Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
h i g h l i g h t s
< Observational data and questionnaires are combined to investigate error climate.
< Classroom routines are dominated by adaptive error management behavior.
< Only few interactions include emphasizing mistakes as learning opportunities.
< More maladaptive patterns of mistake-handling activities in mathematics were found.
< Teachers dealing with errors inuences students error attitudes and emotions.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 24 May 2012
Received in revised form
1 February 2013
Accepted 7 February 2013
Only a few studies have focused on how teachers deal with mistakes in actual classroom settings.
Teachers error management behavior was analyzed based on data obtained from direct (Study 1) and
videotaped systematic observation (Study 2), and students self-reports. In Study 3 associations between
students and teachers attitudes towards mistakes and their impact on students domain specic
emotions were investigated. Together, the presented studies contribute to the understanding of the
interplay between teachers everyday instructional routines surrounding mistakes and students beliefs
about (learning from) errors. The ndings also emphasize the relevance of how students perceive their
teachers attitudes towards mistakes.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Mistakes
Error management culture
Error climate
Observation
Teacherestudent interaction
Emotions
1. Introduction
Making mistakes and overcoming failure are natural elements of
learning processes for all students. A knowledge-based, cognitiveconstructivist perspective on learning and instruction presupposes
adaptive ways of dealing with errors and learning from mistakes
(cf. Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992; Reusser, 2000). If learning is
considered as an active process that requires practice for both
procedural as well as conceptual learning, classroom learning environments should encourage students to explore and discuss their
(mis-)conceptions. However, little is known about adaptive classroom practices for dealing with errors and the reciprocal effects of
students and teachers attitudes towards learning from mistakes.
57
58
Osers Bermuda triangle of error correction, with teachers redirecting an incorrectly answered question to another student, was
identied as one of the most common strategies of U.S. teachers.
This response pattern was observed more than 30% of the time.
Overall, the reviewed ndings of Hiebert et al. (2003), Santagata
(2005), and Stigler et al. (1999) indicate four types of teachers error
management behavior (in mathematics): ignoring the error,
directly solving the error, returning the correction to the student
who made the mistake, and redirecting the question to another
student. In these studies, ignoring the error was rarely observed.
Although a large body of literature supports the usefulness of
studying the domain specicity of motivational orientations and
attitudes (e.g., Bong, 2001), few studies have focused on domains
other than mathematics. In one study, Mindnich, Wuttke, and
Seifried (2008) analyzed video-based observational data from 15
German economics lessons held by three teachers. They identied
85 error management situations. In contrast to mathematics lessons, teachers ignored students mistakes or failed to pick up the
learning opportunity in 40% of these situations. Observational
ndings reported by Oser and Spychiger (2005) also suggest
domain specic differences with regards to both the frequencies of
student errors and teachers error management behaviors. In history classes, error-correction and learning from errors was less
pronounced than in math classes, although maladaptive responses
were observed infrequently in both domains. These ndings suggest that teachers attitudes and their responses to mistakes may
differ between domains. Study 1 aimed to provide further understandings of domain-related differences in teachers (mal-)
adaptive error management activities.
2. Study 1
2.1. Aim and research questions
In order to gain insight into teachers error management practices, systematic classroom observations were conducted. For this
purpose, a self-developed coding scheme was used by independent
observers (pairs of undergraduate pre-service teachers) during
real-time naturalistic/direct observations in regular everyday classes. Coding was based on an observation training protocol and
inter-coder reliability was tested (Cohens Kappa). The main goals
of Study 1 were to: (a) describe teachers error management
behavior in everyday classrooms, and (b) explore differences between three subjects: mathematics, German, and economics.
2.2. Method
59
Table 1
Categories of teacher responses, absolute frequencies and proportions (Study 1).
Maladaptive
Adaptive
fo
Category/Type of response
Denition/Examples
[1]
Ignoring mistake
The teacher ignores the mistake, switches without any comment to another topic
30
4.0
[2]
Criticizing student
39
5.3
[3]
Redirecting the question to another student
The teacher picks another student to correct the mistake made by the rst student
(Bermuda triangle of error correction)
109
14.7
[4]
Humiliating/laughing
The teacher laughs, makes jokes of the students answer, humiliates the student
28
3.8
[5]
Disappointment/Hopelessness
33
4.5
[6]
Correction by the teacher
The teacher states the correct answer e the error is directly solved by the teacher
117
15.8
[7]
Discussion with whole class
The teacher starts a discussion with the whole class, asking the whole class for
(different) solutions
105
14.2
[8]
Correction by the student
The teacher repeats the question and/or gives a hint to the student in order
to get the correct answer
(error correction is returned to the student who made the mistake)
160
21.6
[9]
Waiting
The teacher waits at least 5 s without reformulating the question or giving a hint
72
9.7
[10]
Emphasizing the learning potential
The teacher praises the students thought or approach, highlights positively the
students active contribution, emphasizes the learning potential of the mistake
26
3.5
[11]
Impeding negative reactions from class
The teacher stops negative reactions from classmates (e.g. laughing) and turbulences
22
3.0
Notes. fo: absolute frequencies for each category. %: proportions for each category (S 100%).
60
2.3. Results
2.3.1. Preliminary analysis and reliability
Inter-coder reliability (Cohens Kappa) was calculated for each
pair of observers. Greve and Wentura (1997) report K .75 as good
to excellent, and Landis and Koch (1977) suggest K .80 as almost
perfect agreement and .60 < K < .80 as substantial agreement. Based
on these cut-off values, three observations were omitted because
they did not meet the criteria. For the remaining 45 lessons, all
Kappa-values (.78 < K < 1.00) as well as the percentage of direct
observer consistency (Min 97.3%; Max 100%) were satisfactory.
In all three school subjects (mathematics, German, economics),
instruction was mainly focused on class work (87%). Individual
seatwork (5%) and group work (8%) were observed infrequently and
only in a few classrooms. A total of 741 teacher responses to students mistakes were identied. Frequencies and percentages of
occurrence per lesson were calculated for each category of the
coding scheme and then averaged across lessons. Table 1 shows the
absolute frequencies and proportions of all coded responses to
students mistakes. In general, once a mistake had occurred, teachers most often encouraged their student(s) to correct the mistake by
giving a hint or reformulating the question [category 8] or correcting
the mistake by themselves [category 6]. Also occurring quite often, a
wrong answer triggered a discussion with the whole class [category
7] or the task of correcting was given to another student, i.e. the
phenomenon called Bermuda triangle of error correction [category 3]. In some situations, the teacher gave the student more time
to think about the correct answer without any additional feedback
[category 9]. Maladaptive responses, such as ignoring mistakes
[category 1], criticizing the student [category 2] or humiliating reactions [categories 4 and 5] were coded very infrequently. However,
teachers who positively highlighted the students active contribution or emphasizing the learning potential of the students mistake
[category 10] were observed even less often. Negative reactions of
classmates rarely occurred, which is in line with previous observational ndings (Meyer et al., 2006). Hence, interventions by the
teacher [category 11] were rarely observed.
61
Table 2
Sample of Study 2.
Teacher
Grade/class
N students
N lessons
7A
7B
8
30
30
29
1
1
1
9A
9B
27
27
1
2
10 A
10 B
17
16
2
1
176
(d) Does redirecting the question to another student have maladaptive effects on students subsequent affect?
It was hypothesized that the phenomenon Bermuda triangle of
error correction would trigger observable negative affect in the
student who made the mistake.
3.2. Method
3.2.1. Sample and procedure
Three teachers from a suburban secondary school1 in Bavaria
volunteered for Study 2. They were informed that everyday
instructional practices were the focus of the study. In total, seven
economics classes from grade 7 to grade 10 were observed; class
sizes ranged from 17 up to 30 students (for a detailed description
see Table 2). Nine economics lessons (45 min each) were videotaped. All video data was coded by two trained observers to identify
teachers error management behavior. In a second analyzing procedure, students affective responses to their teachers error management behavior were coded. In this second observation process,
only those students that were addressed by the teachers response
following the error were coded.
3.2.2. Coding scheme
The coding scheme from Study 1 was used. Five categories for
students affective states were also added, coded as positive (the
students verbal or non-verbal reaction is characterized by a clearly
positive affective state, such as enjoyment, pride, interest or satisfaction), negative (the students verbal or non-verbal reaction is
characterized by a clearly negative affective state, such as shame,
anger, or uncertainty), neutral (no observable reaction), ambiguous and not observable (e.g., the students face could not be
seen or the students verbal response could not be heard).
3.2.3. Error climate questionnaire
In all classes, students perceived error climate was assessed
with a questionnaire comprised of two subscales from the Error
Orientation Questionnaire (Rybowiak et al., 1999) and four scales
from the Error Culture Questionnaire (Spychiger et al., 2006). In
total, 36 items were rated using a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The following six subdimensions of error climate were measured (sample items and
internal consistencies are presented in Table 3): 1) error communication, which assessed students communication and openness
for discussion of errors and misconceptions with their classmates
(three items; Rybowiak et al., 1999); 2) covering up errors, which
measured students desire to avoid and hide mistakes (ve items;
62
Table 3
Sample items, descriptive statistics and internal consistencies.
Scale
Sample items
SD
Error communication
Covering up errors
Error tolerance by the teacher
3.15
2.02
3.17
.58
.66
.50
.68
.78
.73
1.85
.64
.73
3.03
.53
.80
2.81
.52
.73
35
30
25
15
10
(1)
(2)
(3)
Error communication
Covering up error
e.12
Error tolerance by the teacher
.21** e.43**
Error strain/Fear of mistakes
e.08
.31** e.21**
Rule clarity
.09
e.51**
.55**
Students attitudes towards errors
.20** e.46**
.55**
%
40
20
Table 4
Bivariate correlations.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(4)
(5)
5
0
[1]
e.49**
e.07
.40**
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
63
Table 5
Proportions of different responses by teacher.
Maladaptive responses (%)
Teacher
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
A
B
C
2.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
9.9
1.5
27.4
33.1
41.2
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.4
13.3
16.6
5.1
10.3
11.9
23.6
5.2
12.1
8.3
7.1
14.2
14.2
12.4
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100%
100%
100%
64
Table 6
Comparison of classes with high- and low error climate.
Dimensions
Self-reports
M (SD)
3.07 (0.64)
3.41 (0.40)
1.84 (0.62)
3.20 (0.75)
1.82 (0.61)
3.12 (0.55)
M (SD)
2.63 (0.53)
3.03 (0.67)
2.57 (0.71)
3.27 (0.57)
1.82 (0.55)
3.03 (0.60)
Observations
[1]
Ignoring mistake
[2]
Criticizing student
[3]
Other student/redirecting question
[4]
Humiliating/laughing
[5]
Disappointment/hopelessness
[6]
Correction by the teacher
[7]
Discussion with whole class
[8]
Correction by the student
[9]
Waiting
[10]
Emphasizing the learning potential
[11]
Impeding negative reactions from classmates
% Observed
4
% Observed
0
25
36
25
10
20
10
10
16
16
10
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
0%
positive
20%
negative
40%
60%
80%
100%
climate class than in the low error climate class, and observational results point to its negative affective consequences. Proles
of error response patterns suggest differences between and within
teachers. Similar to Meyer et al. (2006), maladaptive reactions of
the classmates did not occur in these observations.
t(55)
2.828
2.349
4.142
0.449
0.048
0.628
p
.007
.023
.000
.656
.962
.533
4. Study 3
4.1. Aim and hypotheses
The focus of Study 3 was to analyze the impact of perceived
error management behavior on students own attitudes towards
learning from mistakes, as well as associations with students more
2
Eleven classes from Hauptschule, which is the school type with the lowest
academic demands in the German school system and 14 classes of Gymnasium
(with the highest teaching level and academic demands) were involved. It should
be noted that in the Bavarian school system, students meet with a new teacher after
transitioning from grade 4 to grade 5.
65
Table 7
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students attitude towards error at time
2.
Predictor
Model 1
Model 2
SE
SE
0.59
0.046
.50***
0.56
0.047
.47***
0.15
0.056
.11**
R2/DR2
.25/.25***
.26/.01**
Notes. Dependent variable is students attitude towards errors (time 2), ***p < .001;
**p < .01.
Table 8
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students anxiety at time 2.
Model 1
Model 2
SE
SE
Anxiety (time 1)
Students attitude towards
errors (time 1)
0.61
0.033
.64***
0.60
0.12
0.033
0.053
.63***
.08*
R2/DR2
.40/.40***
.41/.01*
66
Table 9
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students anger at time 2.
Model 1
Table 11
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students enjoyment at time 2.
Model 2
Model 1
SE
SE
Anger (time 1)
Students attitude towards
errors (time 1)
0.65
0.036
.63***
0.61
.30
0.037
0.062
.58***
.17***
R2/DR2
.39/.39***
.42/.03***
Model 2
SE
SE
Enjoyment (time 1)
Students attitude towards
errors (time 1)
0.69
0.035
.65***
0.62
0.27
0.040
0.076
.58***
.13***
R2/DR2
.42/.42***
.43/.01***
than in the other two domains, suggesting domain specic differences. One explanation might be that errors may be more salient in
math classrooms because solutions are either correct or incorrect.
Incorrect solutions may be more negatively evaluated in mathematics than in other subjects because of this either correct or
incorrect view. It has been shown that teachers instructional
practices are related to their beliefs about their subject (e.g., Staub &
Stern, 2002). Another explanation may be that math teachers are
more likely to follow an error prevention approach to avoid the
recall of erroneous or misleading information (cf. Ayers & Reder,
1998). Further replication of domain specic differences in teachers maladaptive error management behavior is required before any
conclusions can be drawn. However, the presented ndings do
suggest that we need to investigate differences in error management behavior between different school subjects. Results of Study 2
emphasize that future studies should also control for context specic (i.e., class specic) differences. Therefore, studies should be
designed to investigate error management behavior and error
climate between different subjects but within the same class and
teacher. It was also found that most of class time was spent on
teacher lecturing and class work discourse. As this instructional
practice is common in many countries (e.g., Hiebert et al., 2003;
Stigler et al., 1999) and teachers error responses are an essential
element of the classroom climate, the coding scheme developed to
measure teachers error management behaviors can be applied in
different countries.
Table 10
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students boredom at time 2.
Model 1
Model 2
SE
SE
Boredom (time 1)
Students attitude towards
errors (time 1)
0.62
0.039
.58***
0.55
0.38
0.039
0.067
.52***
.21***
R2/DR2
.33/.33***
.37/.04***
6. Limitations
The presented ndings are limited in some aspects. First, video
based observational data were not used in Study 1 for economic
and feasibility reasons. Although direct observations demonstrated
good inter-rater reliability, real-time assessments are at risk of
observation bias. Second, as Study 1 did not focus on a special
school subject, different domains were analyzed but no detailed
information about each lesson topic was collected. It could be
argued that the lesson topic (e.g., algebra versus geometry in
mathematics) may affect the type and frequency of students mistakes, which might have an impact on teachers error management
behavior. However, empirical studies point to the likelihood that
teachers everyday error management behavior in classes is not
related to specic topics or the kind of students mistakes
(Santagata, 2005). Third, differences between teachers within the
same domain were not addressed in Study 1. Although this was
considered in Study 2, gender-related differences were not
addressed in any of the current studies. Male or female teachers
may differ in their error management behavior, and teachers responses to male or female students errors might also differ. For
example, studies investigating teachers gender-related beliefs of
students success and failure in mathematics indicate disadvantages for girls (e.g., Tiedemann, 2000). In addition, students perceptions of teachers error management behavior might be
inuenced by individual learner characteristics, such as gender or
achievement level. For example, there is empirical evidence suggesting that low-achieving students perceive their teachers as less
positive than high-achievers (e.g., Ditton, 2002).
Study 2 investigated video-taped lessons of the same school
subject and three lessons of each teacher. However, it is unclear to
what degree these ndings generalize to other domains. Moreover,
as teachers participation was voluntary in Study 2, the sample is
not representative. It can be assumed that the involved teachers are
open-minded to research studies. However, they had to be
convinced before participating in the study (in consideration of
strict data privacy). Therefore, an extraordinary selection effect can
be excluded.
Study 3 provided longitudinal data that emphasized the inuence of perceived error climate on students attitudes towards
learning from errors. However, these correlational ndings
should be corroborated by more controlled, experimental
designs.
7. Implications for practice and future research
Students day-to-day experiences are mainly determined by
the practices commonly used by their teachers. Regarding teachers responses to students mistakes, different e but mainly
adaptive practices e were observed. However, teachers concepts
and beliefs of how to deal with students mistakes should be
examined in future research. It can be assumed that teachers do
not hold explicit conceptualizations of their error attitudes and
respective error management behavior (Santagata, 2005; Van
Dyck et al., 2005). For example, they may follow an error prevention approach instead of viewing errors as learning opportunities. In the current studies, teachers placed little emphasis on
the learning potential of errors. Video-based data could be used
for teacher professional development and interventions (e.g.,
Mason & Scrivani, 2004) to demonstrate different error management practices in classrooms. For example, Heinze and Reiss
(2007) conducted a training program about the productive use
of mistakes in the mathematics classroom for students learning
from mistakes.
Moreover, students should be encouraged to discuss and
communicate their errors and misconceptions. For example,
Spychiger et al. (1998) suggest interventions aiming at the reappraisal of mistakes to highlight the learning opportunities of errors.
Frese and his colleagues also investigated the effects of explicit
error management instructions that emphasized the positive
function of errors (Heimbeck et al., 2003; Keith & Frese, 2005).
Recent research on error training (Bourgeois, 2008; Campbell,
2007) has addressed the mediating effects of emotion control on
learning outcomes. Therefore, investigating students emotions and
their ability to regulate negative emotions after failure is an interesting task for future research (see Tulis & Ainley, 2011).
Finally, concern with students mistakes is an important
element of instructional and teaching competence. Insight into
students individual misconceptions and positive support after errors are necessary for individualized instruction. However, adaptive
error management provided by teachers is one component of
creating and sustaining learning situations that support active and
individualized learning processes (De Corte, 2003; De Corte, Greer,
& Verschaffel, 1996). Students mistakes may serve as guidelines for
teachers to adapt instruction to students knowledge (Stern, 2005).
Identifying the conditions under which students adaptive attitudes
towards errors can be enhanced may help to ensure continued
engagement and deep understanding. Therefore, it is important to
focus on the way teachers deal with mistakes in everyday classrooms as well as students perceptions of their teachers error
management behavior.
67
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Department of Psychology,
University of Bayreuth. I thank all observers for their assistance in
carrying out the studies and I wish to sincerely thank the reviewers
for the comments on the initial submission.
References
Ames, C. (1990). Motivation: what teachers need to know. Teachers College Record,
91, 409e421.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261e271.
Anderson, A., Hamilton, R. J., & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated
behaviour in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211e225.
Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect.
Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 5, 1e21.
Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 149e167.
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation
among middle and high school students: self-efcacy, task-value, and
achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23e34.
Bourgeois, N. T. (2008). Error training: an examination of metacognition, emotion
control, intrinsic motivation, and knowledge as mediators of performance effects. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B, The Sciences and Engineering,
68, 4873.
Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1974). Process-product correlations in the Texas
teacher effectiveness study: Final report (Research Report No. 74e4). Austin:
Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
Campbell, M. (2007). Error management training from a resource allocation
perspective: an investigation of individual differences and the training components that contribute to transfer. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section
B, The Sciences and Engineering, 68, 1970.
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: antecedents and
consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161e177.
Clarke, D. J., Emanuelsson, J., Jablonka, E., & Mok, I. A. C. (2006). Making connections:
Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Clifford, M. M. (1984). Thoughts on a theory of constructive failure. Educational
Psychologist, 19, 108e120.
Clifford, M. M. (1991). Risk Taking: theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26, 263e298.
Clifford, M. M., Kim, A., & McDonald, B. A. (1988). Responses to failure as inuenced
by task attribution, outcome attribution and failure tolerance. Journal of
Experimental Education, 57, 19e37.
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113e163.
De Corte, E. (2003). Designing learning environments that foster the productive use
of acquired knowledge and skills. In E. DeCorte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle &
J. J. G. Merrienboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic
components and dimensions (pp. 21e33). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
De Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning.
In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp.
491e549). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Degen-Hientz, H. (2008). Culture of error management: why admit an error when
no one will nd out?. In Paper presented at the 9th international conference on
product focused software process improvement.
Depaepe, F., DeCorte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). The culture of the mathematics
classroom: a complex determinant of students learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark
(Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments. Theory and research. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series (pp. 89e106). Oxford: Elsevier.
Diener, C., & Dweck, C. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940e952.
Ditton, H. (2002). Lehrkrfte und Unterricht aus Schlersicht [Teachers and instruction from students perspective]. Zeitschrift fr Pdagogik, 48, 262e286.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41, 1040e1048.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350e383.
Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are
there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video study.
Comparative Education Review, 49, 311e342.
Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Hall, N., & Haag, L. (2006). Academic emotions from a socialcognitive perspective: antecedents and domain specicity of students affect
in the context of Latin instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
289e308.
Goldin, G. A., Epstein, Y. M., & Schorr, R. Y. (2007). Affective pathways and structures
in urban students mathematical learning. In D. K. Pugalee, A. Rogerson &
A. Schinck (Eds.), Mathematics education in a global community: Proceedings of
the 9th international conference of the mathematics education into the 21st
68
century project (pp. 260e264). Charlotte, NC: Center for Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education.
Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: co-examining
the role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 53e60.
Greve, W., & Wentura, D. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung. Eine Einfhrung
[Scientic observation. An Introduction]. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Heimbeck, D., Frese, M., Sonnentag, S., & Keith, N. (2003). Integrating errors into the
training process: the function of error management instructions and the role of
goal orientation. Personnel Psychology, 56, 333e362.
Heinze, A. (2005). Mistake-handling activities in German mathematics classroom.
In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the
international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 3 (pp. 105e
112). Melbourne University.
Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2007). Mistake-handling activities in the mathematics
classroom: effects of an in-service teacher training on students performance in
Geometry. In J.-H. Woo, H.-C. Lew, K.-S. Park & D.-Y. Seo (Eds.). Proceedings of the
31st conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education, Vol. 3 (pp. 9e16). Seoul: PME.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In
D. A. Grows (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.
New York: Macmillan.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin Bogard, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J.,
et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries e Results from the TIMSS
1999 video study. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009).
Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics
lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19, 66e78.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2005). Self-regulation in error management training: emotion
control and metacognition as mediators of performance effects. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 677e691.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159e174.
LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., Goesling, B., & Wiseman, A. (2001). Teachers
work: institutional isomorphism and cultural variation in the U.S., Germany,
and Japan. Educational Researcher, 30, 3e15.
Li, Y., & Shimizu, Y. (2009). Exemplary mathematics instruction and its development
in selected education systems in East Asia. ZDM International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 41, 257e262.
Malmivuori, M. (2006). Affect and self-regulation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63, 149e164.
Mason, L., & Scrivani, L. (2004). Enhancing students mathematical beliefs: an
intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 14, 153e176.
Meyer, L., Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Wenn Lernsituationen zu Leistungssituationen werden: Untersuchung zur Fehlerkultur in einer Videostudie [If learning situations turn into performance situations: analyzing
error culture in a video-study]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fr Bildungswissenschaften, 28, 21e41.
Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to
learn in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 377e390.
Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. A. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics:
ndings, generalizations, and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 30, 65e88.
Mindnich, A., Wuttke, E., & Seifried, J. (2008). Aus Fehlern wird man klug? Eine
Pilotstudie zur Typisierung von Fehlern und Fehlersituationen [Getting smart
by learning from errors? A pilot-study classifying errors and error situations]. In
E. Lankes (Hrsg.) Pdagogische Professionalitt als Gegenstand empirischer Forschung (pp. 153e164), Muenster: Waxmann.
Minnameier, G. (2006). Learning is painful e on the theory of negative knowledge
and a practice and error culture. Book review. Journal of Moral Education, 35,
410e413.
Osborn, M., & Planel, C. (1999). Comparing childrens learning: attitude and performance in French and English primary schools. In R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot &
D. Phillips (Eds.), Learning from comparing. Contexts, classrooms and outcomes,
Vol. 1. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Oser, F., & Spychiger, M. (2005). Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Zur Theorie des negativen
Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur [Learning is painful. On the theory of
negative knowledge and an error culture]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2003). Instructional scripts in Swiss and German math
classes. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31, 238e272.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students
self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91e106.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5e39). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reusser, K. (2000). Success and failure in school mathematics: effects of instruction and school environment. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 9,
17e26.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in
school: the mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408e422.
Rybowiak, V., Garst, H., Frese, M., & Batinic, B. (1999). Error Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ): reliability, validity, and different language equivalence. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 527e547.
Santagata, R. (2005). Practices and beliefs in mistake-handling activities: a video
study of Italian and US mathematics lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
491e508.
Schleppenbach, M., Flevares, L. M., Sims, L., & Perry, M. (2007). Teacher responses to
student mistakes in Chinese and U.S. mathematics classrooms. Elementary
School Journal, 108, 131e147.
Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction:
ndings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16, 228e240.
Spychiger, M., Kuster, R., & Oser, F. (2006). Dimensionen von Fehlerkultur in der
Schule und ihre Messung. Der Schlerfragebogen zur Fehlerkultur im Unterricht fr Mittel- und Oberstufe [Dimensions of error culture at school and its
measurement]. Revue suisse des sciences de lducation, 28, 87e110.
Spychiger, M., Mahler, F., Hascher, T., & Oser, F. (1998). Fehlerkultur aus der Sicht von
Schlerinnen und Schlern. Der Fragebogen S-UFS: Entwicklung und erste Ergebnisse [Error culture from students perspective. The S-UFS Questionnaire: Development and rst results]. In Schriftenreihe zum Projekt Lernen Menschen aus
Fehlern? Zur Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Schule, Vol. 4. Schweiz:
Pdagogisches Institut der Universitt Freiburg.
Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers pedagogical content
beliefs matters for students achievement gains: quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
344e355.
Stern, E. (2005). Knowledge restructuring as a powerful mechanism of cognitive
development. How to lay an early foundation for conceptual understanding in
formal domains. In P. D. Thomlinson, J. Dockrell & P. Winne (Eds.), Pedagogy
teaching for learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Monograph Series
II (3) (pp. 153e169).
Steuer, G., & Dresel, M. (2011). Dealing with errors in mathematics classrooms: the
relevance of error climate and personal achievement motivation. In Paper
presented at the 91. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in New Orleans, USA.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing
and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York:
Touchstone.
Stigler, W. J., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS
Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and ndings from an exploratory research
project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the
United States. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Stigler, W. J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
Tiedemann, J. (2000). Gender-related beliefs of teachers in elementary school
mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 191e207.
Tulis, M., & Ainley, M. (2011). Interest, enjoyment and pride after failure experiences? Predictors of students state-emotions after success and failure during
learning mathematics. Educational Psychology, 31, 779e807.
Tulis, M., & Riemenschneider, I. (2008). Self-concept, subject value and coping with
failure in the math classroom e inuences on students emotions. International
Journal of Psychology, 43, 163.
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P., & Meyer, D. K. (1998). Students reports of motivation and
negative affect: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 758e771.
Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error
management culture and its impact on performance: a two-study replication.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1128e1240.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548e573.
Wuttke, E., Seifried, J., & Mindnich, A. (2008). Umgang mit Fehlern im Unterricht:
Entwicklung eines Beobachtungsinstruments und erste empirische Befunde
[Dealing with errors in classrooms: development of an observation scheme
and rst empirical results]. In M. Glaeser-Zikuda & J. Seifried (Hrsg.) Lehrerexpertise e Analyse und Bedeutung unterrichtlichen Handelns (pp. 91e111),
Muenster: Waxmann.