References
- Baars, M. A., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A. B. H., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of problem solving after worked example study on primary school children’s monitoring accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 382–391.
- DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(4), 552–568.
- Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87.
- Kapur, M. (2010). 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). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.
- Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 51–65.
- Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.
- Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014a). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85.
- Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014b). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305–326.
- Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognitive judgments and control of study. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 159–163.
- Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know ‘further’ – increasing the flexibility of students’ knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1169–1174). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
- Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2824–2829). Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
- Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.
- 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(2), 129–184.
- van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novice’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 212–218.
- Wilde, M., Bätz, K., Kovaleva, A., & Urhahne, D. (2009). Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM) [Testing a short scale of intrinsic motivation]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 31–45.
- Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated engagement in learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.