2016
DOI: 10.14786/flr.v4i2.168
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning from errors: A model of individual processes

Abstract: Abstract

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
64
0
12

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 69 publications
(94 reference statements)
0
64
0
12
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%
“…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%
“…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%
“…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%