Page 1 of 9 Original Research

A teacher’s engagement with learner errors in her

Grade 9 mathematics classroom
Authors: How errors are dealt with in a mathematics classroom is important as it can either support
Aarifah Gardee1 or deny learner access to mathematical knowledge. This study examines how a teacher,
Karin Brodie1
who participated in a professional development programme that focused on learner errors,
Affiliations: engaged with mathematical errors in her Grade 9 classroom. Data were collected over a two-
1
School of Education, year period in the form of videotapes and were analysed qualitatively. Our findings illustrate
University of the
that this teacher dealt with four types of mistakes: slips, errors derived from misconceptions,
Witwatersrand, South Africa
language-related errors and errors that occurred from the incorrect usage of the calculator.
Correspondence to: She dealt with these by correcting, probing or embracing them. We found that, over time,
Aarifah Gardee this teacher dealt with more errors and corrected and embraced errors in different ways. We
recommend that teachers use their professional knowledge to decide when, why and how it
Email:
aarifahgardee@gmail.com is appropriate to correct, probe or embrace errors in light of their knowledge of the content
and their learners.
Postal address:
School of Education, Wits
University, 27 Saint Andrews
Road, Parktown 2193, Introduction
South Africa
Errors play a central role in the mathematics classroom as they are a reflection of the manner
Dates: in which learners reason and they illuminate the processes through which learners attempt to
Received: 23 Mar. 2015 construct their own knowledge (Olivier, 1989). Errors can be used by teachers to provide learners
Accepted: 01 Oct. 2015 with epistemological access to mathematics and contribute to developing learners’ conceptual
Published: 27 Nov. 2015
understanding (Brodie, 2013). Therefore, the manner in which a teacher deals with learner errors
How to cite this article: is crucial, as it can either enhance or limit learners’ understanding of mathematics. Methodologies
Gardee, A., & Brodie, K. for remediating errors are not always satisfactory, especially when additional work or re-
(2015). A teacher’s explaining of ideas are used as remedies (Borasi, 1987). While much research has been done on
engagement with learner the nature of learners’ errors and their underlying misconceptions (Hansen, 2011; Nesher, 1987;
errors in her Grade 9
mathematics classroom. Olivier, 1989) and how teachers might deal with errors (Borasi, 1994; Swan, 2001), very little work
Pythagoras, 36(2), Art. #293, has illustrated how teachers actually deal with errors in their mathematics classrooms (Heinze
9 pages. http://dx.doi. & Reiss, 2007).
org/10.4102/pythagoras.
v36i2.293
The purpose of this study is to investigate the type of errors a teacher chooses to deal with in
Copyright: her mathematics classroom and the manner in which she deals with the errors. Since the data
© 2015. The Authors. from this study were obtained over a two-year period, we also decided to investigate if there
Licensee: AOSIS were any shifts in the teacher’s practice in dealing with errors over time. This research is part
OpenJournals. This work is
licensed under the Creative of a larger project called the Data-Informed Practice Improvement Project (DIPIP). DIPIP works
Commons Attribution with mathematics teachers in professional learning communities so that they may develop their
License. understanding of the importance of mathematical errors in the classroom and the learners’
reasoning behind their errors and collectively strategise how to deal with them (Brodie, 2013).

The first and second sections of this article draw on the literature to illuminate the kinds of errors
that might occur in the classroom and the ways in which teachers might deal with errors. In the
third section, we explain the research design and methodology used to analyse our data, which
is then followed by an analysis and discussion of our results in the fourth section. Finally, we
suggest recommendations based on our findings.

Slips, errors and misconceptions

There are many reasons why learners may not obtain the correct solution to a mathematical
problem. These reasons may include, but are not limited to, carelessness, a lack of knowledge
of the mathematical concepts or the learners not understanding what is required of them in a
Read online: mathematical task (Swan, 2001). Terms like ‘misconceptions’, ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ are often used
Scan this QR interchangeably to describe any solution that is a deviation from the expected result. However,
code with your
smart phone or these three terms are not synonymous and refer to different kinds of mistakes. The first is what
mobile device
to read online. Olivier (1989, p. 12) calls ‘slips’, which are mistakes made as a result of carelessness and which
are easily rectified when pointed out. Slips are not symptoms of conceptual misunderstandings.

http://www.pythagoras.org.za doi:y10.42/pthao
g rasv36i2.9
 Page 2 of 9 Original Research

Slips are common; we all make them as learners and doers of Reiss, 2007). Hansen (2011) argues that teachers need to treat
mathematics. errors sensitively and productively, as errors can be used as
tools, not only to motivate learners but also to assist them
Slips are sporadic. Errors, however, are systematic. They in developing their conceptual knowledge by learning from
occur on a regular basis and are pervasive and persistent, their errors. Teachers may also regard errors as a failure
often across contexts. Errors occur at a deeper conceptual on their part. This is reflected in Brodie’s (2014) research,
level than slips, so correcting errors is usually not wherein teachers blamed the learners or themselves for the
enough to address these conceptual misunderstandings. The errors made in class.
underlying conceptual framework that causes the errors is
called a misconception (Nesher, 1987). Nesher argues that Much of the research on errors and misconceptions argues
misconceptions lead to a cluster of errors, which are not that errors are a normal part of the learning process (Borasi,
sporadic. 1987; Brodie, 2013, 2014; Heinze & Reiss, 2007; Ingram et al.,
2013; Nesher, 1987; Smith et al., 1993). Even experienced
Misconceptions generate errors. But how are misconceptions mathematicians make errors and in so doing create new
generated? The theory of constructivism proposes that we knowledge (Borasi, 1994). In classrooms, errors make for
actively construct knowledge by using our prior knowledge points of engagement with learners’ current knowledge
as a foundation to build new knowledge. The processes of (Brodie, 2014). This notion of errors gives us a way to help
assimilation and accommodation enable us to restructure teachers see learners as reasoning and reasonable thinkers
our existing schemas to develop our conceptual knowledge and the practice of mathematics as reasoned and reasonable
(Hatano, 1996). Assimilation occurs when new knowledge is (Ball & Bass, 2003). If teachers search for ways to understand
‘amalgamated’ into existing schema (Hatano, 1996, p. 202). why learners may have made errors, they may come to value
Accommodation occurs when new knowledge is in conflict learners’ thinking and find ways to engage their current
with existing schema and reorganisation of the schema needs knowledge in order to create new knowledge. An important
to occur to incorporate the new knowledge. Assimilation and issue for teachers’ thinking about errors relates to the role
accommodation working together lead to the reconstruction and responsibility of teachers in producing errors. Errors are
of knowledge (Hatano, 1996), which means that learners seldom taught directly by teachers and yet all learners, even
‘strong’ learners, develop them at some point (Brodie, 2014).
are not only actively engaging in constructing knowledge,
However, teachers sometimes exacerbate errors through
but they are also reorganising their knowledge into more
taken-for-granted use of language and concepts (Brodie, 2014)
powerful schema. The process of accommodating new
and, at another level, through not making errors public and
knowledge is more challenging than assimilating knowledge
dealing with them (Brodie, 2014; Ingram et al., 2013).
into existing schema. By attempting to assimilate knowledge
that we should accommodate, we tend to ‘overgeneralise’
Research on teachers’ dealing with learner errors in
new knowledge based on prior correct knowledge (Olivier,
mathematics is limited, but two authors have developed
1989). We apply knowledge that is correct in one domain
frameworks for this purpose. Peng and Luo (2009) identify
to another in which it no longer works (Smith, DiSessa &
four kinds of error analysis that teachers can use to engage
Roschelle, 1993). This is why errors are not random; they
with learners’ written texts: identify, interpret, evaluate and
have some grounding in learners’ correct prior knowledge.
remediate. In two case studies they report on, the teachers
A constructivist framework suggests that errors are sensible
were able to identify the learners’ errors but struggled
and reasonable to learners and that they illuminate important
to interpret them appropriately. They were therefore not
aspects of learners’ reasoning, both valid and not valid. able to appropriately evaluate or remediate the errors. In
DIPIP focuses on working with teachers to understand the a study with 45 pre-service teachers, Prediger (2010) asked
reasoning behind learner errors and to build on this reasoning them to analyse a learner’s error and their analyses suggests
to develop new mathematical concepts (Brodie, 2013, 2014). four characteristics necessary for diagnostic competence
of learner errors: interest in learner thinking, interpretive
How teachers deal with attitude of understanding the learner’s thinking from their
misconceptions perspective, general knowledge of learning processes and
domain-specific mathematical knowledge. Most of the pre-
The word ‘error’ in the education system tends to have service teachers in Prediger’s study showed an interest in
negative connotations. Summative assessments used widely understanding the learners’ errors but those who did not
in schools perpetuate the misconception that making errors is have an interpretive attitude were likely to make suggestions
punishable through the system of deducting marks for wrong for remediation that were confusing or that re-taught what
performances (Nesher, 1987). Treating errors as problems the learner already knew, rather than pinpointed the source
may disrupt learners’ confidence in their previously learned of the error. Pre-service teachers who showed an interpretive
correct knowledge (Nesher, 1987). Ingram, Baldry and Pitt attitude with some general knowledge of learning were able
(2013) argue that although teachers may not explicitly tell to partially understand how the learners might be thinking
the learners that making errors is problematic, the manner in but were not able to activate the mathematical knowledge
which teachers deal with errors, by avoiding opportunities that they needed to fully understand and work with the
for learners to make and discuss mistakes in the classroom, error. Only pre-service teachers who activated all four levels
implicitly suggests that errors are problematic (Heinze & of competence were able to make appropriate interventions.

http://www.pythagoras.org.za
 Page 3 of 9 Original Research

While Peng and Luo (2009) and Prediger (2010) use the notion TABLE 1: Overview of the types of lessons.
of remediation of learner errors, Borasi (1994) argues that Lesson Number Date Duration Topic
category of lessons (minutes)
there is a difference between diagnosing and remediating
Individually 3 20 April 2012 30 Algebra: dealing
errors, with the aim of eliminating them, and using them planned 1 with three revision
questions
as ‘springboards for inquiry’ where errors become part and
25 April 2012 30 Polygons
parcel of mathematical development and knowledge creation
4 May 2012 30 Revision of algebra and
(see also Lakatos, 1976). properties of triangles
Jointly 2 17 August 2012 25 Algebra: equations and
planned 1 expressions
Based on the above, Brodie (2013) suggests a framework for
20 August 2012 35 Algebra: equations and
analysing how teachers interact with learner errors. Teachers expressions
can avoid, correct, probe or embrace errors. Teachers may Individually 3 19 April 2013 35 Algebra: laws of
planned 2 exponents
avoid or ignore errors because they are insecure about their
22 April 2013 35 Algebra: simplification
content knowledge, they may not regard errors as important of expressions
tools for learning, they may not want to shame learners or 23 April 2013 35 Ratios
they fear that errors may be ‘contagious’ (Swan, 2001, p. 151). Jointly 1 17 September 35 Revision of ratios
planned 2 2013
Teachers often correct errors, thereby making the correct
knowledge accessible to the learners. Correcting errors
suggests that teachers have identified and evaluated the
The first step in data analysis was to watch each of the
errors rather than interpreted the errors from the learners’
videos. The first author made notes on the time that an error
perspectives. Probing errors involves teachers attempting
was seen in the video, the nature of the error and the manner
to understand how errors make sense to learners, usually
in which the teacher dealt with the error. To further ensure
by asking learners ‘probing questions or pressing questions’
the validity of our results, she re-watched the video and
to gain access to learner thinking (Brodie & Shalem,
documented excerpts illustrating how the teacher dealt with
2011, p. 431). By asking such questions, teachers support
the error and the possible reasons that the learners provided
learners to develop reasoning and learners learn to explain
for making such errors, if they were expressed. The first
their thinking and justify their ideas. Embracing errors is
author then discussed her coding system and checked her
where teachers use errors constructively to generate new
interpretations with the second author and all disputes were
knowledge for the learner who has made the error and for
resolved by discussion. Thereafter, we arranged the data into
other learners (Brodie, 2013); that is, they use errors as tools
a table. We documented the error, our thoughts on the error,
to enhance epistemological access. We use this framework to
the manner in which the teacher dealt with the error and our
analyse how the teacher in this study dealt with the errors
thoughts on the teacher’s approach to dealing with the error
her learners produced.
in light of the literature.

Research design and methodology Initially, we intended to classify errors using the two
The teacher whose lessons we analysed participates in a categories, slips and errors stemming from misconceptions,
professional learning community organised by DIPIP on extracted from our literature review. However, when
an ongoing basis. This teacher is one of about 40 teachers watching the lessons, we realised that there were two
who are part of this project and was selected for this additional types of errors which are conceptual in nature;
study because she seemed to have a range of strategies in that is, they are not slips, but are not derived from
working with learner errors. The data are in the form of misconceptions. These conceptual errors were language-
videotapes, which were taken before the project started as related errors and errors derived from the incorrect usage
a baseline and have been collected at various points during of the calculator, which we included in our framework. We
the project over two years (2012–2013). For the purpose then classified each of the errors in our table of results as
of this study, we analysed nine videotaped lessons in a either being a slip, an error derived from a misconception,
Grade 9 class. Each of the nine lessons was categorised by a language-related error or an error derived from incorrect
the DIPIP project as either individually planned or jointly usage of the calculator. The manner in which the teacher
planned lessons. Individually planned lessons involved the dealt with the error was classified as correcting the error,
teacher teaching a lesson planned by herself as part of her probing into the error or embracing the error, as discussed
daily routine. The jointly planned lessons were planned above.
in collaboration with other teachers in the professional
learning community and aimed to deal with the possible We acknowledge that the practices of one teacher cannot
learner errors that might emerge during the lessons1. In be generalised to other teachers in the project, or to other
each year (year 1 and year 2) there was a set of individually teachers more generally. However, this analysis has enabled
planned and jointly planned lessons. Table 1 provides an us to test and refine our categories for analysis and we intend
overview of the types of lessons. to analyse the shifts among other teachers in the future. The
analysis of one teacher is useful in that it enables us to discuss
in detail the different categories and how she developed her
1. See Brodie and Shalem (2011) for a description of the DIPIP activities and how the
jointly planned lessons arose out of previous error analysis. practices over time.

http://www.pythagoras.org.za
 Page 4 of 9 Original Research

Analysis and discussion of results the word expansion. Language-related errors are likely to
occur across learners, rather than be idiosyncratic, once again
Mistakes that occurred in the classroom highlighting the reasonableness of such errors.
There were four categories of mistakes that occurred in in
An example of an error due to the incorrect usage of the
the classroom: slips, errors derived from misconceptions,
calculator occurred when the teacher asked the learners
language-related errors and errors derived from incorrect
how to represent −1x in the expression −3x2 − 1x. A learner
usage of the calculator. To illustrate the nature of each
stated that negative one is like zero. When probed by the
category of mistakes we provide an example of each category
teacher, the learner said that she used a calculator to obtain
below.
the answer of zero. There is a tendency for variables in a
scientific calculator on computer mode to represent numbers
An example of a slip occurred when the teacher asked saved in its memory. If there is no number saved within the
learners how many times 2 goes into 36. A learner responded memory, variables are equated with zero. Hence, by typing
by saying 13. This learner could have treated 36 as 26. At a an expression into a scientific calculator, learners may get
Grade 9 level, this error can be attributed to carelessness and incorrect answers. In classifying errors linked to the incorrect
can be easily corrected by checking the calculation. At this usage of the calculator, it was established in the classroom by
level, it is unlikely that the mistake indicates a conceptual both the teacher and the learners that a calculator was used
misunderstanding; hence, it can be classified as a slip. to get the incorrect answers. These errors are conceptual
because they relate to not understanding how the calculator
An example of an error derived from a misconception occurred works and are likely to be repeated and systematic in nature.
5 7
when the teacher asked the learners to add to . A learner
10 8
gave an incorrect answer of one and a half. Since the teacher Table 2 illustrates the frequency of each of the four kinds of
did not probe the error, we thought of possible methods to mistakes across the lessons that were analysed. There were a
get the answer. The first possible error is that the learner may total of 69 mistakes made across the four lesson categories.
have added the numerator and the denominator separately:
Most of the errors that were made across these four lesson
categories arose from misconceptions. This indicates that the
5 7 12  majority of the incorrect answers made across the analysed
+ = [Eqn 1]
10 8 18 lessons were derived from an overgeneralisation of correct
prior knowledge. Nesher (1987) argues that misconceptions
give rise to a cluster of errors. This means that from one
This error is evidence of a misconception because the learner
misconception, there can be many errors of a similar nature in
overgeneralised the addition of whole numbers to the each lesson category. This could possibly be the reason why
addition of fractions. The learner could have also added the the frequency of errors due to misconceptions is significantly
numerator and denominator based on an overgeneralisation higher than the other conceptual errors and slips.
of multiplication and division of fractions. Much research
suggests that misconceptions are a result of prior correct
knowledge interfering with new knowledge. However, new
Errors dealt with by the teacher
learning, such as the multiplication and division of fractions Of the 69 mistakes that were made across the four categories
can also interfere with prior correct learning (Olivier, 1989). of lessons, 45 were dealt with by the teacher, while 24 were
The second error in this answer is that the learner divided 18 not. Some of these 24 mistakes were ignored by the teacher:
she did not acknowledge or engage with the learners’
by 12 instead of 12 by 18 to simplify the fraction. This learner
responses and, in some cases, she may not have heard them.
probably assumed that 12 divided by 18 is equivalent to 18
Others were ignored because they were shouted out, a
divided by 12, a misconception that can maybe be attributed
deliberate strategy of this teacher.
to the overgeneralisation of the commutative properties of
addition and multiplication of numbers to division. Table 3 illustrates the number and the nature of the mistakes
that were dealt with by the teacher and should be read in
An example of a language-related error occurred when the conjunction with Table 2.
teacher asked the learners for a definition of the word
‘expression’. A learner stated that an expression refers to TABLE 2: Types of errors that occurred per lesson category.
‘making a number bigger’, which suggests that this learner Number Lesson Slips Errors Language- Incorrect Total
of category derived from related usage of the
confused the word ‘expression’ with ‘expansion’. Despite lessons misconceptions errors calculator
their similar pronunciations, these concepts refer to different 3 Individually 6 16 0 0 22
planned 1
mathematical objects or processes and have different spellings
2 Jointly 0 15 1 1 17
(Adams, 2003). We classified this as a language-related error planned 1
and not a slip because such errors are reasonable and sensible 3 Individually 1 20 0 1 22
planned 2
and usually occur where learners do not fully grasp the
1 Jointly 0 4 4 0 8
concepts. This learner did not fully grasp the concept of an planned 2
expression in mathematics and used it interchangeably with Total 7 55 5 2 69

http://www.pythagoras.org.za doi:y10.42/pthao
g rasv36i2.9
 Page 5 of 9 Original Research

TABLE 3: Number of different kinds of mistakes dealt with by the teacher. was probed by the teacher. We have included it in the category
Lesson Slips Errors Language- Incorrect Total of probing errors despite slips not being classed as errors.
category derived from related usage of the
misconceptions errors calculator Examples of correcting, probing and embracing errors from
Individually 0 7 0 0 7 the lessons are provided to show the reader how we coded our
planned 1
data.
Jointly 0 9 1 1 11
planned 1
Individually 1 17 0 1 19 The first example is an excerpt where the teacher corrected an
planned 2
error. In this excerpt, the teacher asked the learners to share
Jointly 0 4 4 0 8
planned 2 12 sweets according to the ratio 1:2:3. She asked different
Total 1 36 5 2 45 learners to answer how many sweets will be represented by
1, 2 and 3 in the ratio:

Teacher: What is two parts of the twelve sweets?

Total number of mistakes
1 dealt with by the teacher Learner A: Four.
Slips
7
Teacher: That is four sweets. And now, I’m coming to
this side, Learner B? What is three parts of
Errors derived from 36
misconceptions 55 twelve sweets?
Mistakes

Learner B: Three.
Language-related 5 Teacher: Is three. Alright, I want people on this side to
errors 5 help Learner B. Because Learner B is sitting
on this side. So what is three parts of twelve
Incorrect usage of 2
a calculator 2
sweets, Learner C?
Learner C: Six.
Number of mistakes Teacher: Six.
FIGURE 1: Number of mistakes dealt with by the teacher.
Learner B’s response to how many sweets are represented by
3 in the ratio was incorrect. The teacher then asked another
While Table 2 shows that there were a total of seven slips
learner what the correct answer was and it was established
that occurred during the lessons, Table 3 shows that one
to be 6. Despite addressing the error, the teacher did not get
slip was dealt with by the teacher. Similarly, of the 55 errors
to the bottom of why this error was made as she had another
derived from misconceptions (Table 2), 36 were dealt with
learner correct Learner B. We note here that even if the
by the teacher (Table 3) and all of the five language-related
teacher gets another learner to correct the error, it still counts
errors and two incorrect usage of the calculator were dealt
as correcting the error because the underlying conceptual
with (Table 2 and Table 3).
issues are not dealt with. Borasi (1987) argues that this
manner of correcting errors is ineffective as any learning that
Figure 1 illustrates the number of mistakes in each category
occurs may be temporary. This is because errors are evidence
dealt with by the teacher (Table 3) in relation to the number
of conceptual misunderstanding and simply correcting
of mistakes made in each category (Table 2).
them does not mean that the conceptual basis of this error is
corrected. This is emphasised by Brodie (2013) who argues
Figure 1 illustrates that the teacher dealt with all the
that the manner of correcting errors may not contribute to
language-related errors as well as all the errors derived from
the incorrect usage of the calculator. She further dealt with supporting learners’ access to mathematical knowledge.
65% of errors that were derived from misconceptions. Table 2
and Table 3 illustrate that most of the misconceptions that The second example is an excerpt of the teacher first probing
were not dealt with occurred during the first individually an error and then embracing the error. In this excerpt, the
planned and jointly planned lessons. It is possible that the teacher asked the learners to find n + m + p if n + m = 11.
teacher may have benefited from her participation in her This is a very long excerpt. We have divided it into three
professional learning community as she dealt with more smaller parts to make the discussion that follows easier to
errors during the last two individually planned and jointly understand.
planned lessons. One of the seven slips that occurred during
the lessons was dealt with by the teacher, which could be due Part A:
to the fact that slips are not as serious as errors because they
are sporadic and due to carelessness. Teacher: If n plus m is equal to eleven. Then what is n
plus m plus p? Lift up your hand. If n plus m
is equal to eleven. Then what is n plus m plus
How the teacher dealt with the errors p? Learner H?
We categorised the manner in which the teacher dealt with Learner H: It might be fifteen and a half.
errors using Brodie’s (2013) three categories: correcting errors, Teacher: It is fifteen and a half. And how did you get
probing errors and embracing errors. There was one slip that fifteen and a half?

http://www.pythagoras.org.za v36i2.9 asoryd:104/pthg

 Page 6 of 9 Original Research

Learner H: Because n is equal to five and a half and m is Teacher:  It would be … four. Alright. So we agree
equal to five and a half. So p is five and a half that m and n are variables there and they are
again. representing numbers. So, they can be any
Teacher: Right. How do you … Why do you get five number. Now why do you say p is seven?
and a half? Where do you get that from? Where do you
Learners: Sixteen and a half. get that from because we have just said that
Teacher: Where do you get five and a half? m and n are letters of the alphabet which are
Learner H: Because five and a half plus five and a half is representing a number.
equal to eleven. Learner: [Inaudible]
Teacher: Is there anything that tells us that should be Teacher: OK, he says that because we say m is five and
solved like that? n is six, so automatically p will be seven. But
Learners: [Inaudible] if I say to you m is two and n is nine. What
Teacher: It’s your mind set. Who else has got another would p be?
answer for that sum? Because he, Learner H, Learner L: [Shout out] Ten.
what did he … did he divide that eleven by Learner M: [Put up his hand] Mam, the answer is eleven
two. And why did he divide by two? plus p.
Learner H: Because half of eleven is five and a half. Teacher: The answer is eleven plus p.
Teacher: Because half of eleven is five and a half. So in
other words, when you look at n and you look In Part A of the excerpt, the teacher constantly probed
at m, what do you see there? Look at n and Learner H’s error. She asked him how he got the answer of
look at m. Because we are trying to find out 15½, why he got 5½ for n, whether there was any information
why did you think of dividing that eleven by in the problem that made him think that problem could be
two? Where did you get that from? solved this way and continued to probe his error. The teacher
Learner H: Because Mam, half of eleven is five and a half. responded to this error by interacting and engaging with the
And if you equal five and a half and five and error to access the learner’s reasoning and to support him
a half, it gives you eleven. in reflecting on his solution process. In Part B, the teacher
used the same approach when dealing with Learner I’s error.
Part B: In both cases, the learners’ reasoning clearly made sense to
them, but would not make sense to a mathematician and did
Teacher:  Right. Learner I, do you want to say not make sense to the teacher. This is because the learners
something? were assigning values to the variables which were not
Learner I: Mam, I think its eighteen Mam, because m necessary according to the question.
plus n is equal to eleven. So m can be five, n
can be six. So if it’s n plus m plus p, then m can By examining Part A and Part B, it is evident that the teacher
be five, n can be six and p can be seven. uses the teaching strategy of questioning to probe the errors,
Teacher: Why did you say m can be five, n can be six. for example by asking learners to justify their answers in
What informs you of that? What in that sum? a discussion as to why they thought the question should
What is m and n? How do we call m and n in be solved in the manner they suggested. What makes this
that sum? category of dealing with errors different from embracing
Learners: Variables. errors is that she did not use these learner justifications to
Teacher: They are? promote epistemological access.
Learners: [Shout out] Variables, unknown numbers.
Teacher: They are variables. What is a variable? In Part C, after obtaining a definition of variables from the
Learners: [Inaudible] learners, the teacher began to problematise the question.
Teacher: Sssshhhh … Learner J? Using the definition that variables represent numbers, the
Learner J: That is a letter from the alphabet that teacher substituted different values that add up to 11 in place
represents a number. of m and n to show that these variables do not represent
unique numbers. Finally, one of the learners gave the correct
Part C: answer, which was explained later in the lesson. Throughout
this excerpt, the teacher did not tell the learners at any point
Teacher:  That is a letter from the alphabet that that they were wrong; instead she used questions to support
represents a number. Right, so when Learner the learners’ understanding that the variables m and n can
I said that m can be represented by five, n can represent any two numbers whose sum is 11.
be represented by six. So when we add both
of those, it could be that m is two and n is The above excerpt illustrates that this teacher did not only
nine. Or m is seven and n is … What would n tolerate errors, but used them for epistemological purposes.
be, if m is seven? What would n be? The learners had learned previously that there can be a finite
Learner K: Four. set of values for variables in an equation and an infinite

http://www.pythagoras.org.za
 Page 7 of 9 Original Research

number in an expression. Here, the teacher further supported TABLE 5: Number and percentage of errors dealt with by the teacher per lesson
category.
learners in developing a conceptual understanding of
Lesson category Total number Total number of Percentage of errors
variables in equations and expressions through conversation. of errors errors dealt with by dealt with by the
The manner in which the teacher dealt with the error enabled the teacher teacher
Individually 22 7 31.8
learners to perceive that their errors are reasonable and are planned 1
an integral part of learning mathematics (Brodie, 2013). This Jointly planned 1 17 11 64.7
excerpt indicates how errors can be embraced ‘as a point of Individually 22 19 86.0
planned 2
contact with learners’ thinking and as points of conversation,
Jointly planned 2 8 8 100.0
which can generate discussions about mathematical ideas’
(Brodie, 2013, p. 8) and contribute to the enrichment and
development of mathematical knowledge.
approximately 32% and 65% to 86% and 100%, although the
100% was of a small number of errors. Table 4 shows that
What is interesting about all the errors that were embraced
the teacher dealt with more errors by correcting and probing
across the lessons is that the conversations were all lengthy
them; however, the number of errors embraced remained
and required a large amount of time. Hansen (2011) argues
relatively constant over time. What our quantitative analysis
that dealing with misconceptions to enable learning is very
does not show is whether the teacher dealt with errors
time consuming. The exploration of mathematical ideas
differently over time from how she dealt with them initially
is encouraged by Brodie (2007), who argues that these
in the first categories of lessons. Despite the quantity of
conversations are important as they can foster an increase in
embraced errors being the same across the lesson categories,
genuine learner thinking.
the manner in which the teacher embraced errors was less time
consuming in comparison to how she embraced errors in the
Table 4 illustrates the number of errors that were corrected,
first individually planned category of lessons2. In addition,
probed or embraced by the teacher across the four categories
the teacher tended to elicit more incorrect responses from a
of lessons.
single question which was corrected with a single response in
the second individually planned and jointly planned lessons.
Table 4 shows that the teacher corrected more errors
That is why there are more errors that were corrected,
in comparison to the number of errors she probed or
especially in the second individually planned lessons and
embraced, which is a finding that might be expected of
the second jointly planned lesson. We now describe how the
most teachers (Brodie, 2013). However, in the case of this
teacher’s manner of dealing with errors changed compared
teacher, 21 errors were either probed or embraced, which is
to how she dealt with them initially.
similar to the number corrected, suggesting that this teacher
was engaging errors in a way that is different from many
In terms of correcting errors in the first individually planned
teachers. This is unexpected and may be attributable to the
and jointly planned sets of lessons, the teacher responded
work that the teacher did with her professional learning
to errors using the initiation-response-evaluation cycle: the
community in DIPIP. In order to investigate this suggestion
teacher asked a question, a learner responded incorrectly
further, we looked at shifts in how the teacher dealt with
and an evaluation of the error followed (Brodie, Jina &
errors over time.
Modau, 2009). However, instead of telling the learner they
were incorrect, the teacher asked other learners to evaluate
Changes over time in dealing with errors the incorrect answer, which was established to be wrong.
There was a change in the manner in which the teacher dealt Thereafter, the teacher asked another learner to give the
with errors across the four categories of lessons which took correct answer. This method of evaluating errors after they
place over a two-year period. Table 4 shows that the teacher were made shifted in the second individually planned
corrected and probed more errors over time but the number lessons. Instead of correcting or getting other learners to
of errors embraced remained relatively constant. Table 5 correct errors immediately after they were made, the teacher
shows the number and percentage of errors dealt with by the usually asked the learners if there were any other answers,
teacher per lesson category. which elicited more errors. Often a number of other errors
arose and the teacher faced the dilemma of which errors to
Table 5 illustrates that there was an increase in the percentage follow up. If she chose to correct the errors, she did not just tell
of errors dealt with by the teacher across the lessons: from learners they were wrong, but she explained to the learners
why they were wrong. This method of correcting errors was
TABLE 4: The manner in which the teacher dealt with the errors. prevalent in the manner in which the teacher dealt with eight
Lesson category Correcting errors Probing errors Embracing errors Total of the ten errors corrected in the second individually planned
Individually 3 1 3 7 lessons and four of the six errors corrected in the second
planned 1
jointly planned lesson. This illustrates a progression on the
Jointly planned 1 5 3 3 11
part of the teacher in correcting errors from providing the
Individually 10 6 3 19
planned 2
Jointly planned 2 6 0 2 8 2. The manner in which the teacher probed errors remained constant over time.
This is because probing errors merely required the teacher to access justifications
Total number 24 10 11 45 for errors.

http://www.pythagoras.org.za v36i2.9 asoryd:104/pthg

 Page 8 of 9 Original Research

correct answer to a single error, to eliciting a cluster of errors, we do not argue that teachers should always embrace
correcting them and explaining the correct answer. errors, because as Hansen (2011) and our findings suggest,
embracing errors may be extremely time consuming. With
In terms of the teacher’s shift when embracing errors, we the demands of the curriculum, it would be difficult for
showed that initially the process of embracing errors was time teachers to constantly embrace errors. We do think however,
consuming. In later lessons, the teacher managed to embrace that embracing errors may be less time consuming than re-
errors, but in less time. The teacher initially addressed the teaching and re-explaining ideas, which are not conducive to
errors by probing learners as to whether they agreed or eradicating misconceptions (Borasi, 1987).
disagreed with an incorrect solution. After she probed learner
thinking, she suggested a pathway to follow and simplified Teachers should be aware of the benefits and limitations
her questions to obtain the solution. This simplification of correcting, probing and embracing errors. Using their
of questions could be a reason that she embraced errors in professional knowledge, teachers should decide when and
less time than in the first sets of individually planned and why it is appropriate to correct, to probe and to embrace
jointly planned lessons. We were careful to check whether errors in light of their knowledge of the content and their
the simplification of questions led to what Stein, Smith, learners. For example, it might not make much sense to
Henningsen and Silver (2000) call task decline, because if embrace a slip. Probing or correcting slips would be a more
there was too great a decline in the cognitive demands of the suitable method of dealing with the mistake. In probing
task it would not count as embracing errors. We classified and embracing errors, teachers are likely to develop their
this manner of dealing with errors as embracing errors when learners’ mathematical proficiency and reasoning skills, help
the teacher used the error to generate new knowledge about them become aware of their own errors and develop a sense
particular concepts. of agency in relation to their mathematical learning.

Conclusions Acknowledgements
In this article, we have shown that the teacher dealt with Funding for the DIPIP project was provided by the Gauteng
four types of mistakes, namely slips, errors derived from Education and Development Trust and the National Research
misconceptions, language-related errors and errors derived Foundation.
from the incorrect usage of the calculator.
Competing interests
We categorised the manner in which she dealt with the
errors in three categories, namely correcting errors, probing The authors declare that they have no financial or personal
errors and embracing errors, and showed how each of relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced
these approaches to dealing with errors provides different them in writing this article.
forms of access to knowledge. We found that most of the
mistakes made throughout the four categories of lessons Authors’ contributions
were conceptual in nature and that the teacher probed
A.G. (University of the Witwatersrand) and K.B. (University
and embraced almost as many errors as she corrected. We
of the Witwatersrand) worked together on this article in
also showed that the percentage of errors dealt with by the
discussing, drafting and refining the article. The article is
teacher across the lessons increased: from 32% and 65% to
based on A.G.’s research project, of which K.B. was the
86% and 100%, although the 100% was of a small number of
supervisor.
errors. The shifts in the teacher’s practice could possibly be
due to the influence of her participation in her professional
learning community, which supported her to engage with References
learner errors; however, confirming this conjecture requires Adams, T.L. (2003). Reading mathematics: More than words can say. The Reading
further research. Teacher, 56(8), 786–795.
Ball, D.L., & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick,
W.G. Martin, & D.E. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and
We also argued that the manner in which the teacher standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: NCTM. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18153.x
corrected and embraced errors changed over time. The
Borasi, R. (1987). Exploring mathematics through the analysis of errors. For the
teacher managed to elicit and correct more errors and she Learning of Mathematics, 7(3), 2–8. Available from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/40247900
managed to embrace errors in less time.
Borasi, R. (1994). Capitalizing on errors as ‘springboards for inquiry’: A teaching
experiment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 166–208.
Good teaching requires using learner errors constructively in Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/749507
Brodie, K. (2007). Teaching with conversations: Beginnings and endings. For the
class on the basis of teachers’ professional knowledge and Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 17–22. Available from http://www.jstor.org/
judgements. Embracing errors, as we have illustrated, has the stable/40248555

potential to allow learners to develop a rich understanding of Brodie, K. (2013). The power of professional learning communities. Education as
Change, 17(1), 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2013.773929
concepts. It is preferable that teachers embrace errors rather Brodie, K. (2014). Learning about learner errors in professional learning communities.
than correcting or probing errors, which provide learners Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85, 221–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10649-013-9507-1
with limited access to knowledge in comparison to the access
Brodie, K., Jina, Z., & Modau, S. (2009). Challenges in implementing the new
afforded to learners when teachers embrace errors. However, mathematics curriculum in Grade 10: A case study. African Journal of Research in

http://www.pythagoras.org.za v36i2.9 asoryd:104/pthg

 Page 9 of 9 Original Research

Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 31(1), 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/ Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1080/10288457.2009.10740648 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171472
Brodie, K., & Shalem, Y. (2011). Accountability conversations: Mathematics teachers’ Nesher, P. (1987). Towards an instructional theory: The role of students’
learning through challenge and solidarity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher misconceptions. For the Learning of Mathematics, 7(3), 33–39. Available from
Education, 14(6), 419–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9178-8 http://flm-journal.org/Articles/4582E5C6877C0CBF1CFF62ABA1AA0B.pdf
Hansen, A. (2011). Children’s errors in mathematics: Understanding common Olivier, A. (1989). Handling pupils’ misconceptions. Pythagoras, 21, 10–19.
misconceptions in primary school. (2nd edn.). Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd. Peng, A., & Luo, Z. (2009). A framework for examining mathematics teacher
Hatano, G. (1996). A conception of knowledge acquisition and its implications for knowledge as used in error analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 29(3),
mathematics education. In P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer 22–25.
(Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 197–217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Prediger, S. (2010). How to develop mathematics-for-teaching and for
Erlbaum. understanding: The case of meanings of the equal sign. Journal for
Heinze, A., & Reiss, K. (2007). Mistake handling activities in the mathematics Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(1), 73–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
classroom: Effects of an in-service teacher training on students’ performance in s10857-009-9119-y
geometry. In J.-H. Woo, H.-C. Lew, K.-S. Park, & D.-Y. Seo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Smith, J.P., DiSessa, A.A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived:
31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning
Education (Vol. 3, pp. 9–16). Seoul: PME. Sciences, 3(2), 115–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1
Ingram, J., Baldry, F., & Pitt, A. (2013). The influence of how teachers interactionally Stein, M., Smith, M., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. (2000). Implementing standard-
manage mathematical mistakes on the mathematics that students experience. In based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development.
B. Ubuz, Ç. Haser, & M. Mariotti (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
European Society of Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1487–1495). Ankara:
European Society of Research in Mathematics Education. Available from http:// Swan, M. (2001). Dealing with misconceptions in mathematics. In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues
cerme8.metu.edu.tr/wgpapers/WG9/WG9_Ingram.pdf in teaching mathematics (pp. 147–165). London: Falmer Press.

http://www.pythagoras.org.za doi:10.4102/pythagoras.v36i2.293