On this page
Most of us study as if mistakes were the enemy. We look at the solution before trying, reread notes so we will not get anything wrong, and feel bad about every red mark. Memory research points the other way. Getting something wrong, and then finding out why, is often one of the best ways to learn it.
Does guessing wrong really help?
Nate Kornell, Matthew Jensen Hays and Robert Bjork tested this in a 2009 paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. They designed materials where people were almost certain to fail: fictional general-knowledge questions, such as which peace treaty ended an invented war, and word pairs where people had to guess a weak associate. In one condition, people tried to answer before seeing the correct answer. In the other, they just read the question and answer together.
Across six experiments, the unsuccessful attempts improved later memory for the correct answers. The authors concluded that taking challenging tests, instead of avoiding errors, "may be one key to effective learning." Researchers call this errorful generation: producing an answer, even a wrong one, before you get the right one.
What is the hypercorrection effect?
You might expect that mistakes made with high confidence would be the hardest to fix. Brady Butterfield and Janet Metcalfe expected this too. Their 2001 study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition found the opposite: errors people had been highly confident in were the most likely to be corrected on a later retest. This is the hypercorrection effect.
Whatever the exact reason, the practical message is clear: when you were sure and turn out to be wrong, give the correction your full attention. That matters in physics, where some wrong ideas, such as believing a moving object must have a force pushing it forward, can feel completely obvious.
What makes a mistake useful?
Metcalfe's 2017 review, Learning from Errors in the Annual Review of Psychology, pulls the research together. Errorful learning followed by corrective feedback is beneficial, and the benefits are especially clear for high-confidence errors. Two conditions matter.
The feedback has to come. A wrong answer you never check just stays wrong. Corrective feedback, including analysis of the reasoning that led to the mistake, is crucial.
The stakes should be low. Metcalfe suggests that if the goal is strong performance in high-stakes situations, it may be worth letting students make and correct errors in low-stakes practice, rather than avoiding errors at all costs.
Robert and Elizabeth Bjork make a related point in their essay on desirable difficulties: tests can make later study more effective even when learners are sure to get the test wrong.
A routine for learning from your mistakes
Use this whenever you start a new topic or work through a problem set.
Pre-test yourself. Before reading a new chapter, try three or four questions from the end of it. You will get most wrong. That is the point.
Commit and rate. Write your answer and a confidence rating from 1 to 5 before you check.
Check immediately. Look at the correct answer and solution straight after each attempt, while your own thinking is still fresh.
Explain the gap. In one line, write why your answer was wrong. "I used v = u + at when acceleration was not constant." This is the reasoning analysis that Metcalfe highlights.
Flag the confident errors. Mark every mistake you rated 4 or 5. These are misconceptions, and worth a short note in your error log.
Retest later. Two or three days on, try the flagged questions again without notes.
A quick physics example
Question: a ball is thrown straight up. At the very top, what is its acceleration?
A tempting answer is "zero", given with confidence 5, because the velocity is zero there. The correct answer is g, about 9.8 m/s² downward, because gravity still acts. The gap to write down: "I mixed up velocity and acceleration." In the hypercorrection research, errors made with high confidence were the most likely to be fixed on a retest. Treat this one the same way.
Making space for mistakes at home
Parents can help by treating practice errors as normal, and saving concern for patterns that repeat after feedback. Our guide on how parents can help without pressure has phrases that keep mistakes discussable. For more on why effortful study works, see desirable difficulties applied to daily study, and for using errors after a test, how to bounce back after a bad test.
Feedback is the step that is easiest to skip. The Fermi Problem Library has a step-by-step solver that explains the reasoning rather than printing an answer, which helps with step 4. Commit to your own answer first.
