Abstract
Error discovery learning (EDL) is a web-based active learning method that makes students’ mistakes their most powerful learning tool. It engages students to solve fast challenge problems through their own thinking, in their own words, and then to assess competing conceptual arguments and identify specific conceptual errors. In 7 years of studies using EDL both inside and outside of the classroom, it has greatly increased student engagement, exam scores, and course completion rates (e.g., for women in a computer science theory course). Notably, EDL produced its biggest improvements for the bottom half of enrolled students – apparently by way of big boosts in their engagement – reducing course outcome disparities. Moreover, EDL is designed to be easy for instructors and scalable to large classes, using a free, open-source web platform (Courselets.org). I briefly review these results, show how EDL works with clear examples, and focus on simple best practices that make EDL easy for any instructor to start. The following questions are covered: Where is the easiest place in your class to start using EDL? How exactly do you run an EDL exercise for maximum learning? What is the first place to “individualize” student learning using EDL? How can I apply EDL to graded homework? How do I write effective EDL problems?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, T. M., Price, R. M., Mead, L. S., McElhinny, T. L., Thanukos, A., Perez, K. E., Herreid, C. F., Terry, D. R., & Lemons, P. P. (2012). Biology undergraduates’ misconceptions about genetic drift. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 248–259.
Austin, A. E. (2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education. Commissioned Paper. Washington, DC: National Academies National Research Council Board on Science Education.
Camfield, E. K., & Land, K. M. (2017). The evolution of student engagement: Writing improves teaching in introductory biology courses. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 43(1), 20–26.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.
Dionisio, J. D. N., & Dahlquist, K. D. (2008). Improving the computer science in bioinformatics through open source pedagogy. Inroads – SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(2), 115–119.
Fairweather, J. S. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: A Status Report. Washington, DC: Commissioned paper presented at NRC workshop on Evidence on Selected Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
Fernandes, M. A., Wammes, J. D., & Meade, M. E. (2018). The surprisingly powerful influence of drawing on memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 302–308.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From gatekeeping to engagement: A multicontextual, mixed method study of student academic engagement in introductory STEM courses. Research in Higher Education, 53(2), 229–261.
Griffard, B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1039–1052.
Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216.
Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.
Hochanadel, A., & Finamore, D. (2015). Fixed and growth mindset in education and how grit helps students persist in the face of adversity. Journal of International Education Research, 11, 47–50.
Hughes, B. E., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, M. E. (2014). Driving up or dialing down competition in introductory STEM courses: Individual and classroom level factors. Washington, DC: A paper presented at the Association of the Study of Higher Education.
Klymkowsky, M. W., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008). Recognizing student misconceptions through Ed’s tools and the biology concept inventory. PLoS Biology, 6(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060003.
Knight, J. K., & Wood, E. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310.
Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Lee, C. J., Toven-Lindsey, B., Shapiro, C., Soh, M., Mazrouee, S., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., & Sanders, E. R. (2018). Error-discovery learning boosts student engagement and performance, while reducing student attrition in a bioinformatics course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(ar40), 1–13.
Leonard, M. J., Kalinowski, S. T., & Andrews, T. C. (2014). Misconceptions yesterday, today, and tomorrow. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 179–186.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Mazur, E. (2009). Confessions of a converted lecturer (Lecture at UMBC). Retrieved November 20, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conceptions: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
Rittmayer, A. D., & Beier, M. E. (2008). Self-efficacy in STEM. In B. Bogue & E. Cady (Eds.), Applying research to practice (ARP) Resources.http://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/misc/arps/arp_selfefficacy_overview_122208.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2016.
Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sciences Education, 13, 159–166.
Shi, J., Wood, W. B., Martin, J. M., Guild, N. A., Vicens, Q., & Knight, J. K. (2010). A diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 453–461.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understand of genetics. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 422–430.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.
Trujillo, G., & Tanner, K. D. (2014). Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13, 6–15.
van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–46.
Walczyk, J. J., & Ramsey, L. L. (2003). Use of learner-centered instruction in college science and mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 566–584.
Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36–41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lee, C. (2020). Error Discovery Learning. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_47
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_47
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)