Although error avoidance during learning appears to be the rule in American classrooms, laboratory studies suggest that it may be a counterproductive strategy, at least for neurologically typical students. Experimental investigations indicate that errorful learning followed by corrective feedback is beneficial to learning. Interestingly, the beneficial effects are particularly salient when individuals strongly believe that their error is correct: Errors committed with high confidence are corrected more readily than low-confidence errors. Corrective feedback, including analysis of the reasoning leading up to the mistake, is crucial. Aside from the direct benefit to learners, teachers gain valuable information from errors, and error tolerance encourages students’ active, exploratory, generative engagement. If the goal is optimal performance in high-stakes situations, it may be worthwhile to allow and even encourage students to commit and correct errors while they are in low-stakes learning situations rather than to assiduously avoid errors at all costs.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Anderson RC, Kulhavy RM, Andre T. 1971. Conditions under which feedback facilitates learning from programmed lessons. J. Educ. Psychol. 63:186–88 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ausubel DP. 1968. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley A, Wilson BA. 1994. When implicit learning fails: amnesia and the problem of error elimination. Neuropsychologia 32:53–68 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bandura A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
  5. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik C-LC, Kulik JA, Morgan MT. 1991. The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Rev. Educ. Res. 61:213–38 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnes JM, Underwood BJ. 1959. Fate of first-list associations in transfer theory. J. Exp. Psychol. 58:97–105 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertsch S, Pesta BJ, Wiscott R, McDaniel MA. 2007. The generation effect: a meta-analytic review. Mem. Cogn. 35:201–10 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bjork RA. 1994. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing J Metcalfe, A Shimamura 185–205 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Bjork RA. 2012. Desirable difficulties perspective on learning. Encyclopedia of the Mind H Pashler 242–44 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  10. Black P, Wiliam D. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assess. Educ. 5:7–74 [Google Scholar]
  11. Blackwell L, Trzesniewski K, Dweck CS. 2007. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev 78:246–63 [Google Scholar]
  12. Blum LM, Poliscar JM. 2004. Why things go wrong in police work. Police Chief 71:49–52 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bush G, Luu P, Posner MI. 2000. Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4:215–22 [Google Scholar]
  14. Butler AC, Fazio LF, Marsh EJ. 2011. The hypercorrection effect persists over a week, but high confidence errors return. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18:1238–44 [Google Scholar]
  15. Butler AC, Karpicke JD, Roediger HL. 2008. Correcting a metacognitive error: feedback increases retention of low-confidence correct responses. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 34:918–28 [Google Scholar]
  16. Butler AC, Roediger HL. 2008. Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Mem. Cogn. 36:604–16 [Google Scholar]
  17. Butterfield B, Mangels JA. 2003. Neural correlates of error detection and correction in a semantic retrieval task. Cogn. Brain Res. 17:793–817 [Google Scholar]
  18. Butterfield B, Metcalfe J. 2001. Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27:1491–94 [Google Scholar]
  19. Butterfield B, Metcalfe J. 2006. The correction of errors committed with high confidence. Metacogn. Learn. 1:69–84 [Google Scholar]
  20. Carpenter SK. 2011. Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37:1547–52 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clare L, Jones RSP. 2008. Errorless learning in the rehabilitation of memory impairment: a critical review. Neuropsychol. Rev. 18:1–23 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen GL, Garcia J, Purdie-Vaughns V, Apfel N, Brzustoski P. 2009. Recursive processes in self-affirmation: intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science 324:400–3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Crowe E, Higgins ET. 1997. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and prevention in decision-making. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 69:117–32 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cyr A-A, Anderson ND. 2013. Updating misconceptions: effects of age and confidence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20:574–80 [Google Scholar]
  25. Delbanco T, Bell SK. 2007. Guilty, afraid, and alone—struggling with medical error. N. Engl. J. Med. 357:1682–83 [Google Scholar]
  26. Druckman D, Bjork RA. 1994. Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Dudai Y. 2012. The restless engram: consolidations never end. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 35:227–47 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dunlosky J, Metcalfe J. 2009. Metacognition Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  29. Dunn KE, Mulvenon SW. 2009. A critical review of research on formative assessment: the limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 14:1–11 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dweck CS. 2006. Mindset New York: Random House [Google Scholar]
  31. Dweck CS, Leggett EL. 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality Psychol. Rev. 95:256–73 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ebbesen EB, Rienick CB. 1998. Retention interval and eyewitness memory for events and personally identifying attributes. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:745–62 [Google Scholar]
  33. Eich TS, Stern Y, Metcalfe J. 2013. The hypercorrection effect in younger and older adults. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 20:511–21 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fazio LK, Marsh EJ. 2009. Surprising feedback improves later memory. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16:88–92 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fazio LK, Marsh EJ. 2010. Correcting false memories. Psychol. Sci. 21:801–3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Finn B. 2008. Framing effects on metacognitive monitoring and control. Mem. Cogn. 36:813–21 [Google Scholar]
  37. Finn B, Metcalfe J. 2010. Scaffolding feedback to maximize long-term error correction. Mem. Cogn. 38:951–61 [Google Scholar]
  38. Friedman D, Cycowicz Y, Gaeta H. 2001. The novelty P3: an event-related brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain's evaluation of novelty. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 25:355–73 [Google Scholar]
  39. Friston K. 2005. A theory of cortical responses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 360:815–83 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gehring WJ, Coles MGH, Meyer DE, Donchin E. 1990. The error-related negativity: an event-related brain potential accompanying errors. Psychophysiology 27:S34 [Google Scholar]
  41. Glisky EL, Schacter DL, Tulving E. 1986. Learning and retention of computer related vocabulary in memory-impaired patients: method of vanishing cues. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 8:292–312 [Google Scholar]
  42. Grimaldi PJ, Karpicke JD. 2012. When and why do retrieval attempts enhance subsequent encoding?. Mem. Cogn. 40:505–13 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hamann SB, Squire LR. 1995. On the acquisition of new declarative knowledge in amnesia. Behav. Neurosci. 109:1027–44 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hancock TE, Stock WA, Kulhavy RW. 1992. Predicting feedback effects from response-certitude estimates. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 30:173–76 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hayman CA, MacDonald CA, Tulving E. 1993. The role of repetition and associative interference in new semantic learning in amnesia: a case experiment. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5:375–89 [Google Scholar]
  46. Heimbeck D, Frese M, Sonnentag S, Keith N. 2003. Integrating errors into the training process: the function of error management instructions and the role of goal orientation. Personal. Psychol. 56:333–61 [Google Scholar]
  47. Higgins ET. 1999. Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: implications for evaluative processes. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 503–25 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  48. Huelser BJ, Metcalfe J. 2012. Masking related errors facilitates learning, but learners do not know it. Mem. Cogn. 40:514–27 [Google Scholar]
  49. Iwaki N, Matsushima H, Kodaira K. 2013. Hypercorrection of high confidence errors in lexical representations. Percept. Motor Skills 117:219–35 [Google Scholar]
  50. Izawa C. 1967. Function of test trials in paired-associate learning. J. Exp. Psychol. 76:194–209 [Google Scholar]
  51. Izawa C. 1970. Optimal potentiating effects and forgetting-prevention effects of tests in paired-associate learning. J. Exp. Psychol. 83:340–44 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jacoby LL, Wahlheim CN. 2013. On the importance of looking back: the role of recursive remindings in recency judgments and cued recall. Mem. Cogn. 41:625–37 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kane JH, Anderson RC. 1978. Depth of processing and interference effects in the learning and remembering of sentences. J. Educ. Psychol. 70:626–35 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kang SHK, Pashler H, Cepeda NJ, Rohrer D, Carpenter SK, Mozer MC. 2011. Does incorrect guessing impair fact learning?. J. Educ. Psychol. 131:48–59 [Google Scholar]
  55. Keith N, Frese M. 2008. Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:59–69 [Google Scholar]
  56. Knight JB, Ball BH, Brewer GA, DeWitt MR, Marsh RL. 2012. Testing unsuccessfully: a specification of the underlying mechanisms supporting its influence on retention. J. Mem. Lang. 66:731–46 [Google Scholar]
  57. Koriat A. 2008. Easy comes, easy goes? The link between learning and remembering and its exploitation in metacognition. Mem. Cogn. 36:416–28 [Google Scholar]
  58. Koriat A. 2012. The self-consistency model of subjective confidence. Psychol. Rev. 119:80–113 [Google Scholar]
  59. Koriat A, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B. 1980. Reasons for confidence. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Learn. Mem. 6:107–18 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kornell N, Hays MJ, Bjork RA. 2009. Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35:989–98 [Google Scholar]
  61. Kornell N, Klein PJ, Rawson KA. 2015. Retrieval attempts enhance learning, but retrieval success (versus failure) does not matter. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 41:283–94 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kornell N, Metcalfe J. 2006. Blockers do not block recall in tip-of-the-tongue states. Metacogn. Learn. 1:248–61 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kornell N, Metcalfe J. 2013. The effects of memory retrieval, errors, and feedback on learning. Applying Science of Learning in Education: Infusing Psychological Science into the Curriculum VA Benassi, CE Overson, CM Hakala Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Soc. Teach. Psychol http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php [Google Scholar]
  64. Kulhavy RW, Yekovich FR, Dyer JW. 1976. Feedback and response confidence. J. Educ. Psychol. 68:522–28 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kulik JA, Kulik C-LC. 1988. Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 58:79–97 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ladouceur CD, Dahl RE, Birmaher B, Axelson DA, Ryan ND. 2006. Increased error-related negativity (ERN) in childhood anxiety disorder. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 47:1073–82 [Google Scholar]
  67. Landauer TK, Dumais ST. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 104:211–40 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lee JLC. 2008. Memory reconsolidation mediates the strengthening of memories by additional learning. Nat. Neurosci. 11:1264–66 [Google Scholar]
  69. Lhyle KG, Kulhavy RW. 1987. Feedback processing and error correction. J. Educ. Psychol. 79:320–22 [Google Scholar]
  70. Luck SJ, Kappenman ES. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Mamede S, Schmidt HG. 2004. The structure of reflective practice in medicine. Med. Educ. 38:1302–8 [Google Scholar]
  72. McDaniel MA, Roediger HL, McDermott KB. 2007. Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14:200–6 [Google Scholar]
  73. Metcalfe J. 1998. Cognitive optimism: self-deception of memory-based processing heuristics. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2:100–10 [Google Scholar]
  74. Metcalfe J, Butterfield B, Habeck C, Stern Y. 2012. Neural correlates of people's hypercorrection of their false beliefs. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 24:1571–83 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn_a_00228 [Google Scholar]
  75. Metcalfe J, Casal-Roscum L, Radin A, Friedman D. 2015. On teaching old dogs new tricks. Psychol. Sci. 12:1833–42 [Google Scholar]
  76. Metcalfe J, Finn B. 2008. Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15:174–79 [Google Scholar]
  77. Metcalfe J, Finn B. 2011. People's correction of high confidence errors: Did they know it all along?. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 37:437–48 [Google Scholar]
  78. Metcalfe J, Finn B. 2012. Hypercorrection of high confidence in children. Learn. Instr. 22:253–61 [Google Scholar]
  79. Metcalfe J, Kornell N. 2007. Principles of cognitive science in education: the effects of generation, errors and feedback. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14:225–29 [Google Scholar]
  80. Metcalfe J, Kornell N, Finn B. 2009. Delayed versus immediate feedback in children's and adults’ vocabulary learning. Mem. Cogn. 37:1077–87 [Google Scholar]
  81. Metcalfe J, Kornell N, Son LK. 2007. A cognitive-science based program to enhance study efficacy in a high- and low-risk setting. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 19:743–68 [Google Scholar]
  82. Metcalfe J, Miele DB. 2014. Hypercorrection of high confidence errors: Prior testing both enhances delayed performance and blocks the return of the errors. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 3:189–97 [Google Scholar]
  83. Mitchell DJ, Russo JE, Pennington N. 1989. Back to the future: temporal perspective in the explanation of events. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2:25–39 [Google Scholar]
  84. Moreno R. 2004. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback on discovery-based multimedia. Instr. Sci.: Int. J. Learn. Cogn. 32:99–113 [Google Scholar]
  85. Morrison JE, Meliza LL. 1999. Foundations of the After Action Review Process US Army Res. Inst. Behav. Soc. Sci., Spec. Rep. 42. Alexandria, VA: Inst. Def. Anal. [Google Scholar]
  86. Nader K, Schafe G, LeDoux JE. 2000. Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature 406:722–26 [Google Scholar]
  87. Paller KA, Kutas M, Mayes AR. 1985. An investigation of neural substrates of memory encoding in man. Psychophysiology 22:607 [Google Scholar]
  88. Pashler H, Cepeda NJ, Wixted JT, Rohrer D. 2005. When does feedback facilitate learning of words?. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31:3–8 [Google Scholar]
  89. Proudfit GH, Inzlicht M, Mennin DS. 2013. Anxiety and error monitoring: the importance of motivation and emotion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7:636 [Google Scholar]
  90. Pyc MA, Rawson KA. 2010. Why testing improves memory: mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science 330:335 [Google Scholar]
  91. Richland LE, Kao LS, Kornell N. 2009. The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning?. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 15:243–57 [Google Scholar]
  92. Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. 2006a. Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol. Sci. 17:249–55 [Google Scholar]
  93. Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. 2006b. The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 1:181–210 [Google Scholar]
  94. Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. 1: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  95. Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K. et al. 2009. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch. Intern. Med. 169:1881–87 [Google Scholar]
  96. Schiller D, Monfils M-H, Raio CM, Johnson DC, LeDoux JE, Phelps EA. 2010. Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms. Nature 463:49–53 [Google Scholar]
  97. Scholar AA, Stroessner SJ, Higgins ET. 2008. Responding to negativity: how a risky tactic can serve a vigilant strategy. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:767–74 [Google Scholar]
  98. Siegler RS. 1995. How does change occur: a microgenetic study of number conservation. Cogn. Psychol. 28:225–73 [Google Scholar]
  99. Siegler RS. 2002. Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. Microdevelopment: A Process-Oriented Perspective for Studying Development and Learning N Garnott, J Parziale 31–58 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  100. Sitzman DM, Rhodes MG. 2010. Does the hypercorrection effect occur when feedback is delayed? Poster presented at 2010 Psychon. Soc. Annu. Meet., St. Louis, MO [Google Scholar]
  101. Sitzman DM, Rhodes MG, Tauber SK, Liceralde VR. 2015. The role of prior knowledge in error correction for younger and older adults. Aging Neuropsychol. Cogn. 22:502–16 [Google Scholar]
  102. Skinner BF. 1953. Science and Human Behavior New York: MacMillan [Google Scholar]
  103. Slamecka NJ, Fevreiski J. 1983. The generation effect when generation fails. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 22:153–63 [Google Scholar]
  104. Slamecka NJ, Graf P. 1978. The generation effect: delineation of a phenomenon. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Learn. Mem. 4:592–604 [Google Scholar]
  105. Smith SM, Blankenship SE. 1991. Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. Am. J. Psychol. 104:61–87 [Google Scholar]
  106. Stevenson H, Stigler JW. 1994. The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  107. Stigler JW, Hiebert J. 2009. Closing the teaching gap. Kappan 91:32–37 [Google Scholar]
  108. Terrace HS. 1963. Discrimination learning with and without errors. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 6:1–27 [Google Scholar]
  109. Terrace HS. 1966. Stimulus control. Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application WK Honig 271–334 New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts [Google Scholar]
  110. Terrace HS. 1968. Discrimination learning the peak shift and behavioral contrast. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 11:727–41 [Google Scholar]
  111. Terrace HS. 2010. Defining the stimulus—a memoir. Behav. Process. 83:139–53 [Google Scholar]
  112. USAID (US Agency Int. Dev.) 2006. After-action review. Technical guidance. PN-ADF-360 Washington, DC: USAID [Google Scholar]
  113. van Loon MH, Dunlosky J, van Gog T, van Merriënboer JJG, de Bruin ABH. 2015. Refutations in science texts lead to hypercorrections of misconceptions held with high confidence. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 42:39–48 [Google Scholar]
  114. Wahlheim CN, Jacoby LL. 2013. Remembering change: the critical role of recursive remindings in proactive memory. Mem. Cogn. 41:1–15 [Google Scholar]
  115. Waterman AD, Garbutt J, Hazel E, Dunagan WC, Levinson W. et al. 2007. The emotional impact of medical errors on practicing physicians in the United States and Canada. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 33:467–76 [Google Scholar]
  116. Wiswede D, Münte TF, Goschke T, Rüsseler J. 2009. Modulation of the error-related negativity by induction of short-term negative affect. Neuropsychology 47:83–90 [Google Scholar]
  117. Wu AW. 2000. Medical error: the second victim. BMJ 320:726–27 [Google Scholar]
  118. Zhao B. 2011. Learning from errors: the role of context, emotion, and personality. J. Org. Behav. 32:435–63 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error