Learning from errors and failure in educational contexts

There is a growing public and media narrative that, to succeed, we need to fail. We are told we need to fail fast, fail often and fail forward and we need to move out of our comfort zone, take risks and embrace a growth mindset. What is more, we should create learning environments where all this is possible, so everyone can reap the benefits of their failures, errors and mistakes.

While there seems to be no shortage of anecdotal and media evidence showcasing people overcoming setbacks, there continues to be not enough empirical evidence, especially within the education sector, to practically support these ideas. Fortunately, there is now a growing body of research which suggests that embracing errors and failures while learning can, in the right contexts, be a productive and arguably essential part of the learning process. In this editorial, we will briefly introduce some of this research. Subsequently, we will briefly describe the three central themes that have been addressed in this special issue and spotlight the papers that have provided insights in relation to each of them.

The first theme discusses the characteristics of error-friendly learning contexts that can facilitate learning from errors and failures. The second explores the importance of beliefs or perceptions of errors and failure and the characteristics that moderate such views, and finally we discuss what is meant by adaptive responses to errors and failure and how to try and support them.

However, first we need to define what we mean when we talk about errors and failure. Errors–in educational contexts–are typically characterized by a deviation from an intended goal or from a norm and they happen unintentionally (Frese & Zapf, 1994). Failure often involves more than one error, and a judgement about the overall outcome (either by the person who erred or by an observer). Additionally, not every error leads to failure. Whether an error is interpreted as a failure depends on situational factors (e.g., social and cultural norms) and personal characteristics, such as a learner's self-concept of ability or their learning or performance goals. Thus, while errors and failure have a lot in common, they are different constructs. To further complicate the issue, the literature uses various terms, for instance, mistakes, setbacks, impasses, challenges, lapses, obstacles, etc. (Simpson et al., 2024). While each of these terms carries its own distinct nuance, for the purpose of this editorial, we will collectively refer to these as ‘X events’, a simple symbolic representation of the critical point where something is identifed as having gone wrong or deviates from the expected or intended outcome.

Given the variety of possible X events, it is important for researchers to define the nature of the X event (e.g., what is being investigated, what is excluded and who determines that the X event occurred). We must also consider the context of these X events including cultural factors, their location (e.g., within an experiment, classroom, high stakes exam, at home or on the sports ground), whether they are public or private, whether they are deliberate, accidental, or induced and their temporality (if they are brief moments or longer episodes). Additionally, it is important to consider the extent to which the methods used for investigating the variety of X events (such as empirical studies, surveys, observations, interviews, vignettes) correspond with the definitions and conceptual framework being used, and consider the unique contexts in which these situations occur. Finally, the interpretations of the findings need to consider all these complexities, situating the research before any conclusion is drawn.

Historically, research on achievement motivation rarely focused directly on failure, often approaching it indirectly by, for example, examining fear of failure as a motivator (e.g., Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Covington & Omelich, 1988). Typically, studies involved participants being presented with unsolvable or difficult tasks and the researchers would assess the subjects' reactions and attributions for their performance (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; Dweck, 1975).

More recently, researchers have sought to understand different failure events and error situations themselves, along with their conditions and their effects in different contexts. Most research on such X events has focused on errors. This research highlights how errors are a normal part of the learning process, indeed if a person is not making any errors while learning, it raises the question of whether they are actually learning (e.g., Van Lehn, 1988). Considering how common it is to make mistakes when learning, particularly when learning something new, it is surprising that research emphasizing the importance of learning from errors in educational environments is a relatively new practice.

Feedback research is one area of educational psychology where the discourse about learning directly from errors has been explored. For example, feedback studies have found that the generation of self-explanations, where learners articulate why a task solution is correct or incorrect (cf. internal feedback, Narciss et al., 2022), plays an important role in the learning process. However, learning from one's own errors is arguably more complex than learning from a set of commonly made mistakes. In addition to needing to identify the X event, self-explanations involve processing the event itself, motivation to persevere after a setback, and strategies to correct the error and reflect on the underlying misconception. The shift in research towards focusing on the complex dynamics that are at play when an individual encounters an X event, as well as the need to consider the contexts in which X event occur and how they can be supported is a relatively new and promising areas, and is a key focus of this special issue (Figure 1).

Like the transition from ‘cold’ to ‘hot’ self-regulation models in self-regulated learning research (Tinajero et al., 2024), there is now a growing emphasis on the role of affective-motivational factors as a central focus in error research. Early research on errors primarily took a mechanistic approach, focusing on the cognitive process and/or neurological responses (e.g., Tamnes et al., 2013) with a view that the desired target or response was an optimal, rational, desired outcome that showcased a person's competency. However, this narrow epistemic approach oversimplifies the process of responding to errors, ignoring the motivational, emotional and contextual factors and the complex relational environment in which the errors occur. This concern has led recent researchers to focus more closely on the affective states and emotional regulation during X events (e.g., Strain & D'Mello, 2015; Tulis & Dresel, 2018). Hence, there is now widening interest in the dynamics of cognitive, metacognitive, emotional and motivational response to X events and the importance of all of them for personal growth as well as innovation and learning.

While under the right conditions errors are seen as an integral part of an individual's learning (e.g., Zhang & Fiorella, 2022), in practice, productive learning from errors is not easy and does not seem to occur spontaneously (Eskreis-Winkler & Fishbach, 2022). For example, Pan et al.'s (2020) study with American undergraduate university students noted that, although 87% of the students acknowledged the importance of correcting errors, only 60% actively engaged in doing so. Instead, it seems that students need to be actively supported by a learning environment in which ‘being wrong’ is not only tolerated but encouraged and that teachers, educators and parents guide students/learners through the process to actively engaging with and handle errors and learning from them.

This raises another issue: in educational contexts errors are often ‘social events’, occurring in groups of learners–for instance in a classroom. The way others respond to someone else's error can impact how the person who made the error perceives, assesses and reacts to it. This highlights the importance of creating error friendly learning environments that are psychologically safe (Edmondson, 1999; Steuer et al., 2013), and meet the person's basic psychological needs for affiliation, competency, autonomy and self-worth (Covington & Dray, 2002). Such environments are crucial for encouraging learners to engage more fully with X events. In other words, error friendly learning environments should be spaces where the negative consequences of X events on self-worth are reduced and positive consequences are strengthened.

Research on creating a positive error climate has largely been conducted within work and school settings. Within education, key strategies found to be beneficial include teachers talking in class about both errors and the reasons for errors (Seifried & Wuttke, 2010), and providing constructive corrective feedback on errors (see Metcalfe, 2017). Still, many educators and parents shy away from talking about errors. This may be because they hold negative beliefs about errors and failure seeing, them as something to be avoided at all costs (e.g., Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016), or concern about the emotional response and impact on the learner (e.g., Brumariu & Kerns, 2010; Frank, 2020). Indeed, parents and teachers' concerns are warranted, with students themselves reporting that in response to X events they often feel unmotivated, ashamed or anxious (Tulis & Dresel, 2018) and/or they may try to cover them up, fail to elaborate on their causes, thereby miss a valuable learning opportunity (e.g., Metcalfe, 2017; Zhang & Fiorella, 2022).

Often it is unclear to all individuals seeking to support learners through X events what adaptive reactions look like and how they can be supported to learn from them. Numerous observational studies show that the learning potential of errors is rarely utilized by teachers in the classroom (e.g., Santagata, 2005; Schleppenbach et al., 2007; Tulis, 2013). To capture the learning potential in X events, both affective-motivational reactions following errors and metacognitive and cognitive activities for a deeper analysis of the cause of the error and its correction need to be considered (Tulis et al., 2016).

To fully integrate learning from different types of X events into education as a pedagogical principle, a strong theoretical foundation and evidence-based support are crucial. This special issue advances the field by providing empirical data that supports adopting more error friendly approaches to learning, challenging the prevailing success-focused environment that often overlooks the value of X events. Importantly, this issue extends the discussion of X events beyond traditional settings such as the workplace and classroom, considering their role across various educational contexts. The papers collectively demonstrate that fostering error-friendly learning environments, promoting positive perceptions of errors and failures, and encouraging adaptive responses to X events are not only possible but also of value. We hope this special issue inspires further research and sparks more meaningful discussions about the role of X events in education more generally and their potential to shape learning across diverse settings and contexts.

Gabriele Steuer: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Maria Tulis: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Elizabeth R. Peterson: Conceptualization; writing – review and editing; visualization.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.