After instruction, have students practice designing deliberately invalid experiments, explain and correct their own errors, and optionally exchange designs with peers for spot-explain-fix discussion¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 6 claims (6 for) · 1 study (1 causal), q3 · 1 of 1 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article recommends that "students could thus be instructed on the fundamentals of research design, then practice designing deliberately invalid experiments and explaining and correcting their errors for deep learning". This derr-explain-fix recipe follows the study's procedure: a lesson on five design principles, then 15 minutes of open-book practice designing a non-optimal study, explaining the deliberate errors, and correcting them. The article adds that because spot-explain-fix is "not harmful for learning" and beat errorless practice on three tests, students could afterwards exchange responses with peers to spot and discuss each other's deliberate errors.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Students must first be instructed on the correct experimental design principles, and practice must be low-stakes and open-book so errors are deliberately made with knowledge of the correct principles

Constraints¶

• The article states spot-explain-fix fell short of deliberate erring on near and far transfer, so peer exchange should follow, not replace, self-generated error practice

Target Learners¶

• university students learning research methods
• students in educational settings learning experimental design

Target Learning Goals¶

• designing valid experiments
• applying experimental design principles including CVS
• transfer to structurally novel and more complex design problems

Affordances¶

• Derring Effect Deliberate Erring Framework

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 [+M]
• 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 [+M]
• Both errorful learning methods improve design critique (understanding the indeterminacy of invalid experiments) equally, outperforming errorless practice [+W]
• 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 [+M]
• 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 [+M]
• 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 [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Erroneous Examples
• Vocational education programs should let trainees experience and reflect on authentic errors, e.g. via error management training and negative knowledge-diaries

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• 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