Erroneous examples: effects on learning fractions in a web-based setting

Abstract

Learning from errors can be a key 21st century competence, especially for informal learning where such metacognitive skills are a prerequisite. We investigate whether, how and when web-based interactive erroneous examples promote such competence, and increase understanding of fractions and learning outcomes. Erroneous examples present students with common errors or misconceptions. Three studies were conducted with students of different grade levels. We compared the cognitive, metacognitive, conceptual, and transfer learning outcomes of three conditions: a control condition (problem solving), a condition that learned with erroneous examples without help, and a condition that learned with erroneous examples with error detection and correction support. Our results indicate significant metacognitive learning gains of erroneous examples with help for 6th-graders. They also show cognitive and conceptual learning gains for 9th and 10th-graders when additional help is provided. No effects were found for 7th-graders. We discuss the implications of our findings for instructional design. D. Tsovaltzi et al.

Promoting Argumentation Competence: Extending from First- to Second-Order Scaffolding Through Adaptive Fading

“…Fading instructional support relies on the position that, when the learner is able to carry out the required action, the support should be gradually reduced until it is no longer needed (see Van Merriënboer and Kirschner 2013). Fading is not restricted to one specific pedagogy and has been studied, for example, with regard to collaborative learning (Bouyias and Demetriadis 2012;Tsovaltzi et al 2012;Fischer 2011), inquiry learning (McNeill et al 2006), learning for conceptual change (Biemans and Simons 1996), and worked examples (Renkl and Atkinson 2003;Van Gog and Rummel 2010). Although scientific evidence demonstrates effectiveness of fading for learning in some studies (e.g., Renkl et al 2004;Tsovaltzi et al 2010), results that are mixed (e.g., Leutner 2000;McNeill et al 2006) and even disappointing (e.g., Bouyias and Demetriadis 2012;Wecker et al 2010) are reported as well.…”

Deliberate System-Side Errors as a Potential Pedagogic Strategy for Exploratory Virtual Learning Environments

“…As other authors have already acknowledged [2,3], a long list of foundational questions remain to be resolved before any system could be designed that employs deliberate errors and/or facilitates discrepancy detection in a truly adaptive way. Although the current research provides a framework in which to better understand the nature of such errors, further research is needed to address general questions regarding when and how often to deliberately introduce system-side errors, and whether or not they are equally appropriate for all types of learners or all levels of domain proficiency.…”

“…[2,3]), but arguably draws on the same underlying metacognitive processes of model-comparison and discrepancy detection. Presenting learners with deliberate errors may be a more widely applicable strategy than it initially appears.…”

“…While the system's 1 domain knowledge must exceed the learner's in order to scaffold his/her progress, there is an important difference between an infallible system and one that overall knows more, but makes occasional errors (as would a human teacher). If there are mistakes 2 , they are generally presented as a deliberate teaching device, such as inviting learners to identify incorrect steps in worked mathematics examples [2,3]. Occasional system-side errors that are not explicitly announced as problem-solving tasks may provide an opportunity for the learner to engage in metacognition, articulating his or her knowledge in order to address them.…”

Deliberate discrepancies as a design strategy for motivating social communication in virtual environments for young children with autism

“…There is already a small body of existing work on adaptive systems for older, TD children that has begun to explore the use of erroneous worked examples to support metacognition and content learning (e.g. [14]) during explicit problem-solving. In those contexts and in the present one, many general questions remain unanswered regarding when and how often to use discrepancy, and whether or not this strategy is equally appropriate for all learners.…”