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¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The article reports that despite rivaling deliberate erring on design critique and error anticipation, spot-explain-fix produced weaker near and far transfer, and a key implication is that negative knowledge alone does not guarantee valid design skill. → 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 · i? · causal · r2

Authors' interpretation (type e) drawn from the Discussion, integrating the four test results of the randomized experiment (N = 276): the article states that "knowing what not to do does not necessarily suffice for knowing what to do", especially in novel and more challenging situations. The underlying performance differences are reported in the transfer and critique claims; no new effect size is printed here.

"Yet, better negative knowledge of what constitute invalid experiments did not insure better far transfer in designing valid experiments for more complex problems."

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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming 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
• 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