Recently on Twitter, I shared a step-by-step strategy for Error Correction. It comes from Direct Instruction, but it is a generic strategy that can be used by anyone wishing to getting better at this important facet of teaching. It involves 7 steps, which are 1) repeating the correct answer, 2) having the student repeat it back, 3) starting over with the exercise, 4) completing the exercise all the way to the end, including the problem with the error, 5) repeating the part of the exercise, again, where the error was committed, 6) calling on individuals to check that the group is errorless, and 7) announcing that you'll be testing everyone on the at least two times in the future. This slide from a recent NIFDI training I attended summarizes the steps:
Curious practitioners might look at this sequence and wonder what the evidence base is for error correction. For that, I would highly recommend this paper by Embry and Biglan (2008), which includes a huge table of scientific findings from the science of behavior. Among those are over-correction and positive practice, and choral response. Embry and Biglan call the insights in their table, "kernels", which they define as intact procedures that have been shown to be effective through experimental analysis. Other people might read the sequence I shared and identify something they could incorporate into their own teaching, such as the delayed test aspect, which I think is often underutilized.
But, as is usually the case with Twitter, a few people took issue with what I shared. Some people got rude. Others feigned shock and disgruntlement. The main issue people had was they wanted to know why the teacher wasn't compelled to investigate the underlying cause(s) of the error. The simple answer - because the 7 steps are focused on error correction and not formative assessment - satisfied no one. One could also raise a pitchfork and demand to know why the sequence doesn't mention the importance of providing additional tuition to the individual, nor the importance of praise and/or group contingencies, nor the importance of maintaining close communication with parents if a student begins to fall behind. The number of instructional moves that were not included in the 7 steps for error correction is practically limitless.
But Zach, isn't it valid that teachers should try to figure out the cause of errors rather than just having students "regurgitate" correct answers? Shouldn't they also involve the student in constructing "why" what they said was wrong? Don't you mention elaborative/dialogic feedback in each of your presentations, and even wrote a book chapter about it recently? What changed, bro?
There's definitely (more than) a kernel of truth to the idea that teachers should see themselves as "detectives" and continuously seek to understand the errors students make. It's equally true that these investigations mustn't sideline or substantially reduce students' access to instruction, nor divert the teacher's attention away from the rest of the kids in the room. One can think of a myriad of cases in which a lengthy investigation could be avoided entirely by the teacher, such as by teaching at a more granular level so that the cause of error is narrowed, and by having a strong knowledge of your subject so that investigation is redundant. In the case of the example of 5+3=8, the teacher doesn't need to play detective, because, like practicing free throws, the teacher has already taught "the form" (i.e., counting up), and now the fact just needs to be recalled quickly and accurately.
And herein is my problem with Twitter these days, and why I plan to step back from engaging in these sorts of pseudo-discussions. Each time I find myself trying to have a nice chat about teaching practices, it becomes more about the things that were not said, followed by insults, followed by anger that the OP wasn't clear enough for someone's liking, followed by quote tweets and secret DMs and the rest. A few years ago, the pushback probably helped my teaching, or at least forced me to get better at arguing. It might even have entertained me. In recent months, I can't remember a time when I've gained a single thing from these exchanges.
If I'm able to shake my social media addiction, you'll find me spending less of my time wrestling with people on Twitter and more of my time wrestling with my daughters and my other projects. It's easy enough to just broadcast interesting literature and podcasts on social media, including my own contributions, rather than circling the same toilet bowel over and over. Besides, anyone can reach me via my Contact page to start up a chat or request training.
No comments:
Post a Comment