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, Universitätsstr. 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 influences 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: Only a few studies have focused on how teachers deal with mistakes in actual classroom settings.
Received 24 May 2012 Teachers’ error management behavior was analyzed based on data obtained from direct (Study 1) and
Received in revised form videotaped systematic observation (Study 2), and students’ self-reports. In Study 3 associations between
1 February 2013
students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards mistakes and their impact on students’ domain specific
Accepted 7 February 2013
emotions were investigated. Together, the presented studies contribute to the understanding of the
interplay between teachers’ everyday instructional routines surrounding mistakes and students’ beliefs
Keywords:
about (learning from) errors. The findings also emphasize the relevance of how students perceive their
Mistakes
Error management culture
teachers’ attitudes towards mistakes.
Error climate Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Observation
Teacherestudent interaction
Emotions

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

Making mistakes and overcoming failure are natural elements of
learning processes for all students. A knowledge-based, cognitive-
constructivist 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 en-
vironments should encourage students to explore and discuss their
(mis-)conceptions. However, little is known about adaptive class-
room practices for dealing with errors and the reciprocal effects of
students’ and teachers’ attitudes towards learning from mistakes.
* Tel.: þ49 821 598 5610; fax: þ49 821 598 5289.
E-mail address: maria.tulis@phil.uni-augsburg.de.
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 class-
room is likely to influence students’ attitudes towards learning
from mistakes (Steuer & Dresel, 2011). For example, teachers’
maladaptive ways of handling students’ mistakes are likely to in-
crease students’ fear of failure and may foster maladaptive moti-
vational 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 sup-
ports 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

0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.003
 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 set-
tings (cf. Wuttke, Seifried, & Mindnich, 2008). The following ques-
tions remain unanswered: Which mistake-handling activities are
adaptive, which are maladaptive? Are there domain specific dif-
ferences or similarities between teachers? How does teachers’
everyday error management behavior influence students’ subse-
quent attitudes towards errors and domain-related emotions?
The goal of this article is to provide first answers to these
questions. Therefore, patterns of teacher’s 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 class-
rooms in three different domains. The purpose of Study 2 was to
replicate the findings of Study 1 for one specific 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 mis-
takes as well as associations with students’ more generalized
domain specific emotions.
1.1. Error management culture in the classroom
Classroom settings in which constructivist learning approaches
are utilized allow for open communication about different solu-
tions 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 mis-
conceptions and therefore initiate learning processes. These set-
tings 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’ re-
sponses differ significantly (Schleppenbach et al., 2007). U.S.
teachers were more likely to follow errors with statements or im-
mediate corrections, whereas Chinese teachers asked follow-up
questions to prompt student discussion. Similar to these findings,
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 dif-
ferences 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 influence students’ attitudes and
beliefs. A large body of empirical findings demonstrated that
teachers’ mastery or performance goal directed instructional
practices influence students individual goal orientations. Consis-
tent 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 influence on stu-
dents’ attitudes towards mistakes. Teachers’ attitudes towards
(learning from) mistakes establish a positive or negative error
culture in the classroom by determining the kinds of mistake-
handling activities that are expected and supported (Cobb,
Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001; Depaepe, DeCorte, &
Verschaffel, 2006). For example, teachers who provide opportu-
nities 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 emotionally-
safe learning environment are associated with a positive error
culture (Goldin, Epstein, & Schorr, 2007; Spychiger, Kuster, & Oser,
2006). Students who are confident that they will not be ridiculed
when making a mistake are more likely to develop positive atti-
tudes 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 influenced by their attitudes towards errors (Rybowiak
et al., 1999). A positive attitude towards making mistakes is char-
acterized by adaptive affective-motivational, cognitive and behav-
ioral 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 diffi-
culties 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 char-
acterized 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 di-
mensions of a positive error climate, respectively.
The literature on error climate, which includes both teachers’
behavior and how individuals deal with errors and social in-
teractions, suggests a number of interrelated, but nevertheless
distinguishable aspects of an adaptive learning environment. In
particular, four teacher-specific error management behaviors are
considered adaptive. The first, error tolerance by the teacher, in-
volves 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 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
and support of the student to correct the error by him- or herself.
Finally, an absence of negative teacher reactions (verbal and non-
verbal) implies that teachers do not express annoyance or ridi-
culing 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 first issue, a
few observational studies, which are reviewed in the next section,
provide first evidence for the frequency of response patterns.
1.2. Empirical findings 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 repre-
sent 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) identified
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 first student who responded incorrectly. The
latter is left behind without having the chance to think about and re-
correct the error (see Fig. 1). Based on data from 60 videotaped math
lessons, Santagata (2005) reported that teachers often correct stu-
dents’ 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 stu-
dent in order to direct him to the right answer. The phenomenon of
Fig. 1. Bermuda triangle of error correction (Oser & Spychiger, 2005).
Oser’s “Bermuda triangle of error correction”, with teachers redi-
recting an incorrectly answered question to another student, was
identified 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 findings 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 specificity 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 identified
85 error management situations. In contrast to mathematics les-
sons, teachers ignored students’ mistakes or failed to pick up the
learning opportunity in 40% of these situations. Observational
findings reported by Oser and Spychiger (2005) also suggest
domain specific differences with regards to both the frequencies of
student errors and teachers’ error management behaviors. In his-
tory classes, error-correction and learning from errors was less
pronounced than in math classes, although maladaptive responses
were observed infrequently in both domains. These findings sug-
gest that teachers’ attitudes and their responses to mistakes may
differ between domains. Study 1 aimed to provide further un-
derstandings 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 prac-
tices, 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 clas-
ses. Coding was based on an observation training protocol and
inter-coder reliability was tested (Cohen’s Kappa). The main goals
of Study 1 were to: (a) describe teachers’ error management
behavior in everyday classrooms, and (b) explore differences be-
tween three subjects: mathematics, German, and economics.
2.2. Method
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 re-
actions, 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 classified 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 (ex-
pressions 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)
 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68 59

Table 1
Categories of teacher responses, absolute frequencies and proportions (Study 1).

Category/Type of response Definition/Examples fo %

Maladaptive [1] The teacher ignores the mistake, switches without any comment to another topic 30 4.0
Ignoring mistake

[2] The teacher is angry, negative evaluation of the student’s mistake 39 5.3
Criticizing student

[3] The teacher picks another student to correct the mistake made by the first student 109 14.7
Redirecting the question to another student (“Bermuda triangle of error correction”)

[4] The teacher laughs, makes jokes of the student’s answer, humiliates the student 28 3.8
Humiliating/laughing

[5] The teacher is upset, shaking his head, grimacing with pain 33 4.5
Disappointment/Hopelessness

[6] The teacher states the correct answer e the error is directly solved by the teacher 117 15.8
Correction by the teacher

Adaptive [7] The teacher starts a discussion with the whole class, asking the whole class for 105 14.2
Discussion with whole class (different) solutions

[8] The teacher repeats the question and/or gives a hint to the student in order 160 21.6
Correction by the student to get the correct answer
(error correction is returned to the student who made the mistake)

[9] The teacher waits at least 5 s without reformulating the question or giving a hint 72 9.7
Waiting

[10] The teacher praises the student’s thought or approach, highlights positively the 26 3.5
Emphasizing the learning potential student’s active contribution, emphasizes the learning potential of the mistake

[11] The teacher stops negative reactions from classmates (e.g. laughing) and turbulences 22 3.0
Impeding negative reactions from class

Notes. fo: absolute frequencies for each category. %: proportions for each category (S ¼ 100%).

providing time for the student to rethink his answer (“waiting”).
Negative teacher reactions were also divided into two sub-
categories: (a) humiliating behavior (e.g., laughing), and (b) expres-
sions of annoyance, disappointment or hopelessness. Based on
previous findings on error climate (e.g., Oser & Spychiger, 2005) and
attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), both of these subcategories were
considered maladaptive because teachers communicate maladap-
tive attributional information to their students through the
expression of hopelessness or humiliation following students’ er-
rors. Based on the findings of Meyer et al. (2006) that a strict sep-
aration 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) (reco-
ded 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 cate-
gory was teachers’ behavior with respect to impeding negative re-
actions 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 real-
time 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 defined as the teacher’s immediate response (verbal and non-
verbal) to a student’s mistake. Thus, every event that was treated as
a mistake by the teacher followed by his/her specific 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 identified 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 se-
quences 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 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
2.3. Results
2.3.1. Preliminary analysis and reliability
Inter-coder reliability (Cohen’s 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 ¼ 97.3%; Max ¼ 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 stu-
dents’ mistakes were identified. 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, teach-
ers 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” [cate-
gory 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 re-
actions [categories 4 and 5] were coded very infrequently. However,
teachers who positively highlighted the student’s active contribu-
tion or emphasizing the learning potential of the student’s mistake
[category 10] were observed even less often. Negative reactions of
classmates rarely occurred, which is in line with previous observa-
tional findings (Meyer et al., 2006). Hence, interventions by the
teacher [category 11] were rarely observed.
2.3.2. Teachers’ error management behavior in different school
subjects
To explore teachers’ error management behavior in different
subjects, domain specific 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
Fig. 2. Domain specific responses to students’ mistakes (%).
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 dis-
cussion 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 findings 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. How-
ever, only very few teacherestudent-interactions included rein-
forcement of error risk taking and emphasizing mistakes as learning
opportunities (also see Oser & Spychiger, 2005). In general, the re-
sults of Study 1 replicate the empirical findings of Santagata (2005).
However, these findings 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 specific 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 inves-
tigated 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 re-
actions 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
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 observa-
tions. Video based observations (two camcorders and external mi-
crophones) with a limited number of teachers were conducted. As
economics teachers were found to show the most adaptive response
 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
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 un-
derstand 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 identified using visual cues to examine the
postulated maladaptive effects of this specific 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 humili-
ating 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, ob-
servers were not informed about the presumed consequences of
this response pattern. Analyzing students’ affective reactions by
using visual cues was perceived as a first attempt to explore the
effects of this specific response pattern. In addition, the following
hypotheses and research questions were addressed in Study 2:
(a) Replication of the findings 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 teacher’s 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 reflect 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
teacher’s error management behavior, and other dimensions of
students’ perceived error climate, including students’ own at-
titudes towards making mistakes (a detailed description of the
questionnaire follows in 3.2.3). It was hypothesized that adap-
tive 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
A 7A 30 1
7B 30 1
8 29 1
B 9A 27 1
9B 27 2
C 10 A 17 2
10 B 16 1
S 176 9
(d) Does redirecting the question to another student have mal-
adaptive effects on students’ subsequent affect?
It was hypothesized that the phenomenon “Bermuda triangle of
error correction” would trigger observable negative affect in the
student who made the mistake.
3.2. Method
3.2.1. Sample and procedure
Three teachers from a suburban secondary school1 in Bavaria
volunteered for Study 2. They were informed that everyday
instructional practices were the focus of the study. In total, seven
economics classes from grade 7 to grade 10 were observed; class
sizes ranged from 17 up to 30 students (for a detailed description
see Table 2). Nine economics lessons (45 min each) were video-
taped. All video data was coded by two trained observers to identify
teachers’ error management behavior. In a second analyzing pro-
cedure, students’ affective responses to their teachers’ error man-
agement behavior were coded. In this second observation process,
only those students that were addressed by the teacher’s 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
student’s verbal or non-verbal reaction is characterized by a clearly
positive affective state, such as enjoyment, pride, interest or satis-
faction), “negative” (the student’s verbal or non-verbal reaction is
characterized by a clearly negative affective state, such as shame,
anger, or uncertainty), “neutral” (no observable reaction), “ambig-
uous” and “not observable” (e.g., the student’s face could not be
seen or the student’s 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 sub-
dimensions of error climate were measured (sample items and
internal consistencies are presented in Table 3): 1) error commu-
nication, 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 (five items;
1
“Realschule” (middle track of the German school system).
62 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

Table 3
Sample items, descriptive statistics and internal consistencies.

Scale Sample items M SD a

Error communication If I cannot rectify an error in economics by myself, I turn to my colleagues. 3.15 .58 .68
Covering up errors It is disadvantageous to make one’s mistakes public in our economy class. 2.02 .66 .78
Error tolerance by the teacher If someone in our economy class does something wrong, the teacher will 3.17 .50 .73
patiently explain the problem.
In our economy class mistakes are nothing bad for our teacher.
Error strain/Fear of mistakes I am often afraid of making mistakes in economy. 1.85 .64 .73
I feel embarrassed when I make an error in my economy class.
Rule clarity If I get an error feedback in my economy class, I often don’t know why. 3.03 .53 .80
I often do not understand what my economy teacher wants me to do.
Students’ attitudes towards errors Mistakes help me to improve in economy. 2.81 .52 .73
When a mistake in economy occurs, I analyze it thoroughly.

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
(five items; Spychiger et al., 2006); 5) rule clarity, which measured
perceived transparency of norms versus uncertainty regarding the
teacher’s 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 (Cohen’s 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-min-
phase 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 in-
dependence of the selected error climate variables. The highest
positive correlations (r ¼ .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 re-
ported 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 vari-
ables were negatively related to error tolerance by the teacher.
However, error strain was not significantly 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 re-
sponses (Mclass ¼ 19.33, SD ¼ 4.47) were coded for 118 mistake-
Table 4
Bivariate correlations.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) Error communication
(2) Covering up error e.12
(3) Error tolerance by the teacher .21** e.43**
(4) Error strain/Fear of mistakes e.08 .31** e.21**
(5) Rule clarity .09 e.51** .55** e.49**
(6) Students’ attitudes towards errors .20** e.46** .55** e.07
Notes. N ¼ 176 students.
**p < .01.
management sequences (i.e., Mclass ¼ 13.11 mistakes occurred in
each class, SD ¼ 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, profiles based on relative frequencies for
each teacher were examined (Table 5). Regarding maladaptive re-
sponses, 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 cate-
gories “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) ¼ 2.190, p ¼ .046, h2partial ¼ .07), students’ attitudes to-
wards errors (F(6, 167) ¼ 2.243, p ¼ .042, h2 partial ¼ :08), and
covering up errors (F(6, 167) ¼ 8.895, p < .001, h2 partial ¼ :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
findings, showing that the teacher of class 8 encouraged students to
%
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
(5)
5
0
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Notes. Category numbers are explained in Table 1.
.40**
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).
 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68 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] S
A 2.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.0 19.4 5.1 23.6 8.3 14.2 0.0 100%
B 5.4 9.9 33.1 3.3 0.0 13.3 10.3 5.2 7.1 12.4 0.0 100%
C 0.0 1.5 41.2 0.0 0.0 16.6 11.9 12.1 14.2 2.5 0.0 100%

Notes. Category numbers are explained in Table 1.

Maladaptive responses: categories [1]e[5], [3] ¼ Bermuda triangle of error correction.
Adaptive responses: categories [7]e[11], [6] ¼ 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
find the right solution [7]. In contrast, students who were encour-
aged 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 find 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].
3.4. Summary of the findings of Study 2

3.3.3. Students’ affect
Frequency analyses of students’ affective reactions to their
teacher’s error management behavior (see Fig. 5) show that
teachers’ maladaptive responses were consistently followed by
negative affect. As expected, students who were criticized [2], hu-
miliated 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 findings of
Study 1, identifying more adaptive than maladaptive responses to
student mistakes by economics teachers. However, a high per-
centage 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 ques-
tionnaire. 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 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68

Table 6
Comparison of classes with high- and low error climate.

Dimensions High error climate (class 8) Low error climate (class 9B)
M (SD) M (SD) t(55) p
Self-reports Students’ attitudes towards errors 3.07 (0.64) 2.63 (0.53) 2.828 .007
Error tolerance by the teacher 3.41 (0.40) 3.03 (0.67) 2.349 .023
Covering up errors 1.84 (0.62) 2.57 (0.71) 4.142 .000
Error communication 3.20 (0.75) 3.27 (0.57) 0.449 .656
Error strain/Fear of mistakes 1.82 (0.61) 1.82 (0.55) 0.048 .962
Rule Clarity 3.12 (0.55) 3.03 (0.60) 0.628 .533

% Observed % Observed
Observations [1] 4 0
Ignoring mistake
[2] 0 25
Criticizing student
[3] 36 25
Other student/redirecting question
[4] 0 10
Humiliating/laughing
[5] 0 0
Disappointment/hopelessness
[6] 20 10
Correction by the teacher
[7] 4 10
Discussion with whole class
[8] 16 5
Correction by the student
[9] 4 5
Waiting
[10] 16 10
Emphasizing the learning potential
[11] 0 0
Impeding negative reactions from classmates

[1] generalized emotions in one specific subject (mathematics).

[2] Mathematics was chosen for three reasons. First, mathematics is a
[3] subject in which making errors is an essential part of learning, and
[4] the distinction between “right” and “wrong” is more pronounced
[5] than in other subjects. Second, a large body of research has shown
[6] that students report less positive emotions in this domain (e.g.,
[7] Middleton & Spanias, 1999). It can be assumed that dealing with
[8] mistakes in the mathematics classroom not only has an impact on
[9] students’ attitudes towards mistakes but also on students’ domain
[10] specific emotions. Third, Study 1 revealed more maladaptive error
responses by math teachers compared to other domains.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Questionnaires were conducted 4 weeks after the beginning of
positive negative neutral, ambiguous or not observable the school year (time 1) and 5 months later (time 2). Students’ self-
reported attitudes, perceived error tolerance by the teacher, and
Notes. % of observed affective reactions. domain specific emotions (anxiety, anger, boredom and enjoy-
Category numbers are explained in Table 1.
Maladaptive responses: categories [1] – [5], [3] = Bermuda triangle of error correction.
ment) were assessed at both measurement points. In particular, it
Adaptive responses: categories [7] – [11], [6] = Teacher states the correct answer. was hypothesized that students’ error-related attitudes at time 2
would be influenced by the perceived attitude and error manage-
Fig. 5. Students’ affective reactions to teachers’ error management behavior. ment behavior of their teacher at time 1, after controlling for stu-
dents’ attitudes towards mistakes at time 1. Furthermore, it was
hypothesized that students’ individual beliefs about making mis-
climate class” than in the “low error climate class,” and observa-
takes at time 1 would impact their math-related emotions at time
tional results point to its negative affective consequences. Profiles
2. Specifically, an adaptive attitude towards errors was assumed to
of error response patterns suggest differences between and within
be negatively associated with subsequent domain specific anxiety,
teachers. Similar to Meyer et al. (2006), maladaptive reactions of
anger, and boredom, and positively associated with enjoyment.
the classmates did not occur in these observations.

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
4.2. Method
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 (Cronbach’s
 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68 65

alpha) were satisfactory (a ¼ .71 and a ¼ .82, respectively). The two Table 7
subscales were positively correlated at time 1 (r ¼ .29) and time 2 Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students’ attitude towards error at time
2.
(r ¼ .36), respectively (p < .01). Students’ math-related emotions e
anxiety (eight items), anger (eight items), boredom (nine items), Predictor Model 1 Model 2
and enjoyment (six items) e were measured with the “Academic B SE b B SE b
Emotions Questionnaire e Mathematics” (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Students’ attitude towards 0.59 0.046 .50*** 0.56 0.047 .47***
Perry, 2002). Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging errors (time 1)
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consis- Error tolerance by the 0.15 0.056 .11**
tencies were satisfactory (.86 < a < .94). Bivariate correlations teacher (time 1)

showed the expected directions at both measurement points: R2/DR2 .25/.25*** .26/.01**

Positive associations among all negative emotions (.50 < r < .75)
and negative associations between enjoyment and negative emo-
tions (.38 < r < .65).
4.2.1. Sample and procedure
Students from 25 fifth grade classrooms (N ¼ 685 students) at
25 different schools2 in Bavaria participated in Study 3. The pro-
portion of female students was 54% and the average age was 10.4
years (SD ¼ 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 first 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 influence 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 specific emotions at time 2 and at-
titudes 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 mis-
takes was a significant negative predictor of all negative emotions
(anger: b ¼ .08, anxiety: b ¼ .17, boredom: b ¼ .21) and a
positive predictor of enjoyment (b ¼ .13) at the end of the first half
of the school year.
4.4. Summary of the findings of Study 3
In summary, the findings from Study 3 emphasize the positive
impact of teachers’ error management behavior on students’ own
attitudes towards learning from mistakes. Furthermore, associa-
tions between these attitudes and domain specific emotions have
been found. Students who hold an adaptive orientation towards
their mistakes are more likely to report positive domain specific
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 funda-
mental 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 ob-
servations within one specific domain (economics classes) were
conducted to replicate these findings (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 first term.
The current findings contribute to existing attempts for a
theoretical conception of error management behavior and respec-
tive 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, findings 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 confirm these findings. 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.

emotions (and less negative emotions) in mathematics. This is in Model 1 Model 2

line with other research findings that highlight the importance of B SE b B SE b
Anxiety (time 1) 0.61 0.033 .64*** 0.60 0.033 .63***
Students’ attitude towards 0.12 0.053 .08*
2
Eleven classes from “Hauptschule”, which is the school type with the lowest errors (time 1)
academic demands in the German school system and 14 classes of “Gymnasium”
R2/DR2 .40/.40*** .41/.01*
(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 Notes. Dependent variable is students’ self-reported anxiety in mathematics (time 2),
transitioning from grade 4 to grade 5. ***p < .001; *p < .05.
66 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
Table 9
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students’ anger at time 2.
Model 1 Model 2
B SE b B
Anger (time 1) 0.65 0.036 .63*** 0.61
Students’ attitude towards .30
errors (time 1)
R2/DR2 .39/.39*** .42/.03***
Notes. Dependent variable is students’ self-reported anger in mathematics (time 2),
***p < .001.
These findings, combined with the results of Study 3, highlight the
importance of including these aspects of adaptive error manage-
ment into teacher training.
Secondly, the results of Study 3 indicate that how teachers’
deal with mistakes has a substantial influence on students’
perception of errors as learning opportunities and, in turn, on
students’ domain specific emotions. Together, these findings
contribute to the understanding of the interplay between teach-
ers’ 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’ er-
ror tolerance corresponded to observational findings of the
teacher’s 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 findings provide evidence
that students adopt error-related attitudes based on their
everyday experiences with their teacher’s management of mis-
takes e similar to how classroom goal structures influence stu-
dents’ individual goal orientations (e.g., Gonida et al., 2009).
However, no significant 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 findings demonstrate that overall, teachers’
responses to students’ errors are more often adaptive than mal-
adaptive (with the exception of the “Bermuda triangle of error
correction”). This is in line with other observational findings
focusing on mistake-handling activities (e.g., Hiebert et al., 2003;
Santagata, 2005). However, previous studies were mainly con-
ducted in the domain of mathematics. The current findings 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
Table 10
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students’ boredom at time 2.
Model 1 Model 2
B SE b B
Boredom (time 1) 0.62 0.039 .58*** 0.55
Students’ attitude towards 0.38
errors (time 1)
R2/DR2 .33/.33*** .37/.04***
Notes. Dependent variable is students’ self-reported boredom in mathematics (time 2),
***p < .001.
Table 11
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting students’ enjoyment at time 2.
Model 1 Model 2
SE b B SE b B SE b
0.037 .58*** Enjoyment (time 1) 0.69 0.035 .65*** 0.62 0.040 .58***
0.062 .17*** Students’ attitude towards 0.27 0.076 .13***
errors (time 1)
R2/DR2 .42/.42*** .43/.01***
Notes. Dependent variable is students’ self-reported enjoyment in mathematics (time
2), ***p < .001.
than in the other two domains, suggesting domain specific differ-
ences. 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 mathe-
matics 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 specific differences in teach-
ers’ maladaptive error management behavior is required before any
conclusions can be drawn. However, the presented findings do
suggest that we need to investigate differences in error manage-
ment behavior between different school subjects. Results of Study 2
emphasize that future studies should also control for context spe-
cific (i.e., class specific) 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.
6. Limitations
The presented findings 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’ mis-
takes, 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 specific 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
SE b may differ in their error management behavior, and teachers’ re-
0.039 .52*** sponses to male or female students’ errors might also differ. For
0.067 .21*** example, studies investigating teachers’ gender-related beliefs of
students’ success and failure in mathematics indicate disadvan-
tages for girls (e.g., Tiedemann, 2000). In addition, students’ per-
ceptions of teachers’ error management behavior might be
influenced by individual learner characteristics, such as gender or
 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
achievement level. For example, there is empirical evidence sug-
gesting 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 findings 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 in-
fluence of perceived error climate on students’ attitudes towards
learning from errors. However, these correlational findings
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 teach-
ers’ 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 pre-
vention approach instead of viewing errors as learning opportu-
nities. 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 manage-
ment 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 reap-
praisal 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 inter-
esting 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 er-
rors 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 class-
rooms 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. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 28, 149e167.
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation
among middle and high school students: self-efficacy, 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 ef-
fects. 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 com-
ponents 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 consid-
erations. Educational Psychologist, 26, 263e298.
Clifford, M. M., Kim, A., & McDonald, B. A. (1988). Responses to failure as influenced
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 class-
room 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 find 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. Ad-
vances in Learning and Instruction Series (pp. 89e106). Oxford: Elsevier.
Diener, C., & Dweck, C. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The pro-
cessing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940e952.
Ditton, H. (2002). Lehrkräfte und Unterricht aus Schülersicht [Teachers and in-
struction from students’ perspective]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 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 social-
cognitive perspective: antecedents and domain specificity 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 student’s 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 M. Tulis / Teaching and Teacher Education 33 (2013) 56e68
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 adoles-
cence. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 53e60.
Greve, W., & Wentura, D. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung. Eine Einführung
[Scientific 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 ed-
ucation, 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 Mathe-
matics, 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 Leis-
tungssituationen werden: Untersuchung zur Fehlerkultur in einer Video-
studie [If learning situations turn into performance situations: analyzing
error culture in a video-study]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissen-
schaften, 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:
findings, 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.) Pädagogische Professionalität als Gegenstand empirischer For-
schung (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 children’s learning: attitude and per-
formance 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 qual-
itative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91e106.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: an evolution of con-
structs. 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 in-
struction 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 Psy-
chology, 88, 408e422.
Rybowiak, V., Garst, H., Frese, M., & Batinic, B. (1999). Error Orientation Question-
naire (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:
findings 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 Schülerfragebogen zur Fehlerkultur im Unter-
richt für Mittel- und Oberstufe [Dimensions of error culture at school and its
measurement]. Revue suisse des sciences de l’éducation, 28, 87e110.
Spychiger, M., Mahler, F., Hascher, T., & Oser, F. (1998). Fehlerkultur aus der Sicht von
Schülerinnen und Schülern. Der Fragebogen S-UFS: Entwicklung und erste Ergeb-
nisse [Error culture from students’ perspective. The S-UFS Questionnaire: Devel-
opment and first results]. In Schriftenreihe zum Projekt Lernen Menschen aus
Fehlern? Zur Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Schule, Vol. 4. Schweiz:
Pädagogisches Institut der Universität Freiburg.
Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teacher’s pedagogical content
beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: quasi-experimental evi-
dence 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 As-
sociation (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 findings 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 world’s
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 experi-
ences? 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 influences 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 first empirical results]. In M. Glaeser-Zikuda & J. Seifried (Hrsg.) Lehrer-
expertise e Analyse und Bedeutung unterrichtlichen Handelns (pp. 91e111),
Muenster: Waxmann.