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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q3·i2medium
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 i2 Spot-explain-fix (d = 0.66) and derr-explain-fix (d = 0.71) both anticipated more problem-specific errors than errorless practice 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 · i2 · causal · r3
In the randomized experiment (N = 276), the error anticipation test asked students to describe potential design errors a researcher might make in a spacing-versus-cramming study; one point was awarded per problem-specific error. The omnibus test was significant, F(2, 273) = 13.62, p < .001, ŋ² = .09; the errorful groups "did not significantly differ, p =.88".
"The spot-explain-fix ( M = 1.48, SD = 1.11) and derr-explain-fix (M = 1.46, SD = 0.94) groups anticipated more problem-specific errors than the errorless practice control ( M = 0.82, SD = 0.86), both ps <.001, d = 0.66 and 0.71, 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
- 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 — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
errorful-learning-improves-error-anticipation-negative-knowledge |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
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.