Failing at Ill-Structured Problems
September 9th, 2009
When is it good to let students fail? Is there something good that happens when students struggle and don’t succeed? These questions are explored by Kapur & Kinzur (2008) in the International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.
At a high level, they have groups of students randomly assigned to work on physics problems in triads on either well-structured or ill-structured problems. The ill-structured problems had more problem parameters (i.e., many variables included in the problem statement that were irrelevant to the problem solution), variables with less specificity (e.g., ranges that require estimation or opinion), and interactions among variables in the problem.
The study is a tightly designed with random assignment experiment. Students took preassessments individually, then worked on either ill-structured or well-structured problems in triads. They then individually completed post-tests of both ill-structured and well-structured problems.
The researchers examined the chat logs and performance on the group worked problems, as well as performance on the individual post-tests. Analysis of the group problems revealed that the solutions of the well-structured groups were significantly better than the solutions of the ill-structured groups. Analysis of the interactions in the groups revealed that the ill-structured groups spent significantly more time in problem definition activities while the well-structured groups spent more time on solution generation. The authors write, “IS [ill-structured] groups found it difficult to converge on the causes of the problem, set appropriate criteria for a solution, and actually develop a solution, resulting in poor group performance.”
Now, the interesting part: on the individual post-tests, the students who were members of the ill-structured groups performed better on both ill-structured and well-structured problems. So what is the explanation? The authors write:
Indeed, what separated the interactional dynamics of IS from those of the WS groups was a focus on problem analysis and criteria development, as well as sustained problem critique and solution evaluation with a number of transitions and feedback loops. Although seemingly unproductive and leading to failure in the shorter term, a more complex and divergent exploration of the problem and solution spaces as evidenced by the emergence of a diversity of interactional sequences was what differentiated the interactional dynamics of IS groups from those of WS groups.
In other words, working through the ill-structured problems taught the students problem-solving strategies that then transferred to other problems, leading to greater success on those problems. Very interesting! A couple things next: can we show improvement in problem solving skills? Make the explanation explicit? If this is a solid finding, as it seems to be, how frustrating is too frustrating? Is there some point at which students are given problems that are so ill-structured that they give up? The authors emphasize that they do not support giving only completely ill-structured problems to students, but they certainly suggest that work with these problems is beneficial.
Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. (2008). Productive failure in CSCL groups International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 (1), 21-46 DOI: 10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z
Tags: failure, ill-structured problems
Posted in Curriculum and Materials, Students | Comments (0)
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Games and Simulation in Science
- Simulations and Labs: Either/or?
- Open Source, E-Textbooks, Traditional Texts… oh my!
- Predicting eLearning Dropout
- Development of Help-Seeking
Categories
- Assessment (3)
- Curriculum and Materials (5)
- Policy/ Government (2)
- Publication (1)
- Research Methods (4)
- Schools (1)
- Students (13)
- Teachers (8)
- Technology (8)
- Uncategorized (3)
