1 s2.0 S0742051X13000255 Main

Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Error management behavior in classrooms: Teachers responses to student

mistakes
Maria Tulis*
Department of Psychology, University of Augsburg, Universittsstr. 10, 86159 Augsburg, Germany
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.
* Tel.: 49 821 598 5610; fax: 49 821 598 5289.

E-mail address: maria.tulis@phil.uni-augsburg.de.
0742-051X/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.003
Research on classroom goal structures (e.g., Gonida, Voulala, &

Kiosseoglou, 2009; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996) has shown
impressively that classroom practices have an impact on students
individual orientations and attitudes. In this sense, it can be
assumed that teachers error management behavior in the classroom is likely to inuence students attitudes towards learning
from mistakes (Steuer & Dresel, 2011). For example, teachers
maladaptive ways of handling students mistakes are likely to increase students fear of failure and may foster maladaptive motivational patterns, such as avoiding academically challenging
courses or experiencing generalized negative emotions in relation
to the school subject (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Goetz, Pekrun, Hall, &
Haag, 2006). Research on organizational error management supports these assumptions (Degen-Hientz, 2008; Van Dyck, Frese,
Baer, & Sonnentag, 2005).
Consequently, teachers need to be sensitive to students errors
and should establish a positive error climate which is constituted
by the quality of everyday classroom experiences within mistake
M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
situations. However, there is little empirical research addressing

how teachers respond to student mistakes in classrooms. Although
everyday classroom situations can be observed systematically,
relatively few studies have focused on observations of teachere
student interactions surrounding mistakes in actual classroom settings (cf. Wuttke, Seifried, & Mindnich, 2008). The following questions remain unanswered: Which mistake-handling activities are
adaptive, which are maladaptive? Are there domain specic differences or similarities between teachers? How does teachers
everyday error management behavior inuence students subsequent attitudes towards errors and domain-related emotions?
The goal of this article is to provide rst answers to these
questions. Therefore, patterns of teachers responses to student
mistakes were observed and combined with students self-reports.
In particular, three studies are presented: Study 1 aimed to identify
teachers error management behavior in regular everyday classrooms in three different domains. The purpose of Study 2 was to
replicate the ndings of Study 1 for one specic domain in which
the most adaptive error management behavior was found. In this
Study, nine videotaped economics lessons were examined and
these observations were combined with students self-reports of
their perceived error climate in the classroom. Finally, the focus of
Study 3 was to analyze the impact of teachers error management
behavior on students own attitudes towards learning from mistakes as well as associations with students more generalized
domain specic emotions.
1.1. Error management culture in the classroom
Classroom settings in which constructivist learning approaches
are utilized allow for open communication about different solutions and, as a result, sharing of error knowledge (i.e., knowledge,
how something does not work and what someone does not know).
As a consequence, students are able to recognize their misconceptions and therefore initiate learning processes. These settings are characterized by a positive error culture (Oser &
Spychiger, 2005; for an English book review see Minnameier,
2006). In contrast, a negative error management culture, which
generally eliminates communication about errors and learning
from mistakes, emerges when students suspect to be negatively
evaluated for their mistakes or when students expect that errors
will be attributed to a lack of skills. For both examples, culture
implies that there is a system of shared norms and values and a set
of common practices (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). The ways in
which teachers handle mistakes may be nationally embedded and
may differ between countries (Li & Shimizu, 2009; Osborn & Planel,
1999; Santagata, 2005; Schleppenbach, Flevares, Sims, & Perry,
2007; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). For
example, U.S. students produce similar mathematical errors and
the same number of errors as Chinese students, but teachers responses differ signicantly (Schleppenbach et al., 2007). U.S.
teachers were more likely to follow errors with statements or immediate corrections, whereas Chinese teachers asked follow-up
questions to prompt student discussion. Similar to these ndings,
Stigler and Hiebert (1999) reported that Japanese teachers
emphasize the positive function of mistakes and encourage their
students to discuss misconceptions.
Whereas a body of empirical research has demonstrated differences on the macro level, i.e., between countries, there is less
research focusing on differences between teachers and between
school domains within the same country. It can be assumed that
the variation of teaching patterns following errors depends on the
individual perception and shared perception of errors in the social
learning environment of the classroom (e.g., Clarke, Emanuelsson,
Jablonka, & Mok, 2006; Givvin, Hiebert, Jacobs, Hollingsworth, &
57
Gallimore, 2005; Le Tendre, Baker, Akiba, Goesling & Wiseman,

2001; Pauli & Reusser, 2003; Seidel & Prenzel, 2006). Theories
and research on classroom goal structures (Ames, 1990, 1992) prove
that actual classroom practices inuence students attitudes and
beliefs. A large body of empirical ndings demonstrated that
teachers mastery or performance goal directed instructional
practices inuence students individual goal orientations. Consistent with this theoretical framework, it is assumed that teachers
everyday error related practices have a substantial impact on error
climate in the classroom which in turn has an inuence on students attitudes towards mistakes. Teachers attitudes towards
(learning from) mistakes establish a positive or negative error
culture in the classroom by determining the kinds of mistakehandling activities that are expected and supported (Cobb,
Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001; Depaepe, DeCorte, &
Verschaffel, 2006). For example, teachers who provide opportunities to discuss students misconceptions and encourage students
to learn from errors by correcting errors themselves may foster
adaptive ways of dealing with mistakes (Anderson, Hamilton, &
Hattie, 2004; Heimbeck, Frese, Sonnentag, & Keith, 2003; Meyer,
Seidel, & Prenzel, 2006). Furthermore, it has been shown that
clear standards in the classroom and a trustful and emotionallysafe learning environment are associated with a positive error
culture (Goldin, Epstein, & Schorr, 2007; Spychiger, Kuster, & Oser,
2006). Students who are condent that they will not be ridiculed
when making a mistake are more likely to develop positive attitudes towards mistakes and report less negative emotions (e.g.,
Edmondson, 1999; Malmivouri, 2006; Tulis & Riemenschneider,
2008). In contrast, if teachers ignore or punish students errors,
students will avoid taking risks and be more likely to hide their
errors instead of communicate their misconceptions (Rybowiak,
Garst, Frese, & Batinic, 1999).
Reciprocally, teachers (and students) responses to errors are
likely to be inuenced by their attitudes towards errors (Rybowiak
et al., 1999). A positive attitude towards making mistakes is characterized by adaptive affective-motivational, cognitive and behavioral approaches to learning from errors (cf. Steuer & Dresel, 2011;
Tulis & Ainley, 2011), such as openness to feedback, adaptive
emotional responses to errors, facing and communicating difculties and misconceptions, and failure tolerance (Cannon &
Edmondson, 2001; Clifford, 1991; Keith & Frese, 2005; Rybowiak
et al., 1999). Similar to the concept of mastery orientation, failure
tolerance (Clifford, 1984; Clifford, Kim, & McDonald, 1988) is characterized by treating mistakes as learning opportunities and
experiencing less negative affect after failure (Boekaerts, 1993;
Diener & Dweck, 1980; Meyer & Turner, 2006; Tulis & Ainley, 2011;
Turner, Thorpe, & Meyer, 1998). It can be assumed that teachers
error management behavior has an impact on students individual
error attitudes (Steuer & Dresel, 2011). However, no theoretical
consensus has yet been reached regarding the conceptualization of
adaptive or maladaptive error management behavior, or dimensions of a positive error climate, respectively.
The literature on error climate, which includes both teachers
behavior and how individuals deal with errors and social interactions, suggests a number of interrelated, but nevertheless
distinguishable aspects of an adaptive learning environment. In
particular, four teacher-specic error management behaviors are
considered adaptive. The rst, error tolerance by the teacher, involves teachers willingness to acknowledge and discuss students
mistakes. The second, irrelevance of errors for assessment, refers to
regarding students mistakes as learning opportunities rather than
as negative indicators for performance. In this sense, errors are not
being punished but are discussed with the student or with the
whole class in order to use the mistake as a learning opportunity.
Third, teacher support following errors includes teachers patience
58
and support of the student to correct the error by him- or herself.

Finally, an absence of negative teacher reactions (verbal and nonverbal) implies that teachers do not express annoyance or ridiculing students if they make an error (Oser & Spychiger, 2005).
Despite this knowledge of best practices, remaining issues include
the occurrence and frequencies of these responses to students
mistakes, their postulated adaptive or maladaptive nature, and
their consequences for students individual attitudes towards
learning from errors and emotions. With respect to the rst issue, a
few observational studies, which are reviewed in the next section,
provide rst evidence for the frequency of response patterns.
1.2. Empirical ndings on teachers responses to student mistakes
Empirical studies concerning teachers error management
behavior include classroom observations as well as students and
teachers self-reports (Heinze, 2005; Santagata, 2005; Spychiger,
Mahler, Hascher, & Oser, 1998; Stigler, Gonzales, Kawanaka, Knoll,
& Serrano, 1999). Because whole-class discourse situations represent a dominant classroom activity in many countries (Hiebert et al.,
2003), this form of instructional practice has been the focus of most
studies. Video studies, such as TIMSS (Stigler et al., 1999) identied
different teaching patterns regarding students errors in the domain
of mathematics (see also Hugener et al., 2009). For example, almost
27% of student mistakes in German math lessons (grade 8) were
directly solved by the teacher, about 48% were returned by the
teacher to the students as a challenge and about 10% of the mistakes
were ignored (Hiebert et al., 2003; Stigler et al.,1999). Similarly, Oser
and Spychiger (2005) found that Swiss teachers, in multiple subject
areas, often try to evade mistakes beforehand or simply correct
students errors by stating the correct answer. The authors describe
a common instructional practice, labeled the Bermuda triangle of
error correction (see also Brophy & Evertson, 1974), during which
another student is asked to answer the question or correct the
wrong answer of the rst student who responded incorrectly. The
latter is left behind without having the chance to think about and recorrect the error (see Fig. 1). Based on data from 60 videotaped math
lessons, Santagata (2005) reported that teachers often correct students mistakes (31% of the time in Italy; 25% of the time in the
United States). Approximately 30e40% of the time, the student who
made the mistake was asked to correct his error. However, less than
one fourth of the teachers in both countries gave a hint to the student in order to direct him to the right answer. The phenomenon of
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
Fig. 1. Bermuda triangle of error correction (Oser & Spychiger, 2005).
2.2.1. Coding scheme

Teachers responses to students mistakes were coded into 11
categories. Table 1 shows examples according to each category. To
encompass a broad range of responses, including non-verbal reactions, the categories were distinct but not mutually exclusive. The
theoretical distinction between adaptive and maladaptive error
management behavior (see 1.1) was adopted based on Spychiger
et al. (1998) with the exception that correction by the teacher
was not a priori classied as a maladaptive response pattern. Six
categories of teacher behaviors were derived based on previous
observations on error management behavior (Mindnich et al., 2008;
Santagata, 2005; Stigler et al., 1999) and research literature on error
climate (Oser & Spychiger, 2005): 1) ignoring the mistake; 2)
correction by the teacher; 3) correction by the student; 4) redirecting
the question to another student; 5) negative teacher reactions (expressions of annoyance, ridiculing students); and 6) teacher support
following errors. The latter was divided into (a) emphasizing the
learning potential of the mistake by encouraging the student, and (b)
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
The teacher is angry, negative evaluation of the students mistake
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
The teacher is upset, shaking his head, grimacing with pain
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%).
providing time for the student to rethink his answer (waiting).

Negative teacher reactions were also divided into two subcategories: (a) humiliating behavior (e.g., laughing), and (b) expressions of annoyance, disappointment or hopelessness. Based on
previous ndings on error climate (e.g., Oser & Spychiger, 2005) and
attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), both of these subcategories were
considered maladaptive because teachers communicate maladaptive attributional information to their students through the
expression of hopelessness or humiliation following students errors. Based on the ndings of Meyer et al. (2006) that a strict separation of learning situations, in which errors are considered helpful
to trigger discussions about misconceptions, from performance
situations, in which errors are punished and negatively evaluated,
also the notion of irrelevance of errors for assessment (Spychiger
et al., 1998; see also Steuer & Dresel, 2011) was categorized. This
idea was operationalized by two observation categories: (a) (recoded as maladaptive behavior) criticizing the student (i.e., punishment
of errors, negative evaluation), and (b) discussion with the whole class
about misconceptions underlying the error at hand. The last category was teachers behavior with respect to impeding negative reactions from classmates. This category referred to teachers
responses to the other students in the class in order to prevent
maladaptive reactions (e.g., laughing). The dominant instruction
method and structure of each observed lesson was also recorded.
2.2.2. Sample and procedure
Observer training was conducted during the university course
accompanying the school practice sessions. Training was administered
two weeks before the observations took place and involved viewing
and coding videotaped sequences. Undergraduate teaching practice
includes several hours of direct observations in different classes
(different grades and subjects) in order to provide pre-service teachers
insights into everyday classroom practices of different teachers. Each
pair of trained observers randomly selected one lesson of 45 min

(irrespective of the lesson topic) and used the coding scheme. All realtime observations took place in different German schools in and
around a midsize Bavarian city. They were from Gymnasium schools,
which is the school type with the highest teaching level and academic
demands in the German school system. Classes ranged from grade 5
(10e11 years old) to grade 13 (18e19 years old).
Codings were carried out on the basis of event sampling, i.e.
coding was induced for every error management sequence which
was dened as the teachers immediate response (verbal and nonverbal) to a students mistake. Thus, every event that was treated as
a mistake by the teacher followed by his/her specic reaction was
regarded as an error management sequence (see Santagata, 2005).
In other words, emphasis was placed on the strategies teachers
used to handle what they considered as mistakes. Students errors
were mainly identied by the teachers verbal comment (e.g., No,
that is not correct., Wrong!) and/or indirectly by non-verbal
behavior (e.g., shaking the head). The coding scheme contained
the above described 11 categories and a timeline, divided into sequences of 5 min each (minute 0e5, 5e10, 10e15 and so on). As all
codings were based on event sampling, the timeline only served as
an orienting guideline for the observers during the lesson.
Observation data for 16 math classes, 17 German classes and 15
economics classes were available for further analyses. Fifty-eight
percent of the observed teachers were female (in mathematics:
41.7%, in German: 62.5%, in economics: 33.3%). Most of the
observed math classes (46%) were grade 9 and grade 5 (23.1%). The
rest of the observed math lessons were equally distributed over the
other grade levels (6, 7, 8, and 10). Most of the German classes were
grade 8 (25%), and grade 5, grade 6, or grade 9 (16.7% each). About
12% were grade 11, 8.3% were grade 10 and 4.2% were grade 13. For
economics classes, 50% of all lessons were observed in grade 10,
with 16.7% in each grade 8, grade 9, and grade 12.
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.
lessons than in mathematics. Although uncommon, results suggest

that humiliating or discouraging error responses [4 and 5] were
more likely in mathematics than in German or economics.
Accordingly, math teachers were less likely to emphasize the
learning potential of their students mistakes [10]. It was also
evident that adaptive error management behaviors, such as discussion of misconceptions with the whole class [7] or giving the
student the opportunity to correct the mistake [8], was observed
most frequently in economics classes.
2.4. Summary of the ndings of Study 1
Overall, adaptive responses were more frequently observed than
maladaptive response patterns. Humiliating or punitive reactions to
errors and ignoring students mistakes were rarely observed. However, only very few teacherestudent-interactions included reinforcement of error risk taking and emphasizing mistakes as learning
opportunities (also see Oser & Spychiger, 2005). In general, the results of Study 1 replicate the empirical ndings of Santagata (2005).
However, these ndings must be carefully interpreted because of
several confounding factors, such as different teachers, lesson topics,
and school grades. Nevertheless, they reveal the likelihood of
domain specic differences in error management. Results indicate
that math teachers are more likely to express negative reactions
following errors (e.g., humiliating responses) and redirect the
correction to another student. Although, the Bermuda triangle of
error correction was observed in all three subject domains to a
substantial degree, its maladaptive outcomes have not been investigated empirically. Oser and Spychiger (2005) assume that leaving
the student behind without a chance to think about and re-correct
the mistake will likely result in a decrease of positive affect and
motivation. To address this assumption, students emotional reactions to their teachers responses were also observed in Study 2.
Video technologies were also used to improve observations.
3. Study 2
3.1. Aim and research questions
2.3.2. Teachers error management behavior in different school

subjects
To explore teachers error management behavior in different
subjects, domain specic proportions were calculated. Fig. 2 shows
that the Bermuda triangle of error correction [3] was observed
most often in math classes. A correction by the teacher stating the
right answer [6] occurred considerably more often in German
To increase our understanding of the types of error responses by

the teacher that are associated with a positive error climate, Study 2
combined data from student self-reports and classroom observations. Video based observations (two camcorders and external microphones) with a limited number of teachers were conducted. As
economics teachers were found to show the most adaptive response
Fig. 2. Domain specic responses to students mistakes (%).
pattern following errors in Study 1, nine videotaped economics

lessons (by 3 teachers) were coded by two trained observers to
identify teachers error management behaviors. In addition, to understand the relationship between teachers classroom behavior
and students individual perceptions, questionnaires were used to
measure students perceptions of their teachers attitudes towards
errors and error climate in the classroom.
Another addition to Study 2 was the observation of students
affective responses to their teachers error management behavior. In
particular, students affective states following the Bermuda triangle
of error correction were identied using visual cues to examine the
postulated maladaptive effects of this specic teacher response
pattern. We acknowledge that this approach was limited in several
methodological aspects (e.g., observers were not blind to the
teachers responses; observations may be biased because humiliating teacher behavior is expected to provoke negative affect).
However, similar to the category correction by the teacher, both
adaptive and maladaptive effects of redirecting the question to
another student seem plausible. To reduce expectancy bias, observers were not informed about the presumed consequences of
this response pattern. Analyzing students affective reactions by
using visual cues was perceived as a rst attempt to explore the
effects of this specic response pattern. In addition, the following
hypotheses and research questions were addressed in Study 2:
(a) Replication of the ndings of Study 1:
It was hypothesized that, in general, adaptive teacher responses
would be more frequent than maladaptive responses to student
mistakes.
(b) To what degree do error management patterns vary between
and within teachers in the same domain (i.e., economics)?
It was assumed that error management behavior depends on the
interplay between teachers attitudes towards errors on the one
hand and situational/social cues on the other hand. Therefore, it
was hypothesized that the teachers error management
behavior would differ between classes (see also Stigler et al.,
1999). However, as attitudes are often stable, it was expected
that some responses would be more typical for the teacher and,
therefore, more frequently observed than other responses in all
classes taught by the same teacher.
(c) How do observations correspond with students self-reported
perceptions of their teachers error management behavior?
It was hypothesized that students self-reports should reect the
observed error management activities of their teacher. On the
basis of students perceived error tolerance of the teacher (i.e.,
the extent of supportive error management behavior by the
teacher), we compared the class with the highest values for
perceived error tolerance (high error climate class), and the
class reporting the least adaptive mistake-handling activities of
their teacher (low error climate class). Using ANOVAs, classes
were compared with respect to observational data of the
teachers error management behavior, and other dimensions of
students perceived error climate, including students own attitudes towards making mistakes (a detailed description of the
questionnaire follows in 3.2.3). It was hypothesized that adaptive error responses (correction by the student [6], encouraging
student [10], waiting [9], and discussion with whole class [7]
would be more frequently observed in the high error climate
class. In contrast, maladaptive error management behavior
(ignoring mistake [1], criticizing the student [2], redirecting the
question to another student [3], humiliating/laughing [4], and
disappointment/hopelessness [5] was expected to be observed
more frequently in the low error climate class. Finally, it was
hypothesized that students in the high error climate class
would have more adaptive error-attitudes.
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
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;
Realschule (middle track of the German school system).
62
Table 3
Sample items, descriptive statistics and internal consistencies.
Scale
Sample items
SD
Error communication
Covering up errors
Error tolerance by the teacher
If I cannot rectify an error in economics by myself, I turn to my colleagues.

It is disadvantageous to make ones mistakes public in our economy class.
If someone in our economy class does something wrong, the teacher will
patiently explain the problem.
In our economy class mistakes are nothing bad for our teacher.
I am often afraid of making mistakes in economy.
I feel embarrassed when I make an error in my economy class.
If I get an error feedback in my economy class, I often dont know why.
I often do not understand what my economy teacher wants me to do.
Mistakes help me to improve in economy.
When a mistake in economy occurs, I analyze it thoroughly.
3.15
2.02
3.17
.58
.66
.50
.68
.78
.73
1.85
.64
.73
3.03
.53
.80
2.81
.52
.73
Error strain/Fear of mistakes

Rule clarity
Students attitudes towards errors
Rybowiak et al., 1999); 3) error tolerance by the teacher, which

assessed the extent of supportive error management behavior by
the teacher, including explanations, patience and help (seven
items; Spychiger et al., 2006) and addressed the attitude of the
teacher to avoid and hide his/her own mistakes (two items); 4)
error strain/fear of mistakes, which addressed whether students fear
the occurrence of errors or react to errors with anxiety and shame
(ve items; Spychiger et al., 2006); 5) rule clarity, which measured
perceived transparency of norms versus uncertainty regarding the
teachers expectations and standards (eight items; Spychiger et al.,
2006); and 6) students own attitudes towards (learning from) errors
(eight items; Spychiger et al., 2006).
3.3. Results
3.3.1. Preliminary results and reliability
Inter-coder reliability (Cohens Kappa) for all observations was
K > .85 and therefore satisfactory. Teacher-centered, whole-class
instruction was observed most of the time in all classes, with
the exception of a short seatwork sequence in one class and a 10-minphase of collaborative work with pairs of students in another class. In
general, bivariate correlations between the six subdimensions (see
Table 4) were in the expected directions and demonstrated the independence of the selected error climate variables. The highest
positive correlations (r .55) emerged between error tolerance by
the teacher and students attitudes towards (learning from) errors
and rule clarity, respectively. Furthermore, error tolerance by the
teacher was positively associated with communication about errors
in the class. Students who reported an adaptive error-attitude reported high perceived rule clarity, high communication about errors,
and low covering up errors. Rule clarity was negatively associated
with error strain and with covering up errors, and both latter variables were negatively related to error tolerance by the teacher.
However, error strain was not signicantly correlated with students
attitudes towards errors or with communication about errors.
3.3.2. Teachers error management behavior and students
perceptions
A frequency analysis indicated that a total of 174 teacher responses (Mclass 19.33, SD 4.47) were coded for 118 mistake-
35
30
25
15
10
(1)
(2)
(3)
Error communication
Covering up error
e.12
.21** e.43**
e.08
.31** e.21**
Rule clarity
.09
e.51**
.55**
.20** e.46**
.55**
Notes. N 176 students.

**p < .01.
%
40
20
Table 4
Bivariate correlations.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
management sequences (i.e., Mclass 13.11 mistakes occurred in

each class, SD 4.11). Negative reactions of the classmates were not
observed. As depicted in Fig. 3, maladaptive behavior (categories [1]e
[5]) was generally observed less frequently than adaptive responses
to students mistakes (categories [7]e[10]), except the phenomenon
of Bermuda triangle of error correction, which was coded in 35% of
all responses. Correction by the teacher [6] accounted for 15.5% of all
coded responses, followed by correction by the student [8] (12.6%),
discussion with whole class [7] (10.3%), waiting [9] (9.8%) and
emphasizing the learning potential of the mistake [10] (9.2%).
To address the question of differences in error management
behavior within teachers, proles based on relative frequencies for
each teacher were examined (Table 5). Regarding maladaptive responses, all teachers showed a similar pattern with one exception: In
class 9B (teacher B) 25% of error responses were coded as criticizing
student [2] and 10% of the teachers responses to students mistakes
were coded as humiliating/laughing [4], as depicted in Fig. 4.
Regarding adaptive error management behavior, results indicated
differences between and within teachers, especially for the categories correction by student [8], waiting [9] and emphasizing
the learning potential [10]. For these categories, percentages of
observed occurrence varied between classes, ranging from 0 to 27%.
Finally, students attitudes and perceived error climate were
compared between the low and high error climate classes. ANOVA
results revealed differences between class 9B (low error climate)
and class 8 (high error climate) in error tolerance by the teacher
(F(6, 167) 2.190, p .046, h2partial .07), students attitudes towards errors (F(6, 167) 2.243, p .042, h2 partial :08), and
covering up errors (F(6, 167) 8.895, p < .001, h2 partial :24).
Students in class 8 reported little need to avoid or hide errors, and
reported feeling supported by the teacher as well as a positive
attitude towards mistakes. This is in line with the observational
ndings, showing that the teacher of class 8 encouraged students to
(4)
(5)
5
0
[1]
e.49**
e.07
.40**
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Notes. Category numbers are explained in Table 1.

Maladaptive responses: categories [1] [5], [3] = Bermuda triangle of error correction.
Adaptive responses: categories [7] [11], [6] = Teacher states the correct answer.
Fig. 3. Economics teachers response pattern to students mistakes (% of all responses).
63
Table 5
Proportions of different responses by teacher.
Maladaptive responses (%)
Adaptive 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%
Notes. Category numbers are explained in Table 1.

Maladaptive responses: categories [1]e[5], [3] Bermuda triangle of error correction.
Adaptive responses: categories [7]e[11], [6] Teacher states the correct answer.
correct the error by themselves by giving a hint or reformulating

the question more often than the teacher of class 9B. Moreover, in
class 8, error correction was more often returned to the student
who made the mistake. Twice as much as in class 9B, the teacher of
class 8 directly corrected the mistake by himself and only in the
low error climate class, negative responses were observed, such
as criticizing, humiliating or laughing by the teacher (Table 6).
Interestingly, redirecting the question to another student to correct
the mistake was observed more frequently in class 8 (high error
climate), whereas discussions with the whole class about the
mistake and different solutions were coded more than twice in
class 9B.
expressed by the student who made the mistake. These negative

reactions were also observed when the whole class was asked to
nd the right solution [7]. In contrast, students who were encouraged to learn from their mistakes [10] or students who were given
more time to think about the correct answer [9] exclusively
expressed positive affective reactions. Interestingly, repeating the
question to the student who made the mistake and guiding the
student to nd the correct answer [8] triggered both positive and
negative affective reactions. Mixed results were also observed
when the error was directly corrected by the teacher [6].
3.3.3. Students affect

Frequency analyses of students affective reactions to their
teachers error management behavior (see Fig. 5) show that
teachers maladaptive responses were consistently followed by
negative affect. As expected, students who were criticized [2], humiliated or ridiculed [4] after making a mistake explicitly showed
negative reactions. More importantly, redirecting the question to
another student [3] was also commonly followed by negative affect
In summary, the results of Study 2 replicated the ndings of

Study 1, identifying more adaptive than maladaptive responses to
student mistakes by economics teachers. However, a high percentage of all responses (35%) were categorized as the Bermuda
triangle of error correction. Observational results were generally in
line with students perceived error climate measured by questionnaire. One exception was that redirecting the question to
another student was observed more frequently in the high error
Fig. 4. Error response patterns of teacher A, teacher B and teacher C.
64
Table 6
Comparison of classes with high- and low error climate.
Dimensions
High error climate (class 8)
Low error climate (class 9B)
Self-reports

Covering up errors
Error communication
Rule Clarity
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%
neutral, ambiguous or not observable
Notes. % of observed affective reactions.

Category numbers are explained in Table 1.
Maladaptive responses: categories [1] [5], [3] = Bermuda triangle of error correction.
Adaptive responses: categories [7] [11], [6] = Teacher states the correct answer.
Fig. 5. Students affective reactions to teachers error management behavior.
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
generalized emotions in one specic subject (mathematics).

Mathematics was chosen for three reasons. First, mathematics is a
subject in which making errors is an essential part of learning, and
the distinction between right and wrong is more pronounced
than in other subjects. Second, a large body of research has shown
that students report less positive emotions in this domain (e.g.,
Middleton & Spanias, 1999). It can be assumed that dealing with
mistakes in the mathematics classroom not only has an impact on
students attitudes towards mistakes but also on students domain
specic emotions. Third, Study 1 revealed more maladaptive error
responses by math teachers compared to other domains.
Questionnaires were conducted 4 weeks after the beginning of
the school year (time 1) and 5 months later (time 2). Students selfreported attitudes, perceived error tolerance by the teacher, and
domain specic emotions (anxiety, anger, boredom and enjoyment) were assessed at both measurement points. In particular, it
was hypothesized that students error-related attitudes at time 2
would be inuenced by the perceived attitude and error management behavior of their teacher at time 1, after controlling for students attitudes towards mistakes at time 1. Furthermore, it was
hypothesized that students individual beliefs about making mistakes at time 1 would impact their math-related emotions at time
2. Specically, an adaptive attitude towards errors was assumed to
be negatively associated with subsequent domain specic anxiety,
anger, and boredom, and positively associated with enjoyment.
4.2. Method
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
As in Study 2, perceived error climate in the math classroom was

assessed using the error tolerance by the teacher scale (seven items;
Spychiger et al., 2006). Students attitudes towards errors (eight
items) were also assessed with the same scale used in Study 2. All
items were presented on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistencies (Cronbachs
alpha) were satisfactory (a .71 and a .82, respectively). The two

subscales were positively correlated at time 1 (r .29) and time 2
(r .36), respectively (p < .01). Students math-related emotions e
anxiety (eight items), anger (eight items), boredom (nine items),
and enjoyment (six items) e were measured with the Academic
Emotions Questionnaire e Mathematics (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, &
Perry, 2002). Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistencies were satisfactory (.86 < a < .94). Bivariate correlations
showed the expected directions at both measurement points:
Positive associations among all negative emotions (.50 < r < .75)
and negative associations between enjoyment and negative emotions (.38 < r < .65).
Students from 25 fth grade classrooms (N 685 students) at
25 different schools2 in Bavaria participated in Study 3. The proportion of female students was 54% and the average age was 10.4
years (SD 0.61). Class size ranged from 19 to 32 students. Student
participation was voluntary and with parental agreement. Data
were collected 4 weeks after the beginning of the school year (time
1) and at the end of the rst term (i.e., after 5 months, time 2). All
measurements were operationalized with respect to the subject of
mathematics.
4.3. Results
In order to analyze the impact of error management behavior on
students individual error-related attitudes, hierarchical linear
regression analysis was performed. Students attitudes towards
errors at time 2 were used as the dependent variable. Students
attitudes towards errors at time 1 (model 1) and teachers error
management behavior perceived by the students at time 1 (model
2) were entered block-wise in the analysis. The results indicate that
teachers dealing with mistakes has a substantial inuence on
students perception of errors as learning opportunities at time 2
(see Table 7).
Hierarchical linear regression analyses were applied to examine
associations between domain specic emotions at time 2 and attitudes towards errors (time 1), controlling for students emotions
at time 1. For each emotion, separate regressions were calculated
(see Tables 8e11). Even after controlling for students emotions at
the beginning of the school year, students attitude towards mistakes was a signicant negative predictor of all negative emotions
(anger: b .08, anxiety: b .17, boredom: b .21) and a
positive predictor of enjoyment (b .13) at the end of the rst half
of the school year.
In summary, the ndings from Study 3 emphasize the positive
impact of teachers error management behavior on students own
attitudes towards learning from mistakes. Furthermore, associations between these attitudes and domain specic emotions have
been found. Students who hold an adaptive orientation towards
their mistakes are more likely to report positive domain specic
emotions (and less negative emotions) in mathematics. This is in
line with other research ndings that highlight the importance of
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
Students attitude towards

errors (time 1)
Error tolerance by the
teacher (time 1)
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.
positive attitudes towards mistakes for positive emotional states

during learning (Tulis & Ainley, 2011).
5. General discussion
The presented studies aimed to examine an activity fundamental to students learning and everyday experiences in the
classroom: teachers dealing with mistakes. The three empirical
studies in this article build upon each other: Study 1 addressed the
general occurrence of error management behavior in everyday
classes and focused on the frequency of teachers adaptive and
maladaptive error management activities. On this basis, video observations within one specic domain (economics classes) were
conducted to replicate these ndings (Study 2). Observational data
was also combined with students self-reports of perceived error
climate in Study 2. In addition, the phenomenon called Bermuda
triangle of error correction (Oser & Spychiger, 2005) and its
postulated maladaptive effects on students affect was examined.
Finally, Study 3 analyzed the impact of students perceived error
management behavior of their teacher at the beginning of the
school year on students own attitudes towards learning from
mistakes and domain-related emotions at the end of the rst term.
The current ndings contribute to existing attempts for a
theoretical conception of error management behavior and respective error climate in several ways. First, the results provide evidence
for a broad range of adaptive versus maladaptive responses (Oser &
Spychiger, 2005; Rybowiak et al., 1999; Steuer & Dresel, 2011).
Although limited due to methodological aspects, ndings regarding
students affective reactions point to the maladaptive nature of
redirecting the question to another student (Bermuda triangle of
error correction, cf. Oser & Spychiger, 2005). However, further
research using enhanced measurements of students emotions
should explicitly focus on this issue to conrm these ndings. With
respect to adaptive responses, students in all domains were often
encouraged to correct the mistake by themselves (see also Hiebert
et al., 2003; Santagata, 2005). Thus, it seems that adaptive error
management behavior is not a question of the school subject.
Nevertheless, in all domains and especially in mathematics,
teachers place little emphasis on the learning potential of errors
through positive acknowledgment of incorrect solution strategies.
Table 8
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students anxiety at time 2.
Model 1
Model 2
SE
SE
Anxiety (time 1)
errors (time 1)
0.61
0.033
.64***
0.60
0.12
0.033
0.053
.63***
.08*
R2/DR2
.40/.40***
.41/.01*
Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported anxiety in mathematics (time 2),

***p < .001; *p < .05.
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)
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)
errors (time 1)
0.69
0.035
.65***
0.62
0.27
0.040
0.076
.58***
.13***
R2/DR2
.42/.42***
.43/.01***
Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported anger in mathematics (time 2),

***p < .001.
Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported enjoyment in mathematics (time

2), ***p < .001.
These ndings, combined with the results of Study 3, highlight the

importance of including these aspects of adaptive error management into teacher training.
Secondly, the results of Study 3 indicate that how teachers
deal with mistakes has a substantial inuence on students
perception of errors as learning opportunities and, in turn, on
students domain specic emotions. Together, these ndings
contribute to the understanding of the interplay between teachers everyday instructional routines surrounding mistakes and
students beliefs about (learning from) errors. They emphasize the
relevance of students perceptions of their teachers error-related
attitudes. In Study 2, students perceptions of their teachers error tolerance corresponded to observational ndings of the
teachers actual error management behavior, and error tolerance
by the teacher was positively correlated with students attitudes
towards errors. On the other hand, both, error tolerance by the
teacher and students attitudes were negatively associated with
covering up errors. Thus, the current ndings provide evidence
that students adopt error-related attitudes based on their
everyday experiences with their teachers management of mistakes e similar to how classroom goal structures inuence students individual goal orientations (e.g., Gonida et al., 2009).
However, no signicant correlation between error strain and
students attitudes towards learning from errors were found in
Study 2. It is possible that students hold an adaptive view about
learning from mistakes but nevertheless try to avoid making
(public) errors in order to avoid negative evaluations. Future
studies are needed to investigate the relationship between
different components of teachers behaviors regarding student
mistakes and students error-related attitudes.
Third, the current ndings demonstrate that overall, teachers
responses to students errors are more often adaptive than maladaptive (with the exception of the Bermuda triangle of error
correction). This is in line with other observational ndings
focusing on mistake-handling activities (e.g., Hiebert et al., 2003;
Santagata, 2005). However, previous studies were mainly conducted in the domain of mathematics. The current ndings suggest
that the dominance of adaptive teacher behavior is also true for
other subjects.
Although maladaptive patterns of teacher-responses were less
frequently observed, they were found more often in mathematics
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)
errors (time 1)
0.62
0.039
.58***
0.55
0.38
0.039
0.067
.52***
.21***
R2/DR2
.33/.33***
.37/.04***
Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported boredom in mathematics (time 2),

***p < .001.
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.

1 s2.0 S0742051X13000255 Main

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1 s2.0 S0742051X13000255 Main

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

Error management behavior in classrooms: Teachers responses to student

* Tel.: 49 821 598 5610; fax: 49 821 598 5289.

Research on classroom goal structures (e.g., Gonida, Voulala, &

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

situations. However, there is little empirical research addressing

Gallimore, 2005; Le Tendre, Baker, Akiba, Goesling & Wiseman,

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

and support of the student to correct the error by him- or herself.

Fig. 1. Bermuda triangle of error correction (Oser & Spychiger, 2005).

2.2.1. Coding scheme

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

The teacher is angry, negative evaluation of the students mistake

The teacher is upset, shaking his head, grimacing with pain

providing time for the student to rethink his answer (waiting).

pair of trained observers randomly selected one lesson of 45 min

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

lessons than in mathematics. Although uncommon, results suggest

2.3.2. Teachers error management behavior in different school

To increase our understanding of the types of error responses by

Fig. 2. Domain specic responses to students mistakes (%).

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

pattern following errors in Study 1, nine videotaped economics

Realschule (middle track of the German school system).

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

If I cannot rectify an error in economics by myself, I turn to my colleagues.

Error strain/Fear of mistakes

Rybowiak et al., 1999); 3) error tolerance by the teacher, which

Notes. N 176 students.

management sequences (i.e., Mclass 13.11 mistakes occurred in

Notes. Category numbers are explained in Table 1.

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

Adaptive responses (%)

Notes. Category numbers are explained in Table 1.

correct the error by themselves by giving a hint or reformulating

expressed by the student who made the mistake. These negative

3.3.3. Students affect

In summary, the results of Study 2 replicated the ndings of

3.4. Summary of the ndings of Study 2

Fig. 4. Error response patterns of teacher A, teacher B and teacher C.

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

High error climate (class 8)

Low error climate (class 9B)

Students attitudes towards errors

neutral, ambiguous or not observable

Notes. % of observed affective reactions.

generalized emotions in one specic subject (mathematics).

As in Study 2, perceived error climate in the math classroom was

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

alpha) were satisfactory (a .71 and a .82, respectively). The two

Students attitude towards

positive attitudes towards mistakes for positive emotional states

Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported anxiety in mathematics (time 2),

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported anger in mathematics (time 2),

Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported enjoyment in mathematics (time

These ndings, combined with the results of Study 3, highlight the

Notes. Dependent variable is students self-reported boredom in mathematics (time 2),

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

Você também pode gostar