This study investigates the Mistake Map strategy as a didactic intervention for developing students’ metacognitive skills through systematic analysis of errors in Biology, and Computer Science classrooms. Although contemporary learning theories emphasise the productive role of mistakes, classroom practice often treats them primarily as indicators of low achievement. As a result, students rarely engage in structured reflection on the origins of their errors or on alternative solution strategies.

As part of this activity, the Mistake Map is a recurring learning tool in which students analyze incorrect solutions, classify the type of error (conceptual, procedural, or strategic), explain its causes, and propose corrected solutions. The study used sequential mixed methods with 9th and 12th grade students (N = 94). Quantitative data were collected using conceptual tests in biology and computer science, as well as metacognitive awareness (MAI), which were supplemented by classroom observations, student questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews.

The purpose of the study is to investigate how structured error handling of summative assessment per units affects students' metacognitive regulation (planning, monitoring, evaluating) and their perception of errors as a learning resource.

In contemporary educational research, increasing attention is given to the instructional value of students’ errors. From a constructivist perspective, learning is understood as an active process in which knowledge is reorganised through the resolution of cognitive conflict (Piaget, 1977; Posner et al., 1982). (Piaget, 1977; Posner et al., 1982). Within this view, mistakes are not merely signs of insufficient knowledge but indicators of transitional understanding that can stimulate conceptual change when learners are supported in analysing them (Oser & Spychiger, 2005).

Metacognitive theory also emphasizes that effective learning requires conscious regulation of cognitive activities through planning, monitoring, and evaluation (Flavell, 1979; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Zimmerman, 2002). However, in classroom practice, there is often a focus on correctness and performance, leaving limited space for structured reflection on why errors occur and how they can contribute to deeper understanding. This discrepancy is particularly noticeable in the biology and computer science subjects, where the use of high-level skills in assignments and dense curricula limit opportunities for systematic error correction.

The strategy is based on a curriculum that is divided into units and learning objective of the subject, and it is implemented after the summative assessment of the units. Instead of immediately correcting the answers, students fill out a table with meta-cognitive prompts as an Mistake Map using a template that includes four steps:

1. Identification – writing down the incorrect solution and the task context;

2. Classification – determining the type of error;
3. Explanation – describing the underlying cause;
4. Reconstruction – proposing and justifying a corrected solution path.

For example, after solving a programming problem involving conditional statements, a student who gets an incorrect result writes down the erroneous code fragmentexplains that the logical condition was reversed, and rewrites the corrected algorithm. In biology classes, they investigate incorrect interpretations of physiological processes, diagrams, and academic terminology.

The study pursues three main aims. First, it explores how systematic error analysis can be embedded within regular teaching practices without disrupting curricular progression. Second, it investigates the extent to which such integration supports students’ conceptual understanding and metacognitive development. Third, it examines students’ perceptions of learning in an instructional environment where errors are openly discussed and analysed.

The research question is: How does the implementation of the Mistake Map strategy influence students’ metacognitive regulation during problem solving?

By transforming mistakes into explicit objects of instruction, the Mistake Map strategy operationalises principles of error‑based learning (Oser & Spychiger, 2005) and metacognitive scaffolding (Schraw, 1998), moving beyond simple correction toward the development of reflective learning routines.

The study uses a sequential mixed methods design to examine the impact of error mapping strategies on students' metacognitive development. The study involved 94 students from grades 9 and 12 who were studying biology and computer science. The sample was divided into experimental groups (n = 46) and control groups (n = 48). The intervention is carried out during one academic semester. In the experimental groups, regular classroom activities are supplemented with the systematic use of the Mistake Map strategy after completing the summative assessment. After completing the tasks, students spend 10 minutes analyzing their errors using the error mapping tool. During the first weeks, teachers were introduced to the Mistake Map strategy and completed an initial survey to assess their metacognitive awareness and a diagnostic questionnaire to analyze errors based on the summative assessment for the section. Quantitative instruments include: • subject specific pre and post conceptual tests; • the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994); • an author developed questionnaire on attitudes toward errors and classroom feedback. Qualitative data was collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with 18 students from experimental groups in grades 12, 11 students, grades 9, 12 students. The observation protocols focus on student engagement, peer discussion, and the use of errors in the learning process. Quantitative data are analysed using descriptive statistics and comparative tests (paired t tests and ANCOVA). Qualitative data are coded thematically following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach. Primary data sources include test scores, MAI results, questionnaire responses, observation records, and interview transcripts.

The study is expected to demonstrate that systematic instructional use of the Mistake Map strategy supports meaningful development of students’ metacognitive regulation and conceptual understanding. In particular, students in the experimental groups are anticipated to show stronger gains in evaluative skills, including the ability to assess the effectiveness of learning strategies, identify sources of misunderstanding, and justify alternative solution pathways. Improvements are also expected in monitoring processes, such as detecting inconsistencies during problem solving, and in planning strategies for approaching complex tasks. Qualitative findings are likely to indicate a gradual shift in classroom culture, with students becoming more willing to discuss incorrect solutions, ask diagnostic questions, and engage in reflective dialogue about learning strategies. Such changes correspond to theoretical assumptions that supportive treatment of errors reduces fear of failure and promotes adaptive motivational beliefs (Dweck, 2006; Oser & Spychiger, 2005). From a didactic perspective, the results are expected to illustrate that structured work with errors can be integrated into instruction without compromising curriculum coverage, while simultaneously enhancing the quality of learning processes. Mistakes, when framed as instructional resources, are likely to contribute to deeper engagement with subject matter and more durable conceptual understanding. Overall, the study aims to contribute to didactic research by offering an empirically grounded instructional model that can be adapted across subjects and educational contexts. The proposed approach may inform teacher education by demonstrating concrete ways to operationalise metacognitive scaffolding and reflective learning within everyday classroom practice.

1.Flavell J. H. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry // American Psychologist. – 1979. – Vol. 34, No. 10. – P. 906–911. 2.Oser F., Spychiger M. Learning from errors: A cognitive–psychological perspective. – London : Routledge, 2005. – 196 p. 3.Piaget J. The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. – Oxford : Blackwell, 1977. – 343 p. 4.Posner G. J., Strike K. A., Hewson P. W., Gertzog W. A. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change // Science Education. – 1982. – Vol. 66, No. 2. – P. 211–227. 5. Schraw G., Dennison R. S. Assessing metacognitive awareness // Contemporary Educational Psychology. – 1994. – Vol. 19, No. 4. – P. 460–475. 6. Zimmerman B. J. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview // Theory into Practice. – 2002. – Vol. 41, No. 2. – P. 64–70. 7. Dweck C. S. Mindset: The new psychology of success. – New York : Random House, 2006. – 276 p. 8.Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology // Qualitative Research in Psychology. – 2006. – Vol. 3, No. 2. – P. 77–101. 9.European Commission. Key competences for lifelong learning. – Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union, 2018. – 12 p. 10.European Commission. Key competences for lifelong learning. – Luxembourg : Publications Office of the European Union, 2018. – 12 p.