Reflecting on Learning from Errors in School Instruction: Findings and Suggestions from a Swiss-German Video Study

  • Inger Marie Dalehefte
  • Tina Seidel
  • Manfred Prenzel
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 6)

Abstract

Errors play an important role in instructional settings in school and are thus very important for learning and comprehension processes. Teachers have to account for the learning processes of their students and are responsible for providing a cognitively stimulating and motivating learning environment. Thereby, mistakes and errors can be treated in a more or less sensible and useful way. In order to learn from errors, classroom conditions must exist which allow for students’ trial and error behavior and which accept that errors and mistakes may occur. Some studies indicate that how teachers handle mistakes, as well as students’ actual opportunities to learn from errors in school instruction, may vary from culture to culture. Two important prerequisites for errors to “enter the stage” are (1) the intention of fostering a learning-oriented approach towards errors, and (2) creating a supportive social climate (Spychiger, Journal für Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 3:31–38, 2003). This chapter presents findings from a video study in physics instruction conducted in Germany and the German-speaking parts of Switzerland. One major aim of the study was to investigate the role of classroom conditions which are important for errors to occur in instruction, as well as the extent to which students perceive a climate which fosters a learning-oriented culture with respect to errors and mistakes. Both video analyses and students’ questionnaires were used for this purpose and to identify distinctions between the two countries. The video analyses indicate some country-specific distinctions. The students’ ratings show that the Swiss students perceive their opportunities to learn from errors more intensively than their German colleagues. The findings corroborate the assumption of a better learning climate towards errors and mistakes in Swiss instruction.

Keywords

Physic Instruction Classroom Climate Student Questionnaire German Student Video Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of the chapter wish to express their gratitude to Peter Labudde, Birte Knierim and Bernhard Gerber from the Swiss project “Teaching and Learning cultures in physics instruction” and the co-researchers of the IPN-Video Study Maja Brückmann, Reinders Duit, Constanze Herweg, Mareike Kobarg, Lena Meyer, Rolf Rimmele, Ilka Schulmeiß, Katharina Schwindt, Maike Tesch, Marieke Pilz, Claudia Overath and other members of the staff for their support. The German project “Teaching and learning processes in physics instruction – a video study” was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the framework of the BIQUA Priority Program on the quality of schooling, and the Swiss project “Teaching and learning cultures in physics instruction– a video study” by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF).

References

  1. Beaton, A., Martin, M., Mullis, I. V., Gonzalez, E., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.Google Scholar
  2. BLK. (1997). Gutachten zur Vorbereitung des Programms “Steigerung der Effizienz des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts”. Bonn, Germany: Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung.Google Scholar
  3. Bogard Givvin, K., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Comparative Education Review, 49, 311–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dalehefte, I. M., Rimmele, R., Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., Labudde, P., & Herweg, C. (2009). Observing instruction “next-door”. A video study about science teaching and learning in Germany and Switzerland. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 83–102). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  5. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Perspectives on motivation (pp. S. 237–S. 288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Büchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hascher, T. (2005). Emotionen im Schulalltag: Wirkungen und Regulationsformen [Emotions in everyday school-life: Effects and regulation forms]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 51, 610–625.Google Scholar
  8. Heinze, A. (2004). Umgang mit Fehlern im Geometrieunterricht der Sekundarstufe I – Methode und Ergebnisse einer Videostudie. Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 25, 221–245.Google Scholar
  9. Heinze, A. (2006). Umgang mit Fehlern im Mathematikunterricht – Empirische Ergebnisse zur Schülerwahrnehmung. In Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 251–254). Hildesheim, Germany: Franzbecker.Google Scholar
  10. Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität und mathematisches Verständnis im internationalen Vergleich – Ein Forschungsprojekt und erste Schritte zur Realisierung [An international comparative study of instructional quality and the first steps in its realisation]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31, 194–205.Google Scholar
  11. Labudde, P. (1999). Reaktionen auf TIMSS in der Schweiz. Unterricht Physik, 10, 46–48.Google Scholar
  12. Labudde, P. (2002). Lehr-Lern-Kultur im Physikunterricht: eine Videostudie [Teaching and learning culture in physics instruction: A video study]. SNF Project Proposal. Bern, Switzerland: University of Bern/CH.Google Scholar
  13. Labudde, P. (2003). Fächer übergreifender Unterricht in und mit Physik: eine zuwenig genutzte Chance. Physik und Didaktik in Schule und Hochschule, 1(2), 48–66.Google Scholar
  14. Laukenmann, M., & von Rhöneck, C. (2003). The influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. In P. Mayring & C. von Rhöneck (Eds.), Learning emotions. The influence of affective factors on classroom learning (pp. 67–80). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Meyer, L., Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Wenn Lernsituationen zu Leistungssituationen werden: Untersuchung zur Fehlerkultur in einer Videostudie. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 28, 21–41.Google Scholar
  16. OECD. (2000). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  17. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world – First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Oser, F. (2007). Aus Fehlern lernen [Learning from errors]. In M. Göhlich, C. Wulf, & J. Zirfas (Eds.), Pädagogische Theorien des Lernens [Pedagogical theories of learning] (pp. 203–212). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
  19. Oser, F., Hascher, T., & Spychiger, M. (1999). Lernen aus Fehlern. Zur Psychologie des “negativen” Wissens. In W. Althof (Ed.), Fehlerwelten. Vom Fehlermachen und Lernen aus Fehlern (pp. 11–41). Fribourg, Switzerland: Leske  +  Budrich.Google Scholar
  20. Oser, F., & Spychiger, M. (2005). Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Zur Theorie des Negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
  21. Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., & Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics instruction – The SINUS project as an example for reform as teacher development. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pekrun, R. (1992). Kognition und Emotion in Studienbezogenen Lern- und Leistungssituationen: Explorative Analysen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 20, 308–324.Google Scholar
  23. Prenzel, M., Euler, M., Duit, R., & Lehrke, M. (1999). Lehr-Lern-Prozesse im Physikunterricht: Eine Videostudie Teaching and learning processes in physics instruction: A video study DFG Project Proposal. Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  24. Rimmele, R., Seidel, T., Knierim, B., Kobarg, M., Dalehefte, I. M., Schwindt, K., et al. (2005). Scale documentation – Student questionnaire. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study (Technical report of the IPN Video Study) (pp. 224–281). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  25. Santagata, R. (2004). “Are you joking or are you sleeping”. Cultural beliefs and practices in Italian and U.S. teachers’ mistake-handling strategies. Linguistics and Education, 15, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santagata, R. (2005). Practice and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schulmeiß, I. (2004). Vermischung von Lern- und Leistungssituationen und ihre Bedeutung für die Qualität der Lernmotivation – eine Videostudie im Physikunterricht. Unpublished diploma thesis, IPN/Institut für Psychologie, Kiel.Google Scholar
  28. Schulmeiß, I., Seidel, T., & Meyer, L. (2005). Coding manual – Blending of learning and achievement situations. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study (Technical report of the IPN Video Study) (pp. 165–171). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  29. Seidel, T. (2011). Lehrerhandeln im Unterricht. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (pp. 605–629). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  30. Seidel, T., Dalehefte, I. M., Meyer, L. (2005). Standardized guidelines – How to collect videotapes. In T. Seidel, M. Prenzel, & M. Kobarg (Eds.), How to run a video study (Technical report of the IPN Video Study) (pp. 29–53). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  31. Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2003). Mit Fehlern umgehen – Zum Lernen motivieren. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften – Physik in der Schule, 52, 30–34.Google Scholar
  32. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Herweg, C., Kobarg, M., Schwindt, K., et al. (2007). Science teaching and learning in German physics classrooms. Findings from the IPN Video Study. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools (pp. 79–99). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  33. Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Schwindt, K., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., & Kobarg, M. (2009). LUV and observe: Two projects using video to diagnose teachers’ competence. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 243–258). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  34. Spychiger, M., Oser, F., Mahler, F., & Hascher, T. (1998). Fehlerkultur aus der Sicht von Schülerinnen und Schülern. Der Fehlerfragebogen S-UFS: Entwicklung und erste Ergebnisse. Schriftenreihe zum Projekt “Lernen Menschen aus Fehlern?”, Nr. 4. Departement Erziehungswissenschaften der Universität Freiburg (CH).Google Scholar
  35. Spychiger, M. (2003). Fehler als Fenster auf den Lernprozess. Zur Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Praxisausbildung. Journal für Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 3, 31–38.Google Scholar
  36. Spychiger, M., Oser, F., Hascher, T., & Mahler, F. (1999). Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Schule. In W. Althof (Ed.), Fehlerwelten (pp. 43–69). Bonn, Germany: Leske  +  Budrich.Google Scholar
  37. Stadler, M. (2009). Aus Fehlern lernen. In M. Prenzel, A. Friedrichs, & M. Stadler (Eds.), Von SINUS lernen – Wie Unterrichtsentwicklung gelingt (pp. 27–30). Seelze-Velber, Germany: Kallmeyer Klett Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eight-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan and the United States. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  39. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Weinert, F., Schrader, F.-W., & Helmke, A. (1989). Quality of instruction and achievement outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 895–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wuttke, E., Seifried, J., & Mindnich, A. (2008). Umgang mit Fehlern und Ungewissheit im Unterricht – Entwicklung eines Beobachtungsinstruments und erste empirische Befunde. In M. Gläser-Zikuda & J. Seifried (Eds.), Lehrerexpertise. Analyse und Bedeutung unterrichtlichen Handelns (pp. 91–111). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht  2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inger Marie Dalehefte
    • 1
  • Tina Seidel
    • 2
  • Manfred Prenzel
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN)Christian Albrechts UniversityKielGermany
  2. 2.TUM School of EducationMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations