Skip to main content
Log in

Teaching common errors in applying a procedure

  • Articles
  • Published:
ECTJ Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated whether or not the teaching of matched examples and nonexamples in the form of common errors would improve student performance in applying a procedure to previously unencountered instances, and whether the common errors would be most beneficial in generality form, in example form, or in both forms. Participants were 141 first-year music students, who were randomly assigned to four groups and given the task to learn a procedure that was presented in a self-contained booklet. A pretest-posttest experimental design was used, with a prerequisite test given as a screening device. The two independent variables were the absence and presence of the common errors in the generality form and in the example form (2 x 2 factorial design). Results indicated that the teaching of common errors in the generality form significantly improved learning a procedure at the application level of behavior.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali, A. M. (1981). The use of positive and negative examples during instruction.Journal of Instruction Development, 5, 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentti, F., Golden, A., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1983).Teaching common errors in applying a procedure. IDD&E Working Paper No. 17. Syracuse, NY: Instructional Design, Development, & Evaluation Program, School of Education, Syracuse University.ED 289 464

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1979).Educational research. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1960).The process of education. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Burton, R. R. (1978). Diagnostic models for procedural bugs in basic mathematical skills.Cognitive Science, 2, 155–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs in research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. D. (1971). Teaching concepts in the classroom: A set of teaching prescriptions derived from experimental research.Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 253–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, R. B. (1975).Radicals and squares. Ithaca, NY: Logan Hills Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garduno, A. O., Marcone, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1984).Teaching common errors in applying a procedure. IDD&E Working Paper No. 18. Syracuse, NY: Instructional Design, Development, & Evaluation Program, School of Education, Syracuse University.ED 289 465

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper, G. L. (1983). A behavioral approach to instructional prescription. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jassal, R. S., & Tennyson, R. D. (1981-82). Application of concept learning research.International Journal of Instructional Media, 9, 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. W. (1969).Really understanding concepts. Champaign, IL: Stripes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., & Tennyson, R. D. (1977).Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Park, O. C. (1980). The teaching of concepts: A review of instructional design research literature.Review of Educational Research, 50, 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., & Merrill, M. D. (1972). Exemplar and nonexemplar variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinklepaugh, J. A., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1984).Teaching common errors in applying a procedure. Unpublished paper, Syracuse University, School of Education, Instructional Design, Development, and Evaluation Department, Syracuse, NY.

  • Williams, P. B., & Carnine, D. W. (1981). Relationship between range of examples and of instructions and attention in concept attainment.Journal of Education Research, 74, 144–148.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marcone, S., Reigeluth, C.M. Teaching common errors in applying a procedure. ECTJ 36, 23–32 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770015

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770015

Keywords

Navigation