什么样的失败才是成功之母？——有效失败视角下的STEM教学设计研究

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.06.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要： STEM作为创新能力培养的有效路径，在国内外受到了很大的关注，但当前对STEM教学设计的研究还不够，在实践中存在着许多误区。在STEM课堂上，学生面对的往往是高挑战性任务，因此，失败在所难免。然而，恰恰是失败，为我们提供了一个审视STEM教学设计的视角。本文运用设计研究的方法，在实践中对理论原型进行迭代，最终构建了STEM的有效指导范型。通过对比三种教学类型，我们发现在迁移效果上，有效指导型教学显著优于无指导型教学和有指导型教学。同时，我们还对有效失败、有效成功、无效失败和无效成功四种行为类型进行编码，进一步明确了不同行为类型的内涵，加深了对失败和成功的认识。我们发现，有效类行为能促进迁移，在有效指导型中出现的有效类行为最多。通过发展卡普尔的有效失败理论，我们从目标、评价和过程三方面对STEM教学设计提出了建议，这不仅对STEM教学，而且对当下正在进行的素养导向的教学变革都具有启发意义。

关键词: STEM, 有效失败, 教学设计

Abstract: As a productive way to cultivate innovation, STEM has drawn a lot of attention domestically and abroad. However, there are few research on STEM instructional design and there are also many misunderstandings in practice. In the STEM class, students often face so demanding tasks that failure is inevitable. However, failure provides us a perspective to study STEM instructional design. In this paper, we use a design-based research method to iterate the theoretical prototype in practice and constructe a productive guiding paradigm of STEM. Then we compare three types of teaching, from which it is found that the productive guiding type is significantly better than the unsupervised and guided in the migration effect. At the same time, the four types of behaviors including productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure and unproductive success are coded to further clarify the connotation of different behavior types, thus deepening the understanding of failure and success. Effective class behavior can promote migration, while effective class behavior occurs in the effective guidance type. Our study develops Kapur’s theory of productive failure, and puts forward suggestions for STEM instructional design from the aspects of goal, evaluation and process, which have enlightenments for STEM teaching and the competency-oriented teaching reform at present.

Key words: STEM, productive failure, instructional design

刘徽, 杨佳欣, 徐玲玲, 张朋, 王司闫. 什么样的失败才是成功之母？——有效失败视角下的STEM教学设计研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(6): 43-69.

Liu Hui, Yang Jiaxin, Xu Lingling, Zhang Peng, Wang Siyan. What Kind of Failure is the Mother of Success?—Instructional Design of STEM under the Perspective of Productive Failure[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(6): 43-69.

参考文献

安德森. (2008). 学习、教学和评估的分类学(皮连生译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
奥苏贝尔. (2018). 意义学习新论——获得与保持知识的认知观(毛伟译). 杭州: 浙江教育出版社.
布兰思福特等. (2013). 人是如何学习的: 大脑、心理、经验及学校(扩展版)(程可拉等译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
崔兰玉. (2017). 社交媒体软件支持下的初中数学PF教学实践研究. 济南: 山东师范大学硕士学位论文.
崔允漷. (2019). 指向学科核心素养的教学即让学科教育“回家”. 基础教育课程,(Z1),5-9
达克沃斯. (2005). 精彩观念的诞生——达克沃斯教学论文集(张华, 等译). 北京: 高等教育出版社.
杜威. (2014). 民主主义与教育(陶志琼译). 北京: 中国轻工业出版社.
杜威. (2015). 我们如何思维(伍中友译). 北京: 新华出版社.
郭婧远. (2016). 创客教育中利用有效失败促进学习的研究. 上海: 华东师范大学硕士学位论文.
凯恩等. (2004). 创设联结: 教学与人脑(吕梅海译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
李明萱. (2018). 启发性挫败学习干预原型的设计与实践研究. 济南: 山东师范大学硕士学位论文.
刘徽. (2017). 学习科学: 从教授主义到发展主义——读《剑桥学习科学手册》. 现代教学,(21),75-77
刘新阳. (2018). 利用有效失败的创客学习活动设计——一项探索性研究. 中国电化教育,(4),82-90
马扎诺, 皮克林. (2015). 培育智慧才能——学习的维度教师手册(盛群力, 何晔译). 福州: 福建教育出版社.
麦卡锡. (2012). 自然学习设计: 面向不同学习风格者差异施教(陈彩红, 庄承婷译). 福州: 福建教育出版社.
梅里尔. (2016). 首要教学原理(盛群力等译). 福州: 福建教育出版社.
梅耶. (2016). 应用学习科学——心理学大师给教师的建议(盛群力等译). 北京: 中国轻工业出版社.
乔纳森, 豪兰, 摩尔. (2007). 学会用技术解决问题: 一个建构主义者的视角(任友群, 李妍, 施彬飞译). 北京: 教育科学出版社.
索耶. (2010). 剑桥学习科学手册(徐晓东,等译). 北京: 教育科学出版社.
王健, 李秀菊. (2012). 5E教学模式的内涵及其对我国理科教育的启示. 生物学通报,47(3),39-42
威金斯, 麦克泰格. (2017). 追求理解的教学设计(闫寒冰, 宋雪莲, 赖平译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
威金斯, 麦克泰格. (2018). 理解为先模式——单元教学设计指南(一)(盛群力等译). 福州: 福建教育出版社.
杨玉芹. (2014). 启发性挫败的设计研究——翻转课堂的实施策略. 中国电化教育,(11),111-115
张澜, 王婷. (2015). 浅析课堂中“有价值的失败”的机制及设计原则. 教学与管理,(18),94-96
张忠华, 张苏. (2018). “启发性挫败”教学模式的研究与启示. 河北师范大学学报: 教育科学版,20(2),98-104
赵呈领, 赵文君, 蒋志辉. (2018). 面向STEM教育的5E探究式教学模式设计. 现代教育技术,(3),106-112
佐藤学. (2003). 静悄悄的革命: 创造活动、合作、反思的综合学习课程(李季湄译). 长春: 长春出版社.
Belland, B. R.(2017). Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42
Bybee, R. W. (2014). Guest Editorial: The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Personal Reflections and Contemporary Implications. Science & Children, 51(8), 10-13
D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be Beneficial for Learning. Learning and Instruction, (29), 153-170
Erickson, H. L., Lanning, L.A., French, R.(2017). Concept-Based Curriculum and Instruction for the Thinking Classroom(2nd Edition), Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2016). Visible Learning for Literacy, Grades K-12: Implementing the Practices that Work Best to Accelerate Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Heemsoth, T., & Heinze, A. (2013). The Impact of Incorrect Examples on Learning Fractions: A Field Experiment with 6th Grade Students. Instructional Science, 42(4), 639-657
ITEEA. (2014). 6E Learning by Design TM Instructional Planning Mode. Retrieved from: http://wwwiteea.org/LbD/index.htm.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to Solve Problems A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive Failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424
Kapur, M. (2010). Productive Failure in Mathematical Problem Solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523-550
Kapur, M. (2011). A Further Study of Productive Failure in Mathematical Problem Solving: Unpacking the Design Components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561-579
Kapur, M. (2012). Productive Failure in Learning the Concept of Variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651-672
Kapur, M. (2014). Comparing Learning from Productive Failure and Vicarious Failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 651-677
Kennedy-Clark, S., Jacobson, M. J., & Reimann, P. (2010). Scenario-based Multi-User Virtual Environments: Productive Failure and the Impact of Structure on Learning. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 402−407). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). The Impact of Guidance During Problem-Solving Prior to Instruction on Students’ Inventions and Learning Outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305-326
Paas, F. G. W. (1992). Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive Load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434
Piaget, J., Brown, T., & Thampy, K. J. (1985). The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development (Vol. 985). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work. The Journal of the Learning sciences, 13(3), 273-304
Rutherford, & Stephen. (2015). E Pluribus Unum: The Potential of Collaborative Learning to Enhance Microbiology Teaching in Higher Education. FEMS Microbiology Letters, fnv191.
Schank, R. (1999). Dynamic Memory Revisited (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training. Psychological Science, (3), 207-217
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, (22), 129-184
Searle, K. A., Litts, B. K., & Kafai, Y. B. (2018). Debugging Open-Ended Designs: High School Students’ Perceptions of Failure and Success in an Electronic Textiles Design Activity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, (30), 125-134
Song, Y., & Kapur, M. (2017). How to Flip the Classroom——“Productive Failure or Traditional Flipped Classroom” Pedagogical Design?. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 292-305
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296
Tawfik, A. A., & Jonassen, D. H. (2013). The Effects of Successful Versus Failure-Based Cases on Argumentation While Solving Decision-Making Problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 385-406
VanLehn, K. (1988). Toward a Theory of Impasse-Driven Learning. In A. Lesgold. Learning Issues for Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp.19−41). New York, NY: Springer.
Weaver, J. P, Chastain, R. J, Decaro, D. A, et al. (2018). Reverse the Routine: Problem Solving Before Instruction Improves Conceptual Knowledge in Undergraduate Physics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (52), 36-47
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement (pp.1−25). New York, NY: Springer.

[1]	孙妍妍, 何沣燊. 以“工程”为中心的STEM课程驱动问题设计研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2021, 39(8): 33-44.
[2]	曾昭炳, 姚继军. 寻找“最佳证据”：如何运用元分析进行文献综述——以STEM教育对学生成绩的影响研究为例[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(6): 70-85.
[3]	大卫·安德森, 季娇. 从STEM教育到STEAM教育——大卫·安德森与季娇关于博物馆教育的对话[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2017, 35(4): 122-129+139.
[4]	林静. 美国STEM教育质量评价新动向——NAEP技术与工程素养评价要点与启示[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2017, 35(1): 78-86+122.
[5]	辛自强, 林崇德. 认知负荷与认知技能和图式获得的关系及其教学意义[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2002, 20(4): 55-60, 77.
[6]	梁平. 论问题解决的教学设计[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2000, 18(2): 50-57.