by Thao
K. Huynh, PGY2 Oncology Pharmacy
Practice Resident, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy
Learning is an activity that requires our undivided attention. Learning
a novel or unfamiliar concept often involves struggle, which is a necessary
component to critical thinking. A teaching method that causes a greater amount
of struggle will lead to more learning as exemplified by productive failure.
According to Manu Kapur, productive failure engages students in
differentiating prior knowledge from features of the new concept.1 In
using productive failure as a teaching strategy, there are two phases. The first phase requires students to generate
and explore, while the second phase encourages them (with the help of the teacher) to consolidate and assemble new knowledge. In
the first phase, teachers must discern what students know about a novel concept
that hasn’t yet been formally taught. During this phase, a complex problem is
presented collaboratively amongst students. During the second phase, the novel
concept must be consolidated and presented with direct instruction in a
structured way.2
In order to test this method, Kapur conducted a classroom-based research
experiment comparing direct instruction with productive failure. In an all-boys school in
Singapore, seventy four ninth grade students were taught about the mathematical
concept variance in two different ways. Students were tested prior to the
intervention to evaluate their pre-existing knowledge and it was similar at
baseline in both groups. In one classroom students were provided direct
instruction (DI). In the other
classroom, students in the productive failure (PF) group were provided no
instruction or guidance. The two classes differed in that the DI class of 35
students participated in four 55 minute periods of instruction where the
teacher explained the concept of variance, modeled the application of the
concept by working through problems with the class, and highlighted pitfalls
and misconceptions. Students in this class were able to work through problems
in triads followed by a discussion of the solutions by the teacher. DI students
were assigned homework after each class to reinforce the topic. In contrast,
the PF class was not provided direct instruction during the first two periods.
Instead, students worked in triads to solve one of the problems on their own. In
periods three and four, PF students were provided the same direct instruction
but the teacher also compared and contrasted student solutions and explained
the solution in a manner similar to the DI class. The PF class were given and solved fewer
problems than did students in the DI class.
Moreover, students in the PF class were not given homework. Following
this period of instruction, both groups of students took the same exam. All students performed similarly overall – however,
students in the PF group outperformed students in the DI group on the conceptual
insight and data analysis portions of the exam.1
Although, it can be argued that students in the productive failure group
outperformed the direct instruction group due to a greater amount of time devoted to to studying the concepts; their performance is likely related to the
amount of time and energy put forth into delving critically into the topic.
Productive failure can be used in the pharmacy curriculum and clinical
pharmacy practice to help enhance learning experiences. Incorporating productive failure may work in
a group setting such as Abilities or Practice Lab, case discussions, and
problem-based learning courses. Students
in these small learning groups naturally (without direct instruction) have some
prior knowledge on the topic. Productive
failure will facilitate development of their critical thinking skills. Allowing student to struggle is critical to
the process. This sets the stage for the
instructor to introduce new concepts to students. This environment, according
to Collins, leads “metacognitive scaffolding, contrasting cases,
peer-interaction scripts, mixed-ability groups, and perhaps representational
scaffolding in the intervention phase will enhance student learning in the
[direct] instruction phase.”3 Furthermore, a lack of struggle can
lead to detrimental outcomes. For
example, in a study that observed nurses on a patient care unit, when problems
arose, instead of analyzing the situation, they opted for quick (but less than
optimal) solutions.4
I believe productive failure is most useful when there is sufficient
time to explore different solutions to a complex problem. If time is critical,
productive failure may be detrimental. In addition, for productive failure to
have the greatest benefit, learners should have some baseline knowledge on the
topic. In other words, the new concepts
must be related in someway to the students prior knowledge. If the new concepts are too foreign, students
might not be able see the connections between their prior knowledge and the new
knowledge. I’ve encountered a recent
situation where productive failure would not have worked well. An oncologist
wanted to use equine thymoglobulin for a critically ill patient with steroid
refractory acute graft-versus-host disease post stem cell transplant. The drug needed to be administered as soon as
possible. Not being an expert in this topic and having never seen horse
thymoglobulin used before, I needed to clarify this with my preceptor. I found
a review article on the topic but my preceptor needed to provide guidance. In
this situation, using productive failure as a strategy to learn a novel concept
without any instruction would have caused further delay in patient care as well
as the potential for patient harm. On the other hand, productive failure worked
with two students I asked to lead a topic discussion. The topic was acute
myeloid leukemia, which neither student had any previous knowledge. I began
with few patient cases for the students to read and discuss with one another. After the students had an opportunity to struggled
through the patient cases, I provided a formal one-hour interactive presentation.
I measured the success of how well the students applied the information to
direct patient care situations. I saw a
dramatic increase in knowledge from both students and they were able to provide
appropriate recommendations to the patient care team.
Looking for ways to improve the way you teach? Embracing the productive failure method will facilitate
learning by encouraging learners to differentiate new concepts from prior
knowledge and to be analytical in applying these new concepts.
References
- Kapur M. Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction. 2008 Jul;26(3):379-424.
- Kapur M, Toh PLL. Educational design research – Part B: Illustrative cases. Enschede, the Netherlands: T. Plomp, & N. Nieveen (Eds.); c2013. Chapter 17, Productive failure: From an experimental effect to a learning design; p. 341-355.
- Collins A. What is the most effective way to teach problem solving? A commentary on productive failure as a method of teaching. Instr Sci 2012;40:731-735.
- Edmondson AC. Learning from failure in health care: frequent opportunities, pervasive barriers. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(Suppl II):ii3-ii9.
No comments:
Post a Comment