Both errorful learning methods (self- and other-generated invalid designs) improve near transfer of experimental design principles more than errorless practice, and self-generated deliberate errors yield the best near transfer¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Spot-explain-fix and derr-explain-fix produced better near transfer than errorless practice, with d = 0.30 and d = 0.76 respectively. → Sarah Shi Hui Wong 2026 q3 i2 The derr-explain-fix group outperformed the spot-explain-fix group on near transfer, d = 0.43. → Sarah Shi Hui Wong 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Sarah Shi Hui Wong 2026¶

Sarah Shi Hui Wong. (2026). Deliberate erring improves scientific reasoning: Learning experimentation skills by intentionally designing invalid experiments. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-026-09819-x

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Randomized between-subjects experiment with 276 university students (92 per condition) who received identical instruction then practiced with one of three learning methods. The omnibus ANOVA was significant; pairwise comparisons showed errorful methods beating errorless practice with d = 0.30 and d = 0.76, per the article's "students' near transfer benefited more from errorful than errorless learning".

"A one-way between-subjects ANOV A revealed that the learning groups significantly differed in their near transfer test performance, F(2, 273) = 12.66, p <.001, ŋ2 =.09."

Sarah Shi Hui Wong 2026 (2)¶

Sarah Shi Hui Wong. (2026). Deliberate erring improves scientific reasoning: Learning experimentation skills by intentionally designing invalid experiments. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-026-09819-x

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Pairwise comparison from the same randomized experiment (N = 276) on the near transfer test: the deliberate-erring group scored higher than the spot-explain-fix group, "p =.004, d = 0.43".

"Importantly, the derr-explain-fix group outperformed the spot-explain-fix group, p =.004, d = 0.43."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Deliberately designing and correcting one's own invalid experiments improves far transfer to a structurally more complex factorial design, whereas spotting and correcting others' errors does not outperform errorless practice on far transfer — related
• Knowing what not to do does not suffice for knowing what to do: spot-explain-fix improved design critique and error anticipation but produced weaker near and far transfer than deliberate erring and no far-transfer advantage over errorless practice — related
• Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming errorless practice — related
• Both errorful learning methods produce better negative knowledge (anticipation of problem-specific design errors) than errorless practice, with no difference between self- and other-generated errors — related
• Errorless discrimination training avoids emotional responses and yields more effective transfer than errorful training (Terrace's pigeon studies) — related
• Students lack metacognitive awareness of the benefits of errorful learning: the three learning groups did not differ in perceived competence, judgments of learning, or rated method effectiveness even after tests — related
• Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning — related