Topic: Identifying Abstract Nouns (Concepts/Feelings)
This study investigated whether Productive Failure (PF), in which students attempt a complex problem before instruction, leads to a deeper conceptual understanding of abstract nouns than Direct Instruction (DI).
Methodology and Comparison Strategy
Class 3 students were divided into two groups. The PF Group was first given a creative challenge: write a short story where the main characters were non-physical concepts or feelings (e.g., sadness or bravery). They were not taught the definition of abstract nouns first, forcing them to struggle and activate prior, often fragmented, knowledge. The DI Group received the formal rule ("A noun names a person, place, thing, or idea") and examples before starting a similar practice activity. Three days after both groups received instruction, the core comparison was made using a Conceptual Understanding Post-Test. This test asked students to categorise a mixed list of words (e.g., chair, courage, dog, fear) and, crucially, to explain the difference between words they could touch and words they could only feel or think about.
Expected Finding
It is expected that the PF Group will score significantly higher on the conceptual test and provide clearer, more accurate explanations. This finding would support the idea that the initial struggle and effort to represent non-physical entities primes the students' minds, allowing them to better assimilate and anchor the formal definition of "idea" (abstract noun) during the subsequent instruction phase.
Research 2: PF for Prefixes
Topic: Using Prefixes to Change Word Meaning
This study explores how students' initial attempts to create new words using affixes—their Representations and Solution Methods (RSMs)—when struggling in a Productive Failure (PF) setting, help them learn the formal rules of prefixes better than those given Direct Instruction (DI).
Methodology and Comparison Strategy
Class 3 students were again divided into two groups. The PF Group was presented with a list of base words (e.g., happy, connect, view) and challenged to completely change each word's meaning by adding a small part to the beginning or end. They were asked to record their invented words and the reason for the change (e.g., "I made it rehappys because I want to be happy again"). They received formal instruction on prefixes (un-, re-, dis-) afterwards. The DI Group was explicitly taught the rules for common prefixes before engaging in practice exercises. The core comparison was the Analysis of Student-Generated RSMs. Researchers focused on the PF Group's initial "failed" solutions, coding them for variety (i.e., how many different invented prefixes were used) and for the demonstration of conceptual features (e.g., the idea that adding something to the front changes the meaning, even if the actual prefix used was wrong).
Expected Finding
The PF Group is expected to generate a wider range of unique, though often incorrect, prefixes and reasoning in the initial phase. This wide range of attempts demonstrates a greater activation and differentiation of prior knowledge—they are actively exploring the concept of affixation. This rich, error-filled background primes them for the later instruction, allowing them to map the formal rule (e.g., re- means "again") onto their own invented concepts, leading to superior long-term retention compared to the DI Group.
Research 3: PF for Sentences
Topic: Simple vs. Compound Sentences (Using Coordinating Conjunctions)
This study investigated whether struggling to combine simple sentences into more complex ones in a Productive Failure (PF) setting leads to better long-term transfer of knowledge—the ability to apply the learned rules in new situations—compared to learning the rules directly (Direct Instruction, DI).
Methodology and Comparison Strategy
Class 3 students were split into two groups. The PF Group was presented with two short, related sentences (e.g., "The boy was hungry. He made a sandwich.") and challenged to combine them into one longer and better sentence. They were not given the rule for coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), forcing them to invent their own, often suboptimal, joining methods. They received the formal instruction on conjunctions later. The DI Group was first taught the rules and the full list of conjunctions before practising. The core comparison was a Knowledge Transfer Test (Far Transfer) given two weeks after instruction. This test presented students with entirely new paragraphs that required combining sentences in various contexts (e.g., showing contrast, cause-and-effect) that were structurally different from the training material.
Expected Finding
The PF Group is expected to achieve significantly higher scores on the Far Transfer Test. Because the students in the PF group initially had to wrestle with the conceptual function of combining two separate ideas, they are better able to understand and apply the appropriate conjunction based on the meaning relationship between the two clauses in a novel situation. The DI Group, having focused more on the procedural memorisation of the conjunctions, may struggle more when the context of the transfer problem is different from their initial practice.
Research 4: PF for Adjective Order
Topic: Adjective Order (Opinion, Size, Age, Colour, etc.)
This research investigated whether forcing students to invent their own adjective order (Productive Failure, PF) and then explicitly comparing these failed attempts to the correct rule enhances their mastery of the canonical ordering through better Comparison and Assembly of their initial failed solutions (RSMs).
Methodology and Comparison Strategy
Class 3 students were divided into two groups. The PF Group was challenged to describe an object (e.g., a table) using four or five given adjectives (e.g., beautiful, small, old, wooden) and instructed to write them down in the order that "sounds best" before the noun. This task forces them to activate a linguistic pattern they know exists but for which they lack the formal rule, leading to varied and suboptimal RSMs. In Phase 2, the teacher deliberately used the students’ incorrect orders to contrast them with the established canonical order (Opinion → Size → Age → Material). The DI Group was simply taught this ordering rule and then practiced it. The core comparison was an Assembly Assessment following Phase 2, where students were scored on how well they could articulate why their initial, arbitrary orders were less effective than the expert order.
Expected Finding
The PF Group is expected to demonstrate a superior conceptual understanding of the rule's logic—not just memorising the sequence. Because they actively compared and assembled their own fragmented ideas against the formal rule, they can better explain the reasoning behind the order. For example, they may be better at correcting a peer's deliberately wrong order (e.g., "wooden small beautiful table") than the DI Group, indicating that the initial struggle helped them internalise the organisational principle.
Research 5: PF for Narrative Main Idea
Topic: Identifying the Main Idea / Theme of a Narrative
This research aimed to determine if the initial struggle to define the "Moral of the Story" in a Productive Failure (PF) setting enhances students' procedural fluency in accurately distinguishing the abstract theme from a concrete plot summary, compared to a group receiving Direct Instruction (DI).
Methodology and Comparison Strategy
Class 3 students were split into two groups. The PF Group read a short, slightly complex fable and, without any prior instruction on "theme," worked collaboratively to write a single-sentence "Moral of the Story." They were expected to fail productively by often producing a sentence that summarised the plot events instead of identifying the universal theme. The DI Group was explicitly taught the difference between a plot summary (what happened) and a theme (the universal lesson) before practising. The core comparison was a Procedural Fluency Post-Test administered shortly after instruction. The test required students to read five new, simple stories and, for each, correctly select the one true Theme from four multiple-choice options that included common distractors like plot summaries and minor details.
Expected Finding
The PF Group is expected to outperform the DI Group on the post-test. The initial struggle of attempting to synthesise the complex story into a "moral" without the rule forced them to activate and differentiate the critical features of the narrative. When the formal instruction arrived, it provided the essential contrast needed to solidify the conceptual distinction: the theme is abstract and transferable, while the summary is concrete and story-bound. This deep conceptual grounding, achieved through struggle, translates into greater fluency and accuracy in the procedural task of identifying the theme from a set of options.
