Learning from Mistakes: Fostering a Positive Error Culture in Teaching

by Julie Direnga — Image: Katrin Bolovtsova / Pexels

Mistakes are an underappreciated resource for formal learning at universities. When handled correctly, they can spark curiosity, boost motivation, and foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter. However, they also carry the risk of discouraging students, fueling self-doubt, and promoting superficial learning.

Whether a mistake helps or hinders a student depends on several factors. Some are beyond the instructor’s control, such as a student’s prior knowledge, cognitive abilities, individual goals, and self-concept. Others, however, can be shaped by the teacher—specifically the error climate (the general approach to mistakes in the learning environment) and the instructional methods used. How can one support an error-positive learning climate, and which instructional approaches are most effective?

Error culture and the concept of error

Error culture refers to how mistakes are handled, assessed, and addressed. While a teacher won’t be able to change societal attitudes toward failure, they can effectively shape the culture within the microcosm of their own course. By recognizing societal patterns—including their own—instructors can better manage reactions to mistakes and facilitate the learning process.

To establish a productive error culture, we first need a clear definition of what an “error” is. Amy Edmondson defines errors as “unintentional deviations from prespecified standards.” (Edmondson 2024, 20). This emphasis on intent explicitly distinguishes a mistake from a willful violation of rules. In an educational context, an action is generally classified as a mistake if it deviates from a defined learning outcome (the target state), is judged as incorrect by the teacher, and was unintentional (Steuer 2014).

It’s also important to note that errors are different from failures or setbacks. While a failure is a final state that falls short of a goal, an error is an action that may lead to failure but does not necessarily do so. For example, some errors can be corrected before failure occurs (such as retaking an exam), or they may be tolerated within a certain margin of success (such as passing a math exam despite a calculation error).

Furthermore, we distinguish between errors (where the student has the knowledge but does not apply it effectively) and misconceptions (where the knowledge is entirely lacking). Because misconceptions provide essential clues about gaps in knowledge, it is helpful in a teaching context to group both under the term “error.”

Ultimately, errors are a prerequisite for innovation and learning because they reveal which approaches do not work (ibid.). If we want students to take these exploratory risks, the consequences of making a mistake must not be more severe than the consequences of not trying. This makes a supportive error culture indispensable.

Error culture within the course

The aspects of error culture that an instructor can control rest on two interdependent pillars:

The following sections outline measures to foster a learning-friendly climate and present error-positive didactic methods. These examples focus on STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) but can be adapted to other disciplines.

Creating a positive learning environment

The goal of a positive learning environment is for mistakes to spark curiosity and ambition rather than fear or shame. This requires psychological safety, which is achieved through clear communication, modeling fallibility, and responding appropriately to mistakes.

To foster a culture where mistakes are valued, several strategies can be employed:

Discuss the value of mistakes early on and establish clear rules.

• “I want this course to be a space where you are allowed to make mistakes, because that is how we learn.”
• “No one will be ridiculed for giving the wrong answer.”

Clearly separate learning and assessment spaces.

• “I recognize that I have a dual role as both a learning facilitator and an examiner, and I do my best to keep these roles separate.” Instructors may want to use physical or visual cues to distinguish these spaces, such as different areas of the classroom or clear labeling of activities as “learning” or “assessment.”
• “You can make as many mistakes as necessary in the learning space so that you make as few as possible in the assessment space.”

Openly acknowledge your own fallibility.

• “That’s a great question—you’ve caught me off guard. Can anyone else answer that? Otherwise, I’ll look into it and bring the answer to our next session.”
• “I’ll admit, that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable right now.”

Value mistakes as “negative knowledge.”

• “Thank you for bringing up this common mistake. It’s important that we discuss it so we can learn from it.”
• “That’s an interesting perspective. Could you explain how you arrived at that conclusion?”
• “I see your logic, and there are valid points there. However, this specific explanation doesn’t work because…”
• “Excellent—now we know why this approach doesn’t work. That is a valuable piece of ‘negative knowledge.’”

Respond agilely to student thinking.

• Be flexible in your teaching approach (Arn 2023, S. 190). If students are struggling, adapt your lesson plan to address their needs. This might involve deviating from the lesson plan in order to respond to the students’ actual thought processes.
• Learn more about [active learning] and how instructors can support it.

Didactic approaches, materials, and methods

Beyond the atmosphere, instructors can influence error culture through their choice of activities. For mistakes to happen, students must be active; passive listening in a traditional lecture often keeps misconceptions hidden. To support a positive error culture, several teaching methods can be effective:

Low-threshold strategies

Error detection tasks

• Provide students with a problem or question containing an error. Ask them to identify and explain the mistake. (Previous students’ submissions can be a great resource for this).

Pre-tests and predictions

• Pose questions before a lesson to stimulate curiosity. When students make a prediction, they are more invested in the outcome and remember the result better.

Student-led correction

• Give learners the opportunity to correct their own mistakes to boost self-efficacy.

Anonymous discussion

• Instead of asking, “Who made this mistake?” ask, “How might someone arrive at this incorrect answer?”
• This allows students to explain flawed reasoning without feeling exposed, encouraging wider participation.

Timely, detailed feedback

• To learn from a mistake, it must be clarified quickly. The sooner the feedback arrives, the more relevant it is.

Evidence-based frameworks

The following methods are more deeply integrated into the teaching process and are backed by extensive research:

Just-in-Time Teaching (JITT)

• Adapt the weekly lecture based on questions and difficulties students encounter during their self-study (Novak et al. 1999). 
• This is tracked via a short pre-test that rewards participation and thoughtful questioning rather than just correct answers.

Peer Instruction

• Ask students to answer a multiple-choice question individually, then attempt to convince a neighbor of their answer. A subsequent re-vote typically shows a significant increase in correct answers (Mazur 2006).
• Learn more about integrating Peer Instruction into your teaching and actively engaging your students.

Two-stage exams

• Allow students to learn from their mistakes while still in the exam setting. Two-stage exams provide immediate feedback during a period of high engagement thus frequently improving performances.
• Read more on integrating two-stage exams.

„Tutorials”

• In STEM fields, “tutorials” (based on the Introductory Physics model (McDermott; Shaffer 1998)) focus on conceptual content and common misconceptions.
• As Kautz et al. 2024 describe, these involve science-based worksheets and group work, creating an environment where the search for an answer is as important as the answer itself. This is often supported by deliberately omitting model solutions.

Literaturverzeichnis

Arn, Claudia (2023): Bildung, die das Handeln verändert: Praxiswirksamkeit, agile Didaktik und Fehlerkultur – Theoriebezüge und Methodenbeispiele, in: Cai, J.; Lackner, H.; Wang, Q. (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch Angewandte Hochschulbildung 2021, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, S. 187–202. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-40342-3_15.

Edmondson, Amy C. (2024): Wertvolle Fehler – Right Kind of Wrong: Die praktische Wissenschaft klugen Scheiterns, München: Vahlen GmbH.

Kautz, Christian; Direnga, Jan; Schäfle, Christian (2024): Physik gemeinsam konstruieren, in: Physik Journal, Nr. 1.

Mazur, Eric (2006): Peer Instruction: Wie man es schafft, Studenten zum Nachdenken zu bringen, in: Praxis der Naturwissenschaften – Physik in der Schule 55, S. 11–15.

McDermott, Lillian C.; Shaffer, Peter S. (1998): Tutorials in Introductory Physics, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Novak, Gregory M.; Gavrin, Allen; Patterson, Evelyn; Christian, Wolfgang (1999): Just-in-time teaching: Blending active learning with web technology, in: Prentice Hall series in educational innovation, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Spychiger, Maria; Oser, Fritz; Hascher, Tina; Mahler, Franziska (1999): Entwicklung einer Fehlerkultur in der Schule, in: Althof, Wolfgang (Hrsg.): Fehlerwelten, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 43–70. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-663-07878-4_2.

Steuer, Gisela (2014): Definition, Abgrenzung und Klassifikation von Fehlern, in: Fehlerklima in der Klasse, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, S. 15–31. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-05293-5_3.