A Review of Learning from Errors

A Review of Learning from Errors: History

Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contributor: Noelle Fabre-Mitjans , Gregorio Jimenez-Valverde , Salvador Viciana , Ferran Crespo i Torres

Learning from errors (LFE) constitutes a complex, multilevel process whose pedagogical value depends on how errors are elicited, interpreted, and corrected. This narrative review critically synthesizes research on LFE and its implications for science instruction in school and higher education. The reporting of the purposive, non-exhaustive search was strengthened with reference to the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) criteria. The synthesis traces the historical transition from error avoidance to conditional error-as-resource perspectives and integrates five complementary lenses: error type, negative knowledge, cognitive load and prior knowledge, affective and self-regulatory processes, and the Generating Errors/Detecting and Correcting Errors model. It then evaluates instructional approaches including productive failure, erroneous examples, peer instruction, formative feedback, conceptual-change strategies, Predict–Observe–Explain, refutation texts, and gamification. Evidence is strongest when errors are embedded in structured cycles of manageable challenge, explanation, feedback, and revision; however, effects are heterogeneous and moderated by learner expertise, task demands, feedback design, classroom error climate, and safety constraints. Domain-specific evidence is most developed in physics, chemistry, biology, and health-professions simulation, whereas Earth and climate sciences and teacher professional development remain comparatively underexamined. The review concludes with an integrative framework and actionable design principles for science teacher education, while identifying methodological, cultural, and empirical gaps for future research.

science education
learning from errors
productive failure
error climate
metacognition
feedback
peer instruction
conceptual change
teacher education

The contemporary educational landscape is increasingly characterized by growing concerns about students’ disengagement from scientific disciplines ^[1]. The persistence of traditional methodologies has been associated with negative perceptions regarding science ^[2], as well as inefficient content acquisition ^[3]. Furthermore, frustration constitutes a prevalent emotional response when students encounter complex scientific material ^[4], a phenomenon frequently associated with making errors during the learning process ^[5]. School science can sometimes present knowledge acquisition as a linear progression toward a single correct answer, whereas scientific practice advances through conjecture, evidential criticism, revision, and the disciplined correction of error ^[6]^[7]. Consequently, there is a need for innovative approaches and for a shift in attitudes toward the role of errors in the classroom.

Although errors have historically carried negative connotations due to their adverse impact on summative assessments ^[8], the analysis of errors offers significant pedagogical value. Specifically, it provides educators with critical insights into the underlying sources of student misconceptions while simultaneously enabling students to differentiate between productive and unproductive lines of reasoning ^[9]. Rather than conventional practices that seek to avoid errors entirely ^[10], evidence suggests that integrating errors into the instructional process yields educational benefits ^[11]. This approach has been investigated across diverse disciplines, including mathematics, medical education, and science learning ^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]. Despite growing interest in Learning from Errors (LFE), the literature remains dispersed across educational domains and has not, to our knowledge, been integrated into a science-education synthesis that connects cognitive, affective, metacognitive, and instructional mechanisms ^[5]^[16].

In response to this literature gap, this review aims to synthesize the most relevant empirical and theoretical findings intersecting LFE with science education. Specifically, it addresses four overarching research questions: (1) How has the educational significance of errors evolved historically? (Section 3.1, Section 3.2 and Section 3.3), (2) Through which cognitive, emotional, and metacognitive processes can errors foster learning? (Section 4), (3) What are the primary challenges and boundary conditions associated with using errors in instruction? (Section 5), (4) Which instructional approaches leverage errors as learning opportunities, and under what conditions? (Section 6 and Section 7). The review also examines practical applications across science disciplines and concludes by consolidating design principles for teacher education, highlighting systemic limitations, and identifying evidence-based priorities for future research and instructional design.

References

Vázquez, A.; Manassero, M.A. En defensa de las actitudes y emociones en la educación científica (II): Evidencias empíricas derivadas de la investigación. Rev. Eureka Enseñ. Divulg. Cienc. 2007, 4, 417–441.
Vedder-Weiss, D.; Fortus, D. Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: A follow-up study. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2012, 49, 1057–1095.
Athuman, J.J. Comparing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based approach to that of conventional style of teaching in the development of students’ science process skills. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2017, 12, 1797–1816.
King, D.; Ritchie, S.M.; Sandhu, M.; Henderson, S.; Boland, B. Temporality of emotion: Antecedent and successive variants of frustration when learning chemistry. Sci. Educ. 2017, 101, 639–672.
Tulis, M.; Steuer, G.; Dresel, M. Learning from errors: A model of individual processes. Frontline Learn. Res. 2016, 4, 12–26.
Allchin, D. Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Sci. Educ. 2012, 96, 904–926.
García-Carmona, A.; Acevedo-Díaz, J.A. The nature of scientific practice and science education. Sci. Educ. 2018, 27, 435–455.
Soncini, A.; Matteucci, M.C.; Butera, F. Errors: Springboard for learning or tool for evaluation? Ambivalence in teachers’ error-related beliefs and practices. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2024, 27, 1455–1479.
Ostrowska, B.E.; Biedrzycki, K.; Chrzanowski, M.M. We learn from errors and mistakes. In Scientific Thinking in Science Education; Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie: Kraków, Poland, 2021; pp. 45–54.
Metcalfe, J. Learning from errors. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2017, 68, 465–489.
Leighton, J.P.; Chu, M.W.; Seitz, P. Errors in student learning and assessment: The learning errors and formative feedback (LEAFF) model. In Informing the Practice of Teaching Using Formative and Interim Assessment: A Systems Approach; Lissitz, R.W., Ed.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2013; pp. 185–208.
Hämmerle, L.; Möller, A.; Bergmann-Gering, A.; Krause-Wichmann, T.; Lederman, J. Investigating students’ awareness of their own and others’ deviations from controlled science experiments. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2026, 48, 1197–1219.
Elagha, N.; Pellegrino, J.W. Understanding error patterns in students’ solutions to linear function problems to design learning interventions. Learn. Instr. 2024, 92, 101895.
Fiori, C.; Zuccheri, L. An experimental research on error patterns in written subtraction. Educ. Stud. Math. 2005, 60, 323–331.
Lohre, R.; Lobo, A.; Bois, A.; Pollock, J.; Lapner, P.; Athwal, G.; Goel, D. Errors in implant orientation in novice versus experienced surgeons: The positive impact of hands-on learning. Orthop. Proc. 2022, 104, 30.
Narciss, S.; Alemdag, E. Learning from errors and failure in educational contexts: New insights and future directions for research and practice. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2025, 95, 197–218.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.