To Err Is Human, to Explain and Correct Is Divine: A Study of Interactive Erroneous Examples with Middle School Math Students

  • Bruce M. McLaren
  • Deanne Adams
  • Kelley Durkin
  • George Goguadze
  • Richard E. Mayer
  • Bethany Rittle-Johnson
  • Sergey Sosnovsky
  • Seiji Isotani
  • Martin van Velsen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7563)

Abstract

Erroneous examples are an instructional technique that hold promise to help children learn. In the study reported in this paper, sixth and seventh grade math students were presented with erroneous examples of decimal problems and were asked to explain and correct those examples. The problems were presented as interactive exercises on the Internet, with feedback provided on correctness of the student explanations and corrections. A second (control) group of students were given problems to solve, also with feedback on correctness. With over 100 students per condition, an erroneous example effect was found: students who worked with the interactive erroneous examples did significantly better than the problem solving students on a delayed posttest. While this finding is highly encouraging, our ultimate research question is this: how can erroneous examples be adaptively presented to students, targeted at their most deeply held misconceptions, to best leverage their effectiveness? This paper discusses how the results of the present study will lead us to an adaptive version of the erroneous examples material.

Keywords

erroneous examples interactive problem solving adaptation of problems self-explanation decimals mathematics education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D.: In-service mathematics teachers’ views of errors in the classroom. In: International Symposium: Elementary Mathematics Teaching, Prague (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Skinner, B.F.: The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century, New York (1938)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borasi, R.: Reconceiving Mathematics Instruction: A Focus on Errors. Ablex Publishing Corporation (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Catrambone, R.: The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1998 127(4), 355–376 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLaren, B.M., Lim, S., Koedinger, K.R.: When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2176–2181. Cog. Sci. Society, Austin (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Renkl, A., Atkinson, R.K.: Learning from worked-out examples and problem solving. In: Plass, J.L., Moreno, R., Brünken, R. (eds.) Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sweller, J., Cooper, G.A.: The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction 2, 59–89 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu, X., Simon, H.A.: Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction 4(3), 137–166 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roy, M., Chi, M.T.H.: The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer, R.E. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp. 271–286. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.G.W.C.: Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10, 251–296 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leelawong, K., Biswas, G.: Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s Brain system. Int’l Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 18(3), 181–208 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siegler, R.S.: How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology 28, 225–273 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosse, C.S., Renkl, A.: Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction 17(6), 612–634 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tsovaltzi, D., Melis, E., McLaren, B.M., Meyer, A.-K., Dietrich, M., Goguadze, G.: Learning from Erroneous Examples: When and How Do Students Benefit from Them? In: Wolpers, M., Kirschner, P.A., Scheffel, M., Lindstaedt, S., Dimitrova, V. (eds.) EC-TEL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6383, pp. 357–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Isotani, S., Adams, D., Mayer, R.E., Durkin, K., Rittle-Johnson, B., McLaren, B.M.: Can Erroneous Examples Help Middle-School Students Learn Decimals? In: Kloos, C.D., Gillet, D., Crespo García, R.M., Wild, F., Wolpers, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2011. LNCS, vol. 6964, pp. 181–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Irwin, K.C.: Using everyday knowledge of decimals to enhance understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 32(4), 399–420 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Resnick, L.B., Nesher, P., Leonard, F., Magone, M., Omanson, S., Peled, I.: Conceptual bases of arithmetic errors: The case of decimal fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 20(1), 8–27 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sackur-Grisvard, C., Léonard, F.: Intermediate cognitive organizations in the process of learning a mathematical concept: The order of positive decimal numbers. Cognition and Instruction 2, 157–174 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Putt, I.J.: Preservice teachers ordering of decimal numbers: When more is smaller and less is larger! Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 17(3), 1–15 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stacey, K., Helme, S., Steinle, V., Baturo, A., Irwin, K., Bana, J.: Preservice teachers’ knowledge of difficulties in decimal numeration. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 4, 205–225 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aleven, V., McLaren, B.M., Sewall, J., Koedinger, K.R.: A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 19(2), 105–154 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt, R.A., Bjork, R.A.: New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psych. Sci. 3(4), 207–217 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goguadze, G., Sosnovsky, S., Isotani, S., McLaren, B.M.: Evaluating a bayesian student model of decimal misconceptions. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2011), pp. 301–306 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stacey, K., Sonenberg, E., Nicholson, A., Boneh, T., Steinle, V.: A Teacher Model Exploiting Cognitive Conflict Driven by a Bayesian Network. In: Brusilovsky, P., Corbett, A.T., de Rosis, F. (eds.) UM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2702, pp. 352–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce M. McLaren
    • 1
    • 2
  • Deanne Adams
    • 3
  • Kelley Durkin
    • 4
  • George Goguadze
    • 2
  • Richard E. Mayer
    • 3
  • Bethany Rittle-Johnson
    • 4
  • Sergey Sosnovsky
    • 2
  • Seiji Isotani
    • 5
  • Martin van Velsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityU.S.A.
  2. 2.The Center for e-Learning Technology (CeLTech)Saarland UniversityGermany
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraU.S.A.
  4. 4.Vanderbilt UniversityU.S.A.
  5. 5.The University of São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations