This article is a correction to:
Measuring adaptive teaching in classroom discourse: Effects on student learning in elementary science education
Ilonca Hardy
Nicola Meschede
Susanne Mannel3- 1Institute of Early and Primary Education, Educational Sciences, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
- 2Institute of Elementary Science Education, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
- 3Institute of Early and Primary Education, Educational Sciences, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
A corrigendum on
Measuring adaptive teaching in classroom discourse: Effects on student learning in elementary science education
by Hardy, I., Meschede, N., and Mannel, S. (2022). Front. Educ. 7:1041316. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1041316
In the published article Hardy, I., Mannel, S., and Meschede, N. (2020). “Adaptive Lernumgebungen [Adaptive learning environments],” in Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht [Heterogeneity in Schools and Instruction], eds M. Kampshoff and C. Wiepcke (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), 17–26 was not cited. The citation has now been inserted in Materials and Methods, Measures, Coding Scheme of Adaptive Classroom Discourse, third paragraph and should read:
“In step 2 of the coding procedure, we applied a coding scheme on adaptive classroom discourse to the identified units of analysis. The coding scheme is based on existing measurement approaches, extending them to classroom discourse in an extensive cycle of theory-based deduction of categories and their empirical validation The coding scheme includes three indices which describe central facets of adaptive classroom discourse based on the ESRU-model (Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2007) and the model of contingent teaching (van de Pol et al., 2011): (a) diagnostic strategies, (b) instructional support, and (c) student understanding. The indices draw on observable verbalizations of teachers and students and were double-coded for each unit of analysis by independent raters with a high interrater agreement (diagnostic strategies: κ = 0.81, instructional support: κ = 0.74; student understanding: κ = 0.86). In addition, in line with van de Pol et al. (2012) and Hermkes et al. (2018), we defined coding rules for the combination of these three indices in order to determine a global index of adaptive classroom discourse (see also Hardy et al., 2020). Table 1 gives an overview of the coding scheme.”
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Keywords: adaptive teaching, contingent support, science education, classroom discourse, coding scheme
Citation: Hardy I, Meschede N and Mannel S (2023) Corrigendum: Measuring adaptive teaching in classroom discourse: Effects on student learning in elementary science education. Front. Educ. 7:1128585. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1128585
Received: 20 December 2022; Accepted: 30 December 2022;
Published: 18 January 2023.
Approved by:
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, SwitzerlandCopyright © 2023 Hardy, Meschede and Mannel. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ilonca Hardy, 
hardy@em.uni-frankfurt.de
†These authors have contributed equally to this work