Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content

Error Discovery Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Learning in College Science
  • 2706 Accesses

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?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffard, B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1039–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. K., & Wood, E. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kober, N. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, M. J., Kalinowski, S. T., & Andrews, T. C. (2014). Misconceptions yesterday, today, and tomorrow. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J., & Mazur, E. (2013). Retaining students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics