Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming errorless practice¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i1 Spot-explain-fix and derr-explain-fix both outperformed errorless practice on the design critique test (both ds = 0.37) and did not differ from each other. → 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 · i1 · causal · r2
In the randomized experiment (N = 276), the design critique test asked students to analyze and evaluate a flawed design based on the five taught principles. Both errorful groups beat errorless practice with d = 0.37 each and "did not significantly differ, p =.81".
"An errorful learning advantage emerged on the design critique test, F(2, 273) = 4.07, p =.018, ŋ2 =.03, whereby the spot-explain-fix ( M = 3.66, SD = 1.76) and derr-explain-fix ( M = 3.61, SD = 1.49) groups outperformed the errorless practice control ( M = 3.08, SD = 1.35), p =.01 and .02, both ds = 0.37, respectively."
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
- 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 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
- Trained students outperformed controls at selecting the more reliable of two contradictory texts, at both post-tests — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
errorful-learning-improves-design-critique |
title |
Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming errorless practice |
description |
Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming errorless practice |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
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.