Predicting the Pitfall: Why “Productive Failure” Isn’t Productive for Early Learners

I recently listened to a fantastic episode of the Melissa & Lori Love Literacy podcast featuring Dr. Matt Burns, and it introduced me to a new term-“productive failure.”

At first, the idea intrigued me: that failure could actually be a good thing for students-that making mistakes could spark deeper learning and problem-solving. As the discussion continued, though, Dr. Burns unpacked something incredibly important: while productive failure might be beneficial for older students learning advanced concepts, it’s actually counterproductive for our youngest learners.

And that got me thinking-how often do we accidentally ask our early learners to “figure it out” before they’ve ever truly been taught?

Understanding “Productive Failure”

The term productive failure (PF) comes from learning sciences research, especially the work of Manu Kapur (2008). The idea is that allowing learners to struggle through a task before formal instruction can deepen understanding and promote long-term retention.

In the right context-say, a college-level problem-solving task-that can be powerful. Those learners already have background knowledge, strategies, and metacognitive skills to make sense of their mistakes and connect them to what they already know.

But, as Dr. Burns explained, productive failure has developmental limits. For young, early-elementary learners, it’s not just less effective-it can actually be harmful.

Why “Productive Failure” Can Be Harmful in Early Learning

1. It assumes prerequisite knowledge that young learners don’t yet have.

Dr. Burns reminded listeners that learning follows distinct phases: acquisition, fluency, generalization, problem-solving, and adaptation.
Productive failure fits only at the end of that sequence-once students already have accuracy and fluency.

When we ask kindergarteners or early readers to “discover” letter sounds or figure out decoding patterns without instruction, we’re setting them up for confusion, frustration, and the development of error patterns that can stick.

2. Young students encode errors quickly.

Early learners don’t just make mistakes-they memorize them.

Children’s working memory is still developing, so repeated guessing or incorrect practice (like saying the wrong sound for a letter) can actually strengthen neural pathways for the error.

In speech or phonics intervention, those incorrect patterns can delay mastery and require extensive reteaching later. What’s meant to be “productive” quickly becomes unproductive failure.

3. It can undermine confidence and motivation.

Older learners can view mistakes as a natural part of learning. Younger children, however, often see failure as proof that they can’t do it.

Without scaffolding, that repeated struggle chips away at self-efficacy and motivation-especially for students already receiving intervention. Young learners thrive on success-based experiences, where they feel capable and supported through each step of instruction.

4. It doesn’t align with what we know about early literacy instruction.

The science of reading-and the science of learning-are clear: early reading and language instruction must be explicit, systematic, and cumulative.

And that’s exactly how early literacy and speech sound instruction should work:

• Model first: show exactly what success looks and sounds like.

• Guide practice: support students as they imitate and refine.

• Provide immediate feedback: correct errors in real time.

• Build fluency: use repetition and reinforcement until accuracy is automatic.

Only once those foundations are strong should we expect students to apply skills independently-like transferring decoding to new words or producing a mastered sound in connected speech.

What the Research Confirms

A 2021 meta-analysis (Loibl et al., Educational Psychology Review) found that productive failure’s effectiveness grows with age.

• For college students, PF showed a moderate positive effect.

• For elementary students, PF led to poorer outcomes than direct instruction.

Instructional Implications for Interventionists & SLPs

The takeaway from Dr. Burns’ perspective and the research is simple but powerful:

Productive failure belongs in the application phase-not the acquisition phase.

When we teach foundational literacy and speech skills, our focus should be on:

• Explicit modeling

• Immediate feedback

• Error correction

• Repetitive, scaffolded practice

• Gradual release of responsibility

Only after students have accuracy and fluency should we invite them into productive struggle-applying what they know in new contexts or extending their skills to novel situations.

The Big Takeaway

Model first. Scaffold always. Struggle later.

“Productive failure” sounds like a powerful idea-and it is, when used at the right time. But for early learners, it’s more failure than productive.

As interventionists and educators, our goal is to build strong neural pathways for accuracy and automaticity. That means prioritizing success-based learning experiences, modeling excellence, and guiding students toward mastery before we ever ask them to “figure it out.”

Because when it comes to early learning, success isn’t the end of the journey-it’s the foundation for all the learning to come.