The German Concept of Fehlerkultur and its Pedagogical Implications: Utilizing Error Constructively in a Classroom Setting by Aimee Schmidt

What does it mean to err? There are few concepts that are so pertinacious in our daily life yet so enigmatic in definition. The word Fehlerkultur comes from the German language and can be literally translated as “error culture.” The word Fehler is sometimes translated as the word “mistake” and sometimes as the word “error” depending on the context in which it is used. There is a second German word, “Irrtum,”which is more commonly translated as a “mistake” or “slip.” Both languages use these nearly synonymous words, yet their different connotations have significant implications for the classroom.

In the last 20 years, there has been renewed interest in Fehlerkultur from Switzerland through German speaking social science circles, especially in economic and education studies (Weingardt, 2004, pp. 20-21, Oser & Spychiger, 2005). Researchers and pedagogues have recognized a need to develop a culture where admitting error can not only be accepted but tolerated and then utilized for improvement (Chott, 2006, p. 131). The current American educational landscape, with its increasing pressure to measure students’ learning outcomes through standardized assessments, does not always leave room (or time!) for a deeper look into what causes errors, mistakes, and slips or their pedagogic value. Two different people can answer a test question incorrectly in the same way for vastly different reasons. Developing a learning culture that plays with the process of arriving at an error can be incredibly helpful for creating a stable learning process that goes beyond the checklists of standardized assessment.

If a student makes an error, there are already two errors present: the error itself, and the cognitive-processing or attention-deficit error that led to the error (Weingardt, 2004, p.21). In this era of massive standardized testing, it is easy to consider the competencies that are covered by a test question while undervaluing the fact that there are different ways to arrive at the same wrong answer. Exploring the processes behind errors can be an incredible tool for the advancement of the learning process as first empirically investigated in the classroom by the Fribourg team (Oser, et al.). For example, if you ask students, “Brenda has 8 apples. Max has 10 apples. Who has more fruit?” One student answers “Brenda” because she does not understand that 8 is less than 10. Another student answers “Brenda” because he mixes up the names and assumes that Brenda has 10 apples and Max has 8. A standardized test would only pick up that the two students had both given the incorrect answer of “Brenda”, but each student needs a different learning strategy to correct their error. The first student has a deficit in processing quantitative comparisons. The second student needs help in properly pulling information out of a text. Differentiating between different pathways to a wrong answer can get at the crux of an individual’s learning process. This requires a shift in the perception and reflection of error by everyone in the classroom. In short, it requires a cultural shift.

The current American educational landscape, with its increasing pressure to measure students’ learning outcomes through standardized assessments, does not always leave room (or time!) for a deeper look into what causes errors, mistakes, and slips or their pedagogic value.

The cultural shift required goes beyond simply asking teachers to spend more time in the classroom analyzing student mistakes. In order for students to get to the point where they can look at the cause of their mistakes, they must be willing to do so and they must be in a pedagogical environment that allows such a process to take place. Another German term, Fehlerfreundlichkeit, denotes exactly an atmosphere that can allow this to happen. Literally translatable as “mistake-friendliness”, it is a measure of how errors are perceived by students and teachers alike. The term was originally developed by Theo Wehner in his studies of German industrial practices in the 1990s. His concept of a mistake-friendly company is one in which encourages optimistic active interaction with mistakes and operational control over their consequences rather than complete avoidance (Spychiger, et. al., 2006, p.98). Spychiger and her colleagues further developed the concept Fehlerfreundlichkeit and applied it to the classroom as a phenomenon that can described by measuring such parameters as student fear of making mistakes in the classroom, how patient the teacher is with students who do not understand something, how often teachers scold their students in the classroom for making mistakes, how mistakes on student products are interacted with and utilized, whether or not making mistakes is perceived as something actively to be avoided, and how open and honest the teacher is about her own mistakes (ibid., p. 96-99).

Once a mistake-friendly classroom is established, the gritty work of getting behind mistakes begins. Guldimann and Zutavern (1999) propose that in order to understand concepts, students need to have both analytic skills (nondeclarative/procedural knowledge) in addition to basic facts and conceptual knowledge (declarative knowledge). An error situation (Fehler) is only present when both procedural and declarative knowledge are present (i.e. the student knows both what and what to do about what). If declarative knowledge is present but procedural is absent (i.e. a student knows what verbs are but can’t find them in a sentence) or the reverse (a student understands how to diagram sentences but doesn’t know which of the words constitutes a verb), then “only” an Irrtum (mistake) is present and not a Fehler (error) and therefore we are not discussing an error situation. If both procedural and declarative knowledge are absent, the situation cannot be considered an error situation. Rather we have a case of student incompetence (in the literal sense: the student lacks a necessary competency to fulfill a task).

The distinction of error situations from situations where gaps in competencies necessitate further knowledge or skill acquisition is important for methodical and didactical considerations on the part of the teacher. The difference between an error, mistake type 1 (gap in nondeclarative knowledge), mistake type 2 (gap in declarative knowledge), and incompetence may seem highly theoretical without bearing on the reality of the classroom. However, a reflective teacher who can facilitate a classroom environment in which students develop the skills to differentiate between the above situations will give them much more than a list of competencies that have either been “met” or “not met”: it gives the students a way forward, a look at exactly which skills or what knowledge needs to be supplemented to move forward and allows a teacher to differentiate between students who are having problems in the same area, but for different reasons.

Mistakes and errors can be productive when they create a connection with previously held knowledge, often through the development of “negative knowledge” (see Oscher and Sychiger, 2005 for a complete theoretical explication), which can be either declarative or procedural. Mistakes made in declarative knowledge lead one to learn what is not right while in mistakes made in procedural knowledge lead to knowledge of which actions do not lead to a certain goal or outcome (Chott, 2006). Learning from mistakes is so incredibly effective because it, by its very nature, builds on knowledge that the student already possesses (Tulis, 2015, p.57; Slavin, 2015, pp. 146-7). The development of “positive knowledge” can also be present when students learn what they can do in the face of certain consequences caused by errors or mistakes (Spychiger et. al, 2006, p. 98). Gains in positive and negative knowledge can only be formed by a deliberate process of reflection and requires a dedicated amount of concentrated attention. Because of this prerequisite, it raises awareness of other helpful elements in the error situation which can lead to cognitive progress (Mindnich, 2016, p. 19). Simply recognizing that something is in error points us in a certain cognitive direction (or it at least points us away from the original erroneous one!). Sometimes a wrong door has to close (or slam painfully in our face) in order for us to turn and take a step through a right one.

Taking time to analyze error can in the end prove more valuable in acquiring competencies and lead to more certainty than if the error were never present (Parviainen & Eriksson, 2006 and Gartmeier et al., 2008 as cited by Seifried & Wuttke, 2010, p. 155). This is what Fehlerkultur is: using the human element of error into a pedagogical situation to bring about a positive pedagogical uplift. Creating a classroom climate that allows for active implementation of focused attention on errors (both individual and in reaction to the errors of others) rather than a negative emotional reaction to them can lead to learning stimulation and higher achievement (Oser, Hascher und Spychiger, 1999, p. 29).

Assuming that the student (either with or without external support) is sensitive enough to be aware of an error, upon his reflection of the situation, he has two options. He can either pragmatically correct the error immediately or he can invest further cognitive resources into analyzing the problem and in the development of possible strategies for future error prevention (Rach, 2012; Guldimann & Zutavern, 1999, pp. 237–238). The concern is that the current culture of many American classrooms revolves around reducing material out of a holistic picture to prepare students for standardized testing (Billingsley 2016, 309). Testing scores are often received, but without the possibility to evaluate the cause of errors made. Even in cases where it will never be possible to review the actual test taken, simply having a positive Fehklerkultur in place before such testing occurs can reduce the anxiety surrounding tests (Oser, Spychiger und Hascher, 1999, 27-28).

In order to make this connection, a change of perspective on the part of the student is essential as well as a willingness to deliberately reflect on related situations or concepts. Fehlerkultur addresses the way that this systematic reflection is present (Spychiger, 2010, p. 50; Tulis, 2015, p. 63)and depends on individual student characteristics and the way in which error situations are handled in the classroom (Rach, 2012).[1]

Error situations do not happen in isolation. Every classroom has its own social climate, a type of “mini-culture,” if you will. In fact this is where the “culture” (kultur) in the concept of Fehlerkultur comes from. It is not only about isolating and “dealing with” errors, it is about affecting the surrounding climate in its totality. This effect goes both ways. How one goes about error processing is influenced by the social climate already present in the classroom, in the school and in the surrounding (national) culture. What counts as an error, which norms are chosen or emphasized, which methods are effective, vary drastically from situation to situation (Spychiger, Kuster, & Oser, 2006, p. 88).

It is so natural to err that error-free situations are immediately noticed by the human brain as being computer-generated (Hennig, Fleischmann, & Geisel, 2012, p. 64). For example, the only way to get two instruments to play exactly in tune is to take the human element out and electronically synthesize them. Even high-achieving students that seem to rarely make academic mistakes or errors often have other domains in their lives in which they struggle. Developing a pedagogical culture that not only allows mistakes, but encourages students to play with them, to interact with them, and to explore the processes which lead to wrong conclusions will not only ease test anxiety, it will allow them to cope with a world that is technologically advancing at a faster pace than education can keep pace with (Seifried und Wuttke, 2010, p. 148). It is exactly for this reason that we have a pedagogical responsibility, in the relatively safe environment of school, to teach others how to process error. In fact, it is the fundamental ability that allows one to adapt to an unpredictable world.

[1]Exactly how this works can very drastically from subject to subject. My current research involves analyzing the discoordination processes and subsequent development when procedural error situations are present in a school band or orchestra setting.

Aimee Schmidt is a native Texan with teaching experience in American and German public education. As a band director and orchestral musician she has helped build programs on two continents. She lives with her husband and two daughters near Frankfurt, Germany where she is currently working on a Ph.D. in music education at Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst Frankfurt am Main (The Frankfurt University of Music and Performing Arts).

References

Chott, Peter O. 2006. “Fehlerkultur und das Lernen lernen.” Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften 28 (1): 131–136. Available online at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-41426.

Gartmeier, Martin; Winkler, Martin. 2015. “Lernen aus Fehlern und Eigeninitiative.” In Fehler. Ihre Funktionen im Kontext individueller und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung, Martin Gartmeier, Hans Gruber, Tina Hascher, Helmut Heid (Eds.). Münster, New York: Waxmann: 283–297.

Guldimann, Titus; Zutavern, Michael. 1999. “‘Das passiert uns nicht noch einmal!’. Schülerinnen und Schüler lernen gemeinsam den bewußten Umgang mit Fehlern.” In Fehlerwelten. Vom Fehlermachen und Lernen aus Fehlern. Beiträge und Nachträge zu einem interdisziplinären Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstages von Fritz Oser, Wolfgang Althof (Ed.). Opladen: Leske + Budrich: 233–258.

Hennig, H.; Fleischmann, R.; Geisel, T. 2012. “Musical rhythms. The science of being slightly off.” In Physics Today 65 (7): 64–65.

Heinze, A., & Ufer, S. (Eds.). (2012). Wahrgenommene Fehlerkultur und individueller Umgang mit Fehlern: Eine Interventionsstudie. Dortmund: Universitätsbibliothek Dortmund.

Herzog, Walter. 1994. Metaphern des Scheiterns. Available online at https://www.walterherzog.ch/publikationen-1/unver%C3%B6ffentlichte-texte/, checked on 7/12/2017.

Herzog, Walter.2006. Zeitgemäße Erziehung. Die Konstruktion pädagogischer Wirklichkeit. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

Mindnich, Anna Katharina. 2016. “Lehrerhandeln in Fehlersituationen. Ansätze zur Analyse eines schulischen Alltagsphänomens im kaufmännischen Unterricht.” PhD Diss. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main.

Oser, F., Hascher, T., & Spychiger, M. (1999). Lernen aus Fehlern.: Zur Psychologie des “negativen” Wissens. In W. Althof (Ed.), Fehlerwelten: Vom Fehlermachen und Lernen aus Fehlern. Beiträge und Nachträge zu einem interdisziplinären Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstages von Fritz Oser (pp. 11–42). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Oser, Fritz; Spychiger, Maria. 2005. Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Zur Theorie des negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur. Edited by Maria Spychiger. Weinheim u.a.: Beltz.

Osten, Manfred. 2008. Die Kunst, Fehler zu machen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Rach, Stefanie. 2012. Wahrgenommene Fehlerkultur und individueller Umgang mit Fehlern. Eine Interventionsstudie. Edited by Aiso Heinze, Stefan Ufer. Dortmund: Universitätsbibliothek Dortmund.

Seifried, Jürgen; Wuttke, Eveline. 2010. “Student errors. How teachers diagnose them and how they respond to them.” In Empirical research in vocational education and training 2 (2): 147–162. Available online at http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-82501.

Slavin, R. E. (2015). Educational psychology: Theory and practice(Eleventh edition). Boston: Pearson.

Spychiger, Maria. 2010. “Fehler als Erfahrung. zur Rolle von Koordination und Diskoordination in Bewussten Prozessen.” In Alltag, Wissenschaft und Kunst. Was aus Fehlern zu lernen ist, Otto Neumaier (ed.):. Wien-Münster: Lit Verlag: 31–54.

Spychiger, Maria; Kuster, Reto; Oser, Fritz.2006. “Dimensionen von Fehlerkultur in der Schule und deren Messung. Der Schülerfragebogen zur Fehlerkultur im Unterricht für Mittel- und Oberstufe.” In Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften 28: 87–110.

Tulis, M.; Steuer, G.; Dresel, M. 2015. “Learning from errors. Process and contextual conditions.” In Fehler. Ihre Funktionen im Kontext individueller und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung, Martin Gartmeier, Hans Gruber, Tina Hascher, Helmut Heid (eds.) Münster, New York: Waxmann.

Weingardt, Martin. 2004. Fehler zeichnen uns aus. Transdisziplinäre Grundlagen zur Theorie und Produktivität des Fehlers in Schule und Arbeitswelt. Bad Heilbrunn/Obb.: Klinkhardt.

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave