Physicist Niels Bohr said that an expert in a certain field can be called a person who made all possible mistakes in one very narrow field. This expression accurately reflects one of the most important lessons of learning: people learn from mistakes. Education is not magic, but just the conclusions we draw after failures. T&P publishes a translation of a Wired article on error research.
A new study by Michigan State University's Jason Moser, due in Psychological Science, seeks to expand on this point. The problematic of a future article is why some people are more effective in learning through mistakes than others? In the end, everyone is wrong. But you can ignore the mistake and just brush it aside, maintaining a sense of self-confidence, or you can study your mistake, try to learn from it.
Moser's experiment is based on the fact that there are two different responses to errors, each of which can be detected using an electroencephalogram (EEG). The first reaction is an error-induced negative attitude (ERN). It occurs presumably in the anterior cingulate cortex (the part of the brain that helps control behavior, predict expected rewards, and regulate attention) about 50 milliseconds after failure. These neural responses, mostly involuntary, are an inevitable response to any mistake.
The second signal - the error-induced positive attitude (Pe) - occurs somewhere between 100-500 ms after the mistake and is usually associated with awareness. This happens when we pay attention to a mistake and focus on a disappointing result. Numerous studies have shown that subjects learn more effectively when their brains exhibit two characteristics: 1) a stronger ERN signal, which causes a longer initial response to error, 2) a longer Pe signal, in which the person is likely to still draws attention to the error and thus tries to learn from it.
In their study, Moser and his colleagues try to look at how perceptions of cognition generate these involuntary signals. To do this, they applied a dichotomy pioneered by Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford. In his research, Dweck identifies two types of people - with a fixed mindset, who tend to agree with statements like "You have a certain amount of mental capacity, and you cannot change it" and people with developing thinking who believe that you can improve your knowledge or skills in any area, investing the necessary amount of time and energy in the learning process. While people with a fixed mindset perceive mistakes as failure and a sign that they are not talented enough for the task at hand,others see mistakes as a necessary step on the way to gaining knowledge - the engine of knowledge.
An experiment was conducted where subjects were given a test asking them to name the average in a series of five letters - such as "MMMMM" or "NNMNN". Sometimes the middle letter was the same as the other four, and sometimes it was different. This simple change caused frequent mistakes, like any boring task that prompts people to turn off their consciousness. As soon as they made a mistake, they were, of course, immediately upset. There can be no excuse for a mistake in recognizing a letter.
To accomplish this task, we used EEG devices filled with special electrodes that recorded electrical activity in the brain. It turned out that study participants with developing minds were significantly more successful in trying to learn from their mistakes. As a result, immediately after the mistake, their accuracy increased dramatically. The most interesting were the EEG data, according to which the Pe signal in the developing thinking group was much stronger (the ratio was approximately 15 versus 5 in the group with a fixed mindset), which resulted in increased attention. Moreover, an increase in Pe signal strength was followed by an improvement in results after an error - thus increased vigilance led to an increase in productivity. As the participants thought about what exactly they were doing wrong,they eventually found a way to improve.
In her own research, Dweck has shown that these different ways of thinking have important practical implications. Together with Claudia Mueller, they conducted a study in which more than 400 fifth graders from twelve different schools in New York were asked to take a relatively easy test consisting of non-verbal puzzles. After the test, the researchers shared their results with the students. Half of the children were praised for their intelligence, and the other half for their efforts.
Promotional video:
Next, the students were given a choice between two different tests. The first was described as a set of challenging puzzles that can be learned a lot by completing, and the second is an easy test similar to the one they just passed. Scientists expected that various forms of praise would have a rather small effect, but it soon became clear that the compliment said significantly influenced the subsequent choice of the test. Nearly 90 percent of those praised for their efforts chose the more difficult option. However, most of the children who were scored for intelligence chose the easier test. What explains this difference? Dweck believes that by praising children for their intelligence, we encourage them to look smarter, which means that they are afraid to make mistakes and not live up to expectations.
Dweck's next series of experiments showed how fear of failure can hinder learning. She gave the same fifth graders a new notoriously difficult test, originally designed for eighth graders. Dweck wanted to see the children's reaction to such a test. The students, who were praised for their efforts, worked hard to solve the puzzles. Children who were praised for their intelligence quickly gave up. Their inevitable mistakes were seen as a sign of failure. After completing this difficult test, two groups of participants were given the opportunity to rate either the best or the worst results. Pupils who have been praised for their intelligence almost always chose the opportunity to rate the worst jobs in order to reinforce their self-esteem. The group of children who were praised for their diligence were more likely to be interested in those who could be stronger than them. Thus,they tried to understand their mistakes in order to further improve their abilities.
The final round of testing was the same difficulty level as the original test. However, students who were praised for their efforts showed significant improvement, with their GPA increasing by 30 percent. These children did better because they were willing to test their abilities, even if it could lead to failure. The result of the experiment was even more impressive when it was found that the children randomly assigned to the smart group had a drop in average score of almost 20 percent. The experience of failure was so discouraging that it ultimately led to a regression of ability.
Our mistake is that by giving praise to a child for his innate intelligence, we distort the psychological reality of the educational process. This prevents children from using the most effective teaching method, in which they learn from their mistakes. Because as long as we feel the fear of being wrong (this burst of Pe activity, which, a few hundred milliseconds after the error, directs our attention to what we would like to ignore most of all), our mind will never be able to realign its mechanisms of work - we will continue to make the same mistakes, preferring a sense of self-confidence over self-improvement. Irish writer Samuel Beckett had the right approach: “I've tried it. Failed. Never mind. Try again. Make a mistake again. Make a mistake better."
Natalia Orekhova
