CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Science Education and PedagogyVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

From Obstacle to Catalyst: A Narrative Review of Learning from Errors in Science Education

Open access
Fabre-Mitjans, Noëlle, Jiménez-Valverde, Gregorio, Viciana, Salvador, Crespo i Torres, Ferran·2026·Encyclopedia
DOI 10.3390/encyclopedia6090192
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/encyclopedia6090192

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Athuman, 2017, 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., 12, 1797
  2. Lohre, 2022, Errors in implant orientation in novice versus experienced surgeons: The positive impact of hands-on learning, Orthop. Proc., 104, 30
  3. Vanderheiden, E., and Mayer, C.-H. (2020). Failures, errors, and mistakes: A systematic review of the literature. Mistakes, Errors and Failures Across Cultures: Navigating Potentials, Springer. · DOI
  4. Clark, 2007, An overview of conceptual change theories, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., 3, 351
  5. Baki, 2009, The anatomy of mistakes: Categorizing students’ mistakes in mathematics within learning theories, Turk. J. Comput. Math. Educ., 1, 13
  6. Parry, 2017, Perspectives on failure in the classroom by elementary teachers new to teaching engineering, J. Pre-Coll. Eng. Educ. Res., 7, 47
  7. Kay, 2018, “I’m going to fail”: How youth interpret failure across contextual boundaries, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Volume 2, 981
  8. Mandl, H., and Levin, J.R. (1989). Trends in the delayed use of information from an illustrated text. Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures, Elsevier.
  9. Steuer, 2015, A constructive error climate as an element of effective learning environments, Psychol. Test Assess. Model., 57, 262
  10. Yilmaz, 2020, Misrepresentation of science concepts in Turkish picture books, Issues Educ. Res., 30, 1183
  11. Acar, 2010, Internet as a source of misconception, Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol., 9, 94
  12. Jiménez-Valverde, G. (2021). Instrucción entre iguales con viñetas conceptuales: Una propuesta en el grado de maestro de educación primaria en un contexto indagativo. Innovación en la Docencia e Investigación de las Ciencias Sociales y de la Educación, Dykinson. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/2445/215654.
  13. 2016, Gamification of the learning process: Lessons learned, IEEE Rev. Iberoam. Tecnol. Aprendiz., 11, 227
  14. 2026, ¿Gamificación digital o analógica? Comparación en cuanto a motivación y aprendizaje percibidos, ansiedad y adicción, Profr. Rev. Currículum Form. Profr., 30, 1

Authors
Fabre-Mitjans, N., Jiménez-Valverde, G., Viciana, S., & Crespo i Torres, F.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • EduCiTS Innovation and EMA Research Groups, Faculty of Education, Universitat de Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
Corresponding author
Fabre-Mitjans, Noëlle
ORCID
Venue
Encyclopedia
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2026-09-02
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
192
ISSN
2673-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/encyclopedia6090192
OpenAlex
W7205000243
Cited by
0
References
114
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Encyclopedia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universitat de Barcelona through the Office of the Vice-Rector for Teaching Policy and the RIMDA program (2025PID-UB/021)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
learning from mistakes, error correction, error prevention, productive failure, erroneous examples, peer instruction, formative feedback, conceptual change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review