Learning from errors: A model of individual processes

Tulis, Maria; Steuer, Gabriele; Dresel, Markus

doi:10.14786/flr.v4i2.168

Cited by 76 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, our conceptualization of failure drawn from Cacciotti (2015) differs from that of some who argue that failure only occurs when one disengages and completely stops iterating or trying (e.g., Thomas, 2014). However, we also see failures as different from errors (e.g., Tulis et al. , 2016), in that failures are marked by not accomplishing a goal within an achievement context, while errors do not necessarily preclude accomplishment of a goal (i.e., errors can be corrected relatively quickly without failing).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

FAIL Is Not a Four-Letter Word: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Approaches to Academic Challenge and Responses to Failure in STEM Learning Environments

Henry

Shorter

Charkoudian

et al. 2019

LSE

115

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Navigating scientific challenges, persevering through difficulties, and coping with failure are considered hallmarks of a successful scientist. However, relatively few studies investigate how undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students develop these skills and dispositions or how instructors can facilitate this development in undergraduate STEM learning contexts. This is a critical gap, because the unique cultures and practices found in STEM classrooms are likely to influence how students approach challenges and deal with failures, both during their STEM education and in the years that follow. To guide research aimed at understanding how STEM students develop a challenge-engaging disposition and the ability to adaptively cope with failure, we generate a model representing hypotheses of how students might approach challenges and respond to failures in undergraduate STEM learning contexts. We draw from theory and studies investigating mindset, goal orientations, attributions, fear of failure, and coping to inform our model. We offer this model as a tool for the community to test, revise, elaborate, or refute. Finally, we urge researchers and educators to consider the development, implementation, and rigorous testing of interventions aimed at helping students develop a persevering and challenge-engaging disposition within STEM contexts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

FAIL Is Not a Four-Letter Word: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Approaches to Academic Challenge and Responses to Failure in STEM Learning Environments

Henry

Shorter

Charkoudian

et al. 2019

LSE

115

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of the achieved Chi-squared value, other fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the three-factor structure together with the CFI. The three-factor was a superior fit based on the CFI, Normed Fit Index (NFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (Tulis et al, 2016) which were all greater than .950. The model-fit was marginally adequate based on the Relative Fit Index (RFI) whose value was less than .950.…”

Section: Quantitative Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This encompasses teaching students the various stages of a science investigation and alerting students to the fact that significant learning can be derived from errors (Metcalfe, 2017). Dealing with students' errors also helps in fostering self-regulatory learning and reflexivity (Tulis et al, 2016), important traits in the practice of science.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper-Secondary School Students’ Approaches to Science Experiments in an Examination Driven Curriculum Context

Chirikure

2020

JBSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explored upper-secondary school students’ approaches when they engage in planning and conducting science experiments. Approaches to science experiments are important because they provide insight into students’ scientific reasoning and their enactment of scientific methods. An explanatory mixed-methods design was employed to determine and explain students’ approaches to science experiments. Data were generated by administering a 15-item Approaches to Science Experiments Questionnaire (ASEQ) on 211 participants and interviewing a smaller sample of 33. The linear approach was predominant while the divergent approach was least adopted by the participants. The teaching-learning context, substantive and procedural knowledge lead to specific approaches and the emergence of subcategories of the three broad approaches. Capable students engaged in a self-directed iterative approach while external help resulted in an assisted iterative approach. Rigid and contrived linear approaches were a result of time constraints, substantive and procedural shortcomings. Scattergun and blanking divergent approaches emerged from extreme weaknesses in substantive and procedural knowledge. Assessing practical skills through long-term projects is recommended to focus more on developing students’ scientific reasoning and process skills. Research with the ASEQ in other teaching-learning cultures, observing students in action and analysing their write-ups could provide deeper insights into approaches to science experiments. Keywords: science experiments, divergent approach, iterative approach, linear approach, mixed methods.

show abstract

“…These videos integrated with in-class mathematical curricula to create an experiential learning opportunity to improve mistake detection, explanation, and correction-empowering students to become mistake detectives. Involving learners in active mistake detection has the potential to encourage persistence and incremental improvement upon mathematical problem solving (e.g., Tulis, Steuer, & Dresel, 2016). As detailed in this design case, our decisions reflect the specific context and experiences of the first author, and were shaped by our interest in designing a mistake detection intervention that incorporated recommendations from the research literature on implicit theories of intelligence (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski & Dweck, 2007) into its delivery and content.…”

Section: Videos and Math Mistakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mistake Detection Videos to Improve Students’ Motivation in Math

Luna-Lucero

Elmore

2017

IJDL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes the design case of an instructional experience incorporating videos of mistakes for students to practice mistake detection and recovery skills. Learning from mistakes is often encouraged, but students may need practical support to address them effectively. The intention of this design is to facilitate adaptive cognitive and emotional responses to handling mistakes. This article documents two distinct but related formats of a mistake recovery design: a personal video recording and pre-recorded videos featuring fourth grade mathematics. These two formats evolved from personal experiences to become a classroom intervention. We trace this design process including the context, theory, and implementation experiences that shaped the design and discuss unforeseen obstacles and design alterations that arose during this process.

show abstract

Learning from errors: A model of individual processes

Abstract: Abstract

Cited by 76 publications

References 69 publications

FAIL Is Not a Four-Letter Word: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Approaches to Academic Challenge and Responses to Failure in STEM Learning Environments

FAIL Is Not a Four-Letter Word: A Theoretical Framework for Exploring Undergraduate Students’ Approaches to Academic Challenge and Responses to Failure in STEM Learning Environments

Upper-Secondary School Students’ Approaches to Science Experiments in an Examination Driven Curriculum Context

Mistake Detection Videos to Improve Students’ Motivation in Math

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About