Volume 04 Issue 06-2024
136
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
136-139
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
The article examines a review of theoretical literature on the occurrence and causes of errors in the educational
process, and identifies the varieties, types and types of errors. The author analyzed studies of typical mistakes made
by students when mastering geometric problems.
KEYWORDS
Typical mistakes, tasks, teaching model, error correction, student thinking.
INTRODUCTION
Students' errors in solving geometric problems are
described using Newmans error analysis. Newman's
procedure is a series of steps in understanding and
analysis to solve a problem. Students face various
obstacles in answering problems, namely reading,
comprehension, conversion, processing and encoding
problems [1.15-19]. Identifying students' errors is
required as a guide in selecting appropriate teaching
models and information technology tools based on
students' spatial intelligence on geometric material.
Students do not realize the mistakes they have made.
In addition, students do not know where the error
occurred, so they cannot reflect to correct the
mistakes they made. Therefore, it is necessary to
conduct a study to describe students' errors when
solving geometric problems from the point of view of
students' spatial intelligence [2.10]. In this vein, spatial
intelligence is measured using indicators including the
ability to determine the vertical and horizontal
direction of an object (spatial perception), the ability to
see the movement or displacement of part of a
configuration (visualization), the ability to determine
the results of two- and three-dimensional rotation
(mental rotation), and to associate a configuration an
Research Article
A LOOK AT TYPICAL MISTAKES OF STUDENTS IN THE WORKS OF
FOREIGN RESEARCHERS
Submission Date:
June 14, 2024,
Accepted Date:
June 19, 2024,
Published Date:
June 24, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijp/Volume04Issue06-24
Ashirboyev Azim Azatovich
Associate professor at Tashkent State Pedagogical University named after Nizami, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijp
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 06-2024
137
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
136-139
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
object with another object (spatial relation) and the
ability to guess the image of an object from a certain
angle (spatial orientation) [3.130].
Research shows that one of the most common types
of errors are so-
called “perception errors,” which
occur because students lack the ability to interpret
questions and apply question-processing strategies.
With this error, confusion most often occurs when
choosing information, and it is difficult for students to
distinguish
between
relevant
and
irrelevant
information in a task [4. 555-584]. Another fairly
common type of error is the “transformation error,”
which occurs when a student understands the essence
of the problem, but cannot determine the sequence of
operations necessary to solve the problem [5. 1-21].
There are also procedural errors that occur when a
student can determine the sequence of operations
necessary to solve a problem, but makes an error in
applying the procedure [5. 4]. Finally, coding error is
the last type of error that needs to be identified. This
error manifests itself in the last stage of solving a
geometric problem, in which students incorrectly
complete the final answer. For example, when
students must determine the surface area of a prism,
given the known length of the base and the height of
the prism, they incorrectly indicate the final answer,
making a mistake when calculating the final result [5.
4].
In cases where a student has made an error or arrived
at an incorrect answer, teachers' understanding of the
basis of the errors is necessary for teaching purposes,
which is related to the students' current understanding
[6. 221-239]. Some may approach student interaction
around an incorrect answer with the goal of helping
the student correct the error. For example, Jacobs and
Ambrose describe a set of intentional actions to
support a student's mathematical reasoning [7. 260-
266]. In contrast, others focused on developing
students' thinking. Thus, Megan Shaughnessy and
others have discussed the skills and abilities of teachers
to encourage students to think when a student has an
incorrect answer. In this case, if the student’s thinking
is sufficiently probed, the student is able to admit the
mistake and revise his work [8. 335-359].
Another study presents the results of an analysis of
typical (common) differentiation errors made by
electrical engineering students. Possible reasons were
identified that led to common mistakes and
misconceptions among students when solving tasks.
The results showed that students often made mistakes
when solving the basic derivative formula. Some of
them incorrectly differentiated functions, while others
could not remember the derivative of a base function.
Based on this, it was concluded that the errors may
have been caused by their previous poor knowledge of
basic mathematics and an over-focus on specific
mathematical rules. Thus, this study identified the
causes of errors associated with the quality of previous
education or with their tendency to only memorize
mathematical formulas; [9. 145] it is unknown what the
role of external factors is that contribute to students
making those mistakes, for example, gaps in
educational materials or intentional traps in
assignments.
Brodie and Berger argue that common mistakes
empower teachers because they give them the
opportunity to figure them out without blaming
students or themselves. 231]. This approach also helps
to create a conducive (positive) environment for
learning. Maria Tulis, in her work, notes that teachers
should be sensitive to students' mistakes and should
create a positive error climate, which is determined by
Volume 04 Issue 06-2024
138
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
136-139
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
the quality of everyday experiences in the classroom in
situations of errors. By “positive climate,” she means a
learning environment with a positive error culture in
which students are able to recognize their errors and
therefore initiate learning processes. In contrast, a
negative error management culture, which typically
excludes communication and error management,
occurs when students suspect that their errors are
judged negatively or when students expect errors to
be attributed to lack of skill [11. 56-68].
Cornell et al conducted a study that directly compared
the effects of making and not making an error. They
compared a condition in which the answer or target
was simply given to participants without intervening
error generation (no error condition) with a condition
in which participants were asked to first guess the
answer before giving the correct answer (error
generation condition). The experiment was carefully
controlled to ensure that the amount of time spent
learning the correct answer was the same across
conditions. Cornell and his colleagues also excluded
from consideration any cases in which the person did
not create the error in the error-generating condition.
The study found that on the final test, participants
were significantly better at remembering correct
answers when they made an error than when they did
not. Thus, it appears that generating errors is not
necessarily bad, and that it should be avoided at all
costs. In fact, generating errors appears to promote
learning [12. 98].
There is broad consensus that it is important for
teachers to be familiar with their students' ways of
thinking about mathematical concepts, both correct
and incorrect. Studying the possible causes of common
(typical) mistakes and misconceptions of students can
help expand the knowledge and skills of teachers. The
presence of typical errors can create the opportunity
to use surveys and personal interviews with students
to identify their general thinking tendencies (and) or
external causes of errors, which, in turn, will play a
positive role in working to improve the knowledge,
tools and teaching approaches of teachers, it is also
possible to revise the entire education system [13. 347-
364; 14. 294-296; 15.13-16; 16. 378
–
380; 17. 118-126 ],
REFERENCES
1.
Allan Leslie White, ‘Active Mathematics in
Classrooms: Finding out why children make
mistakes and thendoin
g something to help them’
(2015) 15(4) Square One 15-19.
2.
N Riastutti, I Pramudya and M Mardiyana,
‘Students’ Errors in Geometry Viewed from Spatial
Intelligence (2017) 895(1)Journal of Physics
Conference
Series<10.1088/1742-
6596/895/1/012029> accessed 27 January 2022.
3.
Peter Herbert Maier, ‘Spatial Geometry and Spatial
Ability-
How to Make Solid Geometry Solid?’ inElmar
Cohors-Fresenborg and others (eds) Selected
Papersfrom The Annual Conference of Didactics of
Mathematics(Osnabrueck 1996).
4.
Ariyadi W
ijaya and others, ‘Difficulties in solving
context-based PISA mathematics tasks: An analysis
ofstudents’ errors’ (2014) 11(3) The Mathematics
Educator555-584.
5.
M Clements,‘Analysis Children’s Errors on Written
Mathematical
Tasks
EducationalStudies
in
Mat
hematics’ (1980) 11(1) Educational Studies in
Mathematics1-21.
6.
Karin Brodie, ‘Learning about learner errors in
professional learning communities’ (2014) 85(2)
Educational Studies in Mathematics 221
–
239.
Volume 04 Issue 06-2024
139
International Journal of Pedagogics
(ISSN
–
2771-2281)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
136-139
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
7.
Victoria R.Jacobs and Rebecca C.Ambrose, ‘Makin
g
the most of story problems’ (2008) 15(5) Teaching
Children Mathematics 260
–
266.
8.
Meghan Shaughnessyand others, ‘I think I made a
mistake: How do prospective teachers elicit the
thinking of a student who has made a mistake?’
(2021) 24 Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education335
–
359.
9.
ZarithSofiah Binti Othman, Ahmad Khudzairi Bin
Khalidand Aishah Binti Mahat, ‘Students’ Common
Mistakes in Basic Differentiation Topics’ (2018)
1974(1)
AIP
Conference
Proceedings
<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5041709> accessed 05
February 2022.
10.
Margot Berger and Karin Brodie, ‘Toward a
discursive framework for learner errors in
mathematics’inVimolanMudaly (eds)Proceedings
of the eighteenth annual meeting of the Southern
African Association for research in mathematics,
science and technology education. Improving the
quality of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education through relevant research and a
continued multi- and inter-disciplinary approach to
teaching (University of Kwa-Zulu 2010).
11.
MariaTulis, ‘Error manageme
nt behavior in
classrooms: Teachers' responses to student
mistakes’ (2013) 33 Teaching and Teacher
Education56-68.
12.
Nate Kornell, Matthew Jensen Hays and Robert A
Bjork, ‘Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance
subsequent learning’ (2009) 35(4) J Exp Ps
ychol
Learn Mem Cogn. 989-98.
13.
Nava Almogand Bat-
Sheva Ilany, ‘Absolute value
inequalities: high school students’solutions and
misconceptions’ (2012) 81 Educ Stud Math 347–
364.
14.
Ashirbayev A., Ergashev T., Tillaeva D. Tupical
Mistakes that Occur in the Process of Learning to
Draft. International Journal of Progressive
Sciences and Technologies (IJPSAT). ISSN: 2509-
0119. General Publiic Jicense, Spanish. Vol. 17 No. 1
October 2019, pp. 294-296.
15.
Ashirbayev A. Chizmachilik fanida o’quvchilar yo’l
qo’
yadigan tipik xatolarning oldini olishda
ogohlantiruvchi vazifalardan foydalanish. “Xalq
ta’limi” OAK tasarrufidagiilmiy
-metodik jurnal,
№4–
son. 2020 y. (ISSN 2181-7839), 13-16 betlar.
16.
Ashirbayev A., Ergashev T. Common Mistakes and
Teir Warning in Teaching Drawing. Yeastern
European Scientific Jornal. Abgabe № 5
-2018. ISSN:
2199-7977
Sopyright:
Kommuniikations-und
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Dusseldorf
–
Germany
378-380 b.
17.
Ashirbaev A.O. & Abduazizov B.I. O.G.L. (2022).
Bolajak
chizmachilik
oqituvchilarning
grafik
kompetentligini muhandislik kompyuter grafikasi
asosida
shakllantirish
metodikasi.
Oriental
renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and
social sciences, 2(5), 118-126.
