 Look, here is something that's really so important in the classroom, and it's very sad when you look at the research on error, and that when a kid makes a mistake in a classroom, 40 to 50 percent of the time the teacher corrects the error. 40 to 50 percent of the time the teacher asks another kid and they correct the error. About 5 to 10 percent of the time they ignore the error, and about 5 to 10 percent of the time they use the errors on opportunity to understand how the person thought that way. Now, of course this is an esteem issue here. You don't want to show the student is stupid in front of his peers, and so building trust not only between the teacher and the student, but between the students is really critical. And no matter how much I've used this concept with teachers, I've struggled because error is always seen as a dirty word. Like people have used words like productive failure. We use the concept of the learning pit, and certainly at the deep stage, not at the surface level stage. If the students get, if the surface level stage, if the students may hear, get in there and help them fix it. But at the deep stage, it's okay to wallow in the confusion. It's okay to go into the pit of learning and explore the concept of what error is, and what the mistakes are, and give the students, because if you think of a lot of science and the advancement of science, it's come through error. It's not come from someone going out there and just adding more blocks to the equation. Someone's looked at the whole world from a different perspective. And how do you use that? Because if you come into a situation and you don't know, then it's really important that the teacher knows what you don't know. So I cannot overemphasize the importance of errors, the opportunity to make errors, the mistakes we have, seeing that as legitimate. But we ask our students to try again. We ask them to engage in challenge. It's based on errors. We ask them to play sport. All sport is focused around mistakes the opposition make, and how we as a team can make the opposition make mistakes. It's no different in the learning equation. And those students who turn out to be our best learners are the ones who say, this is hard. I want to give it a go. Not. This is hard. I can't do it. So those students who are prepared to see errors as the essence of learning are our most successful learners. Because every time we go into a situation where we're trying to get some relationships between ideas, we're trying to do deep learning, more often than not, we're confused. Sometimes we have too much information and we don't know how it relates together. And then we fall over because it's just too much to learn. And we haven't made those links and relationships, which is the key of deep learning. Sometimes we just can't see how it works. We don't know what the processes are. And this is the confusion state. And certainly we would argue very strongly that at the deep level, confusions are very healthy level. At the surface level, teacher, please get in there and help the students. Give them the right knowledge. It's like looking up Mrs. Google. You can look up Mrs. Google, but you need the skill of evaluation to find out what's right or wrong. If you keep just adding information from Mrs. Google, you're going to fall over. But at the deep level, it's that relationship. It's that judgment about what's right, what's wrong. It's that interpretation that you're going to make about where you want to go next is really critical. And confusions are very healthy state. More often than not, when I'm confused, I actually learn more interesting things. I look at the world differently and I accept that confusion is a very healthy state to do that. But sometimes at the surface level, please just fix me.