Mistakes, Mistakes, and More Mistakes: Why Getting It Wrong Might Be the Best Way to Learn

2nd December 2024

Written by Lee Peckover

Ah, mistakes. They’re messy, aren’t they? You trip up, stumble, and sometimes feel like you’re fumbling in the dark. But here’s the thing: mistakes can actually be gold dust for learning—if we know how to use them. 

Take the idea of erroneous examples—deliberately wrong solutions presented to learners. It sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it? How could showing someone a wrong answer help them to get it right? But let me tell you, it works. And here’s why. 

When students work through erroneous examples, they develop a kind of error radar. They spot where things have gone pear-shaped, and—crucially—they figure out how to fix it. These examples help pupils learn skills in error detection and correction that are tough to master otherwise. Unlike simply solving problems on their own, which can leave them stranded, or staring at perfectly worked examples, which only show the "right" way, these wrong solutions engage learners on a whole different level. 

What’s So Special About Errors? 

Psychologists have delved deep into this, and here’s what they’ve found: 

  • Erroneous examples weaken incorrect strategies. Siegler (2002) argues that while worked examples strengthen correct approaches, errors chip away at the incorrect ones. It’s like taking the scaffolding of a shaky tower and showing pupils where it’s wobbling. 

  • They actually reduce cognitive overload. When faced with a problem to solve, the brain’s working memory can feel like a washing machine on full spin. Errors help reduce this "extraneous cognitive load" (Paas et al., 2003) because pupils don’t have to come up with a solution—they can focus on understanding what’s gone wrong. 

  • They spark curiosity. It’s not just about solving the problem but engaging with it. When pupils confront errors, it creates a kind of productive tension: “Why isn’t this right?” That conflict drives deeper understanding. 

But here’s the twist: errors aren’t enough on their own. Research by Tsovaltzi et al. (2010) found that erroneous examples are most effective when combined with support. Whether it’s a teacher guiding pupils through the process or peers working together in small groups, the key is having help at hand. This combination boosts metacognitive skills (thinking about thinking) and conceptual understanding. 

The Sweet Spot: Mixing It Up 

Now, before you think we should throw out all our correct examples and dive headfirst into error city—don’t. The real magic happens when you mix things up. A blend of correct and erroneous examples gives learners the best of both worlds. They see the ideal solutions while also grappling with what not to do. This approach reinforces the right strategies while teaching pupils to identify and fix mistakes—a double whammy of learning power. 

A Small-Group Gem 

And where does this work best? Small-group interventions. Picture this: a group of pupils gathered around, debating where the error is, explaining their thinking, and collaborating to correct it. That’s where the magic happens. With guidance, they build confidence and skills that ripple out into their independent work. Having an adult available to help further improves outcomes when working through erroneous examples.  

That said, there’s no reason you can’t use these with a whole class to help prepare them for SATs. They still have improved outcomes when offered to a whole class too. So feel free to mix it up when working with problems like this.  

So, let’s rethink our relationship with mistakes. They’re not the enemy—they’re allies in disguise. By leaning into errors, supporting pupils through them, and mixing them with correct examples, we can build stronger, more resilient learners. 

Feeling convinced that it’s time to introduce working with mixed erroneous examples and correct ones to get children really thinking and reducing their own errors? Then great news! Our Mistake Investigators resources are available now, right here

 

References 

Paas, F. G., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. 

Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment, Transition Processes in Development and Learning (pp. 31–58). Cambridge University Press. 

Tsovaltzi, D., Melis, E., McLaren, B. M., Meyer, A. K., Dietrich, M., & Gogouzde, G. (2010). Learning from erroneous examples: When and how do students benefit from them? DFKI GmbH, German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Saarbrücken, Germany. 

Try us today!