Error conditions differed in negative affect but not positive affect after the PS-phase learning materials¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 ANOVAs on CFA-based factor scores showed no significant between-group difference in positive affect but a statistically significant difference in negative affect (η² = 0.05). → Hämmerle 2026

Evidence¶

Hämmerle 2026¶

Hämmerle, L., Kuhlmann, S. L., Krause-Wichmann, T., & Möller, A. (2026). Learning the control-of-variables strategy through self-generated and vicarious errors: the mediating roles of affect, motivation, cognitive load, and error awareness. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-026-09822-2

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

One-way ANOVAs comparing the four conditions on PANAS positive and negative affect factor scores, assessed directly after students finished the learning materials. The study reports "a statistically significant difference between the groups in negative affect (F(3, 250) = 4.49, p < .01, η² = 0.05)" while positive affect did not differ.

"There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in positive affect (F(3, 250) = 1.096, p > .05); however, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups in negative affect (F(3, 250) = 4.49, p < .01, η² = 0.05))"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Affect, motivation, and cognitive load did not mediate the relationship between error condition and CVS learning — related
• Learning the CVS with self-generated, vicarious, combined, or no errors during PS-I does not differentially affect CVS posttest performance when controlling for prior knowledge — related