The experience of failure can provide valuable learning opportunities. However, typical classes do not tend to function from the direction of learning from failure.
Instead, the goal of educators is to teach accurate information as effectively as possible, with the primary goal of enabling students to generate the right knowledge as needed, both inside and outside the classroom.
Or, failed teaching requires a teaching design of completely different paradigms.
Failure may occur in activities such as problem solving, problem raising, Idea Generating, comparison/Comparison of cases or forms or patterns of invention --based rules.
We present the results of the fourth study.
Use an environmental sustainability level course that allows for designs that fail during collaboration.
These dialogue centers include
Here we can discuss how students deal with failure in the learning process.
Our design draws on "productive failures," in which students have the opportunity to produce normative concepts before receiving clear guidance and collaborative learning from scripts, students collaborate without specific dialogue action guidance.
By focusing on the failures in the non-script collaboration process, our work achieves two goals :(1)
We pick out the situation of failure by analyzing the conversation when students encounter obstacles, and identify several different behaviors related to learning; (2)
We explore how the form of task design affects the collaborative learning process around failure events, demonstrating the potential benefits of more structured tasks.
The experience of failure can provide valuable learning opportunities. However, teaching in ordinary schools is often based on students' "success ".
In this case, teachers use homework scores, class scores and test scores to measure the "correctness" of students' knowledge ";
Usually, the higher the score, the more correct the student gets, and therefore the more successful he/she learns.
When success depends on the student's ability to reproduce the correct knowledge as soon as possible, the accuracy of the knowledge and the prevention of errors may become unnecessary.
This can keep the goal of teaching away from the pattern of learning from failure.
Recent research has shown that students can learn more deeply from failure
Based on teaching methods.
In contrast, direct teaching, such as the acceptance of the "textbook" conceptualisation of the subject through lectures or other forms of explicit teaching, may only lead to surface learning.
It usually involves the presentation of correct information, and direct guidance is often a teacher-
When the results of direct teaching are compared with learning activities that allow students to produce their own solutions, ideas, conceptualized and stated before formal teaching, the ability to understand concepts and transfer knowledge, the evidence supports the latter.
There are benefits to formal teaching, in part because it provides the opportunity to deal with naivety or naivety
As a normative concept in the form of "failure" of knowledge correctness.
Several ways for students to fail is to be told they are incorrect (i. e.
Direct teaching strategy)
, Identify their incorrect knowledge by task feedback, or discuss their incorrect knowledge with others who are also in the bud on the topic at hand.
When students indirectly recognize their failures, they have a better chance to learn from their failures.
Therefore, our work is not direct, but through task design and peer discussion using initial naive knowledge, to resolve failures based on indirect feedback.
I get support from two main areas of learning research: Productive failure and collaborative learning without scripts.
Both allow students to generate ideas in an open environment
Completed task settings, peerto-
Peer discussion of ideas, a form of clear guidance, and indirect feedback on the correctness of the generated knowledge.
Production failure (PF)
Is to follow the learning design of the two main stages of the activity.
First of all, students are free to generate solutions, methods, and/or representation in questions --
Resolve the task before obtaining formal knowledge that is generally considered necessary to successfully complete the task.
According to the design, this leaves enough opportunities for failure as the task implicitly provides students with information about their knowledge gaps.
After this generation, the students are directly guided by the teacher, who clearly shows the standardized solutions, methods and expressions.
In Kapur and Bielaczyc's groundbreaking paper on designing teaching for productive failure, they discussed learning mechanisms that help students deepen their conceptual understanding and improve their knowledge transfer capabilities.
The first phase of exploration and generation allows (a)
Activation and division of knowledge ,(b)
Focus on the key features of the concept, and (c)
These features are explained and elaborated through the student's cooperation in the task.
The second phase allows (d)
When students focus on the normative form of concepts presented through formal teaching, knowledge integration and assembly.
Previous work on PF has not yet gone deep into the specific behaviors that students participate in when they experience failure.
The study reports the various incorrect solutions of the student to the problem during the problem and the general quality of the student's discussionsolving.
However, no PF work separates students' behavior before and after failure.
This leads to the question of what failure is in the learning environment.
When failure is defined as a specification, solution, or method that cannot produce a problem-solving, the focus is on the student side --products (e. g.
, Incorrect solution). Faulty end-
The product is a static form of evidence that fails to occur, but not enough to inform the student what is done in the process of dealing with knowledge that may be incorrect.
In order to better understand this, failure needs to be perceived in a way that is visible throughout the dynamic process.
In cooperative learning activities, checking conversations around deadlocks is a way to determine what students do in the course of failure.
Taking into account the rich and extensive findings of cooperative learning (CL)
Literature, I have reduced the focus here (1)
Two useful design principles for deep learning and related cognitive mechanisms, and (2)
Solve the work of how students deal with deadlocks in CL settings.
Task design, providing some form of collaborative preparation through previous tasks, and balancing openness
It has been shown that intimacy in a task can invoke conversational behavior that promotes learning.
An effective preparation task can immediately provide students with "what to talk about" and activate the cognitive mechanism of previous knowledge activation.
This, in turn, helps motivate students to share responses and foster dialogue behaviors such as interpretation, questioning and debate.
As students continue to participate in the discussion, it is likely that they will
In order to complete the task, it is necessary for everyone to achieve mutual understanding.
Prior knowledge can then continue to be activated to further promote the use of effective dialogue actions.
Cute, the degree to which students generate ideas in the preparation process is a factor that affects cooperative behavior and learning outcomes.
Some CL work reveals how to open
End the task and the type of knowledge to be acquired.
More open and complex tasks tend to be more appropriate to acquire deep knowledge, as it provides students with better opportunities for cooperation and activates cognitive mechanisms for deep learning. About (2)
The theoretical work of Tawfik, Rong and Choi points out several interrelated failures --
Explain the learning-based design for effectively handling the fault process.
They believe that teaching methods that deliberately incite failure experiences allow students to challenge what they have (
Mental model or internal script.
This involves the cognitive mechanism of assimilation, because the learner recognizes the lack of knowledge, activates previous knowledge, imbalances, or cognitive conflicts, when he/she strives to determine the details of the failure of knowledge, the state of inquiry within, and the reorganization of her/his mental model with the determination of new knowledge.
This process can be repeated every time a recognition fails.
They include peer-to-peer collaboration, which is critical to the real learning process
Solve complex problems in the world and prepare students for the future workforce.
In failure, however, there are other benefits to collaboration more directly related to cognitive processesbased learning.
As mentioned above, collaboration can invoke conversational behavior that helps learning when context design has specific functionality.
Participation in these behaviors increases the chances of knowledge gaps/cognitive failures and cognitive conflicts.
When learners enter a state of inquiry, opportunities to share different views, arguments, problems, and ideas with their peers promote the perception of persistent failures and attempts to address uncertainty.
The internal process of learners through dialogue and mobility also adds collective knowledge to the collaborative experience, while they continue to restructure the psychological model to solve the failure.
In essence, CL context provides a space where students can naturally externalize the thinking of knowledge failure in a conversation, increasing the available information by generating ideas, problems, as they move in the direction of perfecting a comprehensive and subtle concept, explain.
Empirical research on cooperative learning processes supports these concepts.
Tawfik, Rong, and Choi also provide a useful concept of failure for us to check the experiences that students experience when learning from failure.
They put "Micro
Failure ", which specifically refers to iterations where learners identify uncertainty when completing a task and then have the opportunity to respond to improve understanding.
Student conversations in CL activities provide a way to "see" these iterations in addition to what we collect from the student side
Products such as problem solutions.
Instructional design that provides opportunities to experience knowledge failure in a collaborative environment may help us better understand what students will do when they encounter, deal with, and try to overcome failure.
Next, I briefly describe our design and its theoretical basis, from which we draw the data for the current work.
Based on the two stages of production failure, taking into account the two design features of script-free collaborative learning mentioned earlier,
Known designs are called preparations for future cooperation (PFC).
In the PFC activity, the student engaged in the quest to allow the generation of ideas, followed by clear guidance, thus delaying support for a correct understanding.
In general, this follows typical settings for production failure tasks.
The difference is that PFC divides exploration into two phases: individual exploration and peer collaboration.
Therefore, there are three active stages in the PFC design :(1)
Personal Exploration ,(2)
Continue to explore in peer collaboration, and (3)
Clear instructions from teachers.
Open in balancing tasks-
As a feature of CL design, there is still a problem about how the structure of the exploration is.
I will be back here soon.
First, I discuss the cognitive mechanisms that can be called in the three stages of the PFC. The (1)
The individual preparation phase provides students with the opportunity to activate prior knowledge and address the key features of these concepts in different ways. At the (2)
During the cooperation stage, several learning mechanisms can be established.
When students discuss their preparations, everyone can elaborate and explain his/her thoughts, which allows for further activation of the distinction between prior knowledge and conceptual features.
Students can also start collecting knowledge in discussions, as each goal is to refine ideas around concepts.
Finally in (3)
Clear teaching stage, students have the opportunity to further assemble and consolidate knowledge when the teacher presents the normative form of the concept.
The following figure summarizes these cognitive mechanisms at each stage (Fig. ).
Note that these mechanisms are the same as those that students are involved in during productive failure activities, but are different in mechanisms that occur throughout the PFC phase.
Back to the level of mission opening-
Lovely. I quoted a previous reference.
We conducted an experimental study on the overall effectiveness of learning by power factor correction.
Set of details below-
Our current job.
Our previous study was 2 out of 4-
Grade classrooms in public schools in Singapore.
As part of the environmental education curriculum, students are involved in a complex problem --
Solve the problem of excess garbage production in Singapore, a densely populated urban area.
The purpose is to allow students to conceptually understand the "four R" of garbage, reuse, reduction, recycling and their differences, and to determine how they can be used throughout the disposal system to reduce waste generation.
The task was set-
The stage of correction according to the power factor. (1)
Students first deal with the problem items that implicitly distinguish four R. (2)
They then worked with partners to discuss each other's responses to joint decisions on each project and co-described how waste issues could be addressed. After this, (3)
The teacher gave a clear introduction to the description and definition of the four R and the differences between them.
This study investigated two versions of open-
The cute task of learning, one is to choose --
Generated and open based on select tasks and other heightsended.
I call these versions Select and Generate.
Details on the materials and methods used in our previous study can be found in the method section and supplementary method file at the end of this article.
In the current work, we examined the entire student dialogue corpus from the cooperative stage of our previous PFC study to find out in the micro-
Failure and its relationship with learning.
Since the PFC was developed in the case of a fault
Considering that based on learning, the students we studied before have enough opportunities to meet Micro
Failure in collaboration.
Using the selection and generation of two Task versions, we can solve the problem of the degree of task opening
Kindness affects the experience of failure and related learning outcomes.
I have listed the main purposes as follows: see the methods section for details of our oral analysis.