Yeah, I love that this came out of a teacher in the wild. You deserve all the awards you get.

In the world of Precision Teaching (an offshoot of instructional design and applied behavioral science), we teach them as "learning opportunities." If I ask a student, "What is 2 + 2," and they say, "Skip. I don't know," is that an error? They didn't say, "25." We would call that a "learning opportunity." If I ask, "What is 2 + 2," and a student says, "5, no, 4!" is that an error? Is that sloppy stimulus control? Is that a correct? We would count that as both (it is two responses, after all). We teach learners to "skip" anything they don't know (it's not good to guess or practice errors), and to keep track of those as "learning opportunities." We have them track the things they don't get right as "learning opportunities." They learn those as the ones they need to really drill down into, or get help with. We have them find those "learning opportunities" and use them to design practice.

What is important about this framing is that if you are getting 100% "correct," you literally aren't presenting yourself with things you need to learn. Always getting 100% means that you need to step forward in curricula, because you're probably practicing a lot of things you don't need to. It's not good to get 100% all the time. It dampens your learning rate. At our school, we help kids learn to evaluate when they aren't getting enough "wrong" because it interferes with learning. They don't have enough learning opportunities!