Exploring why we learn from productive failure: insights from the cognitive and learning sciences

• Published in: Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice 2020-12, Vol.25 (5), p.1099-1106
• Main Authors: Steenhof, Naomi, Woods, Nicole N., Mylopoulos, Maria
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic Failure - psychology; Adolescent; Allied Health Occupations Education; Clinical Competence; Cognition; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive Science; Creatinine - blood; Education; Education, Pharmacy - methods; Educational Strategies; Failure; Female; Formative Feedback; Graduate Students; Health care networks; Health sciences; Humans; Instructional design; Instructional Effectiveness; Invited Paper; Knowledge; Male; Medical Education; Pharmaceutical Education; Pharmacy; Students; Students, Pharmacy - psychology; Teaching Methods; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1382-4996; 1573-1677
• DOI: 10.1007/s10459-020-10013-y

Advances in Health Sciences Education (AHSE) has been at the forefront of the cognitive wave in health professions education for the past 25 years. One example is research on productive failure, a teaching strategy that asks learners to attempt to generate solutions to difficult problems before receiving instruction. This study compared the effectiveness of productive failure with indirect failure to further characterize the underpinning cognitive mechanisms of productive failure. Year one pharmacy students (N = 42) were randomly assigned to a productive failure or an indirect failure learning condition. The problem of estimating renal function based on serum creatinine was described to participants in the productive failure learning condition, who were then asked to generate a solution. Participants in the indirect failure condition learned about the same problem and were given incorrect solutions that other students had created, as well as the Cockcroft–Gault formula, and asked to compare and contrast the equations. Immediately thereafter all participants completed a series of tests designed to assess acquisition, application, and preparation for future learning (PFL). The tests were repeated after a 1-week delay. Participants in the productive failure condition outperformed those in the indirect failure condition, both on the immediate PFL assessment, and after a 1-week delay. These results emphasize the crucial role of generation in learning. When preparing novice students to learn new knowledge in the future, generating solutions to problems prior to instruction may be more effective than simply learning about someone else’s mistakes. Struggle and failure are most productive when experienced personally by a learner because it requires the learner to engage in generation, which deepens conceptual understanding.