Deliberate erring improves scientific reasoning: Learning experimentation skills by intentionally designing invalid experiments

Abstract Mastering skills in designing valid, controlled experiments is foundational for scientific reasoning and inquiry. Whereas prevailing interventions to develop experimentation skills often induce cognitive conflict through comparing others’ invalid experiments with valid ones, this study tested the hypothesis that deliberately committing and correcting one’s own errors in invalid designs yields better learning and transfer than studying others’ errors. University students ( N = 276) were instructed on experimental design principles (e.g., control of variables), then practiced applying them using one of three learning methods: derr-explain-fix (intentionally designing an invalid experiment then explaining and correcting one’s deliberate errors) or spot-explain-fix (spotting, explaining, and correcting others’ deliberate errors in invalid designs) or errorless practice (designing a valid experiment and explaining it). All students were then tested on their near and far transfer in designing an experiment that was structurally analogous to or more complex than the one during practice. They were also assessed on critiquing a given design’s validity, and their negative knowledge in anticipating problem-specific design errors. Both errorful learning methods outperformed errorless practice on the near transfer, design critique, and error anticipation tests. Crucially, the derr-explain-fix method improved near and far transfer more than the spot-explain-fix method, which did not yield better far transfer than errorless practice. Yet, students lacked metacognitive awareness of the benefits of deliberate erring and, more broadly, errorful learning. Overall, these findings demonstrate that intentionally designing and correcting one’s own invalid experiments during practice is an effective way to enhance learning and transfer of experimental design principles.