Fourth-graders given a choice-based (Select) preparation task outperformed those given a highly open-ended (Generate) task on the posttest in a productive-failure-style collaboration design¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 With English and Science scores as covariates, the Select condition significantly outperformed the Generate condition on the posttest, with a moderate to large effect size (d = 0.77). → Rachel Lam 2019

Evidence¶

Rachel Lam 2019¶

Rachel Lam. (2019). What students do when encountering failure in collaborative tasks. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0045-1

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

Quasi-experimental analysis of dyadic posttest scores from two intact fourth-grade classes (n = 40 students, 20 dyads), with English and Science exam scores as covariates. "Cohen's d = 0.77" favors Select; Levene's test showed equal variance, P = 0.21.

"With English and Science scores as covariates, an ANCOVA showed a significant effect of condition, F(3,16) = 8.89, P < 0.01, and we observed a moderate to large effect size, Cohen's d = 0.77."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• PF students outperformed direct-instruction students on conceptual understanding and transfer without compromising procedural fluency — related
• The manipulation worked as intended: I-PS students largely succeeded on the problem-solving sheets while PS-I students largely failed — related
• Productive failure: student groups who score lower on individual post-tests may have experienced deeper learning leading to superior future performance — related
• Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Knowledge gains occur in all conditions; collaboration shows no significant advantage, and the no-tool control group outperforms both tool conditions on interrelations and the annotation condition on transfer — related