Struggling with a problem before being taught how to solve it produces deeper conceptual understanding than being taught first, provided the teaching follows.
Kapur introduced it in 2008 with Singapore pupils who attempted complex problems before instruction: they did worse during the lesson and better on the later tests of understanding. Sinha and Kapur's 2021 meta-analysis, pooling 166 comparisons from 53 studies, found an advantage for conceptual knowledge and transfer, largest where the design followed the method closely.
In practice
- A statistics teacher asks the class to invent a measure of how spread out some scores are before showing them the standard deviation, and the formula arrives as the answer to a question they already have.
- Someone who spent an evening failing to fix a dripping tap understands the plumber's explanation the next day in a way they would not have cold.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation is preparation for learning: attempting a problem first activates prior knowledge and exposes the gaps, so the instruction that follows lands on a structure ready to receive it.
- In its favour
- The meta-analysis of 166 comparisons finds an advantage for conceptual knowledge and transfer, largest where the design follows the method closely.
- Against it
- Cognitive load researchers find explicit instruction first better for novices, the advantage does not appear in procedural skill, and failure without the teaching phase that follows is simply failure.
- Standing
- Disputed by cognitive load researchers, who find explicit instruction first better for novices. The advantage appears in conceptual understanding rather than procedural skill, and failure without the teaching phase is just failure. Set against the worked example effect.
- Subject
- Learning & Education
- Essay
- What works in learning, and what schools can and cannot change