A Comparison of Precision Teaching Methods With and Without Error Urging

Abstract

Previous research has shown that students will not make errors in math freely. If students were encouraged to make errors would there be an increase in learning? Would students remember the material longer? Would they feel any different about what was learned?

Forty-five ninth grade general math students were the subjects of this study. The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of precision teaching-encouraging errors, with precision teaching, discouraging errors.

The study was divided into three phases, Phase I (regular math) used math at grade level and compared two timings for each student each day. Only correct answers were counted in one timing (exact) but answers within 5 were counted in the other timing (close), Phase II (step-up) involved math that was ono grade level more difficult and was graded by counting answers plus each digit correct in one timing compared with answers plus digits correct to the first mistake in the other timing. Phase III (leap-up) involved math problems two to three levels above grade level. The students were not given instructions as to how to solve the problems. This phase was graded by using exact compared with close scoring.

At the end of the study, 84% of the students were making errors in the challenging (leap-up) curriculum with error encouragement as opposed to 2% making errors with error discouragement. The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the greatest amount of learning takes place when students are both challenged and encouraged to make errors.