Erroneous examples show no general learning benefit over correct examples in most comparisons, but outperform them for negative knowledge in some studies¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · 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.
q2 i? Across ErrEx vs CorrEx comparisons, most studies found no significant general learning differences, though several found ErrEx beneficial for specific outcomes such as negative knowledge. → Sonja Dieterich 2025
Evidence¶
Sonja Dieterich 2025¶
Sonja Dieterich, Stefan Rumann, Marc Rodemer. (2025). Conditions for Effective Learning from Erroneous Examples: A Systematic Review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10071-x
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review's Table 1 systematization of ErrEx vs CorrEx comparisons reports for Barbieri and Booth (2016) that there was "No general learning benefit of ErrEx compared to CorrEx", with low-prior-knowledge students benefiting most from ErrEx.
"No general learning benefit of ErrEx compared to CorrEx, but LPK students benefitted most from ErrEx. HPK Students benefitted from all treatment groups"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Contrasting erroneous examples were more often effective than correct examples and problem-solving, sometimes equally or more effective than erroneous examples — related
- In the acquisition of negative knowledge, erroneous examples outperformed correct examples — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Prior knowledge moderates the effectiveness of erroneous and contrasting erroneous examples, with low-prior-knowledge learners benefiting in several studies but findings contradictory — related
- Learning with erroneous examples often imposed higher cognitive load than correct examples or problem-solving — related
- Erroneous examples were beneficial only in combination with elaborated feedback, not with corrective feedback alone — related
- Erroneous examples do not raise general confidence calibration but yield more high-confidence correct answers on the delayed posttest — related
- Time on task does not explain the erroneous-examples delayed learning advantage — related
- Erroneous examples produce significantly higher delayed-test learning gains than problem solving for decimal learning — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
errexs-vs-correx-mixed-benefit |
title |
Erroneous examples show no general learning benefit over correct examples in most comparisons, but outperform them for negative knowledge in some studies |
description |
Erroneous examples show no general learning benefit over correct examples in most comparisons, but outperform them for negative knowledge in some studies |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — sonja-dieterich-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.