequently, even on unprompted task components. → Manu Kapur 2012 (2)

Evidence¶

Manu Kapur 2012¶

Manu Kapur, Nikol Rummel. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instr Sci 40:645-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4

q2 · i? · review · r2

Laboratory-based study with undergraduates in a first-year physics lab course inventing methods for uncertainty in the slope of best-fitting lines; guided invention (GI) added question, self-explanation, and peer-interaction prompts versus unguided invention (UI). No effect size is printed.

"GI students invented methods that included more conceptual features and ranked the given datasets more accurately than those in the UI condition, although the quality of their mathematical expressions was not improved."

Manu Kapur 2012 (2)¶

Manu Kapur, Nikol Rummel. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instr Sci 40:645-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4

q2 · i? · review · r2

Learning-strategy level results from the same laboratory study: guided-invention students showed more unprompted self-explanations and more frequent method revision, including on unprompted components.

"GI students showed more and better instances of unprompted self-explanations and they revised their methods more frequently—even on components of the task that were not supported by the metacognitive prompts—than the UI students."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Invention Tasks Prepare Future Learning — related
• Pre-service teachers preparing with a worked example outperform inventing peers on transfer of learning-strategy assessment skills — related
• The inventing group showed more metacognitive regulation during future learning, contrary to hypothesis, without benefiting transfer — related
• Worked-example preparation leads to more application of canonical criteria during future learning, which mediates higher transfer — related