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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 The derr-explain-fix group outperformed both errorless practice (d = 0.56) and spot-explain-fix (d = 0.45) on far transfer; spot-explain-fix did not differ from errorless practice (d = 0.09, p = .50). → Sarah Shi Hui Wong 2026
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 · i2 · causal · r3
In the same randomized experiment (N = 276), the far transfer test required designing a 2 × 2 factorial study inferred from a teacher-dialogue scenario, more complex than practiced. The omnibus test was significant, F(2, 273) = 7.58, p = .001, ŋ² = .05; the pairwise results above show the deliberate-erring advantage persisted while the advantage of "observing and correcting others' invalid designs" did not.
"The derr-explain-fix group (M = 7.27, SD = 2.56) outperformed both the errorless practice ( M = 5.73, SD = 2.93) and spot-explain-fix (M = 6.01, SD = 3.07) groups, p <.001 and p =.003, d = 0.56 and 0.45, respectively, whereas the latter two groups did not differ, p =.50, d = 0.09."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — related
- Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming errorless practice — 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- 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) — reports the opposite
- Productive Failure Improves Conceptual Learning — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
derring-far-transfer-facorial-design-advantage |
title |
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 |
description |
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 p... |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — sarah-shi-hui-wong-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.