Wong (2025) Selected as APA Editor's Choice Article

I am deeply honoured that my solo-authored article, "Learning by Teaching With Deliberate Errors Promotes Argumentative Reasoning", has been featured as the cover article in the latest issue of Journal of Educational Psychology and selected as the APA Editor's Choice by the American Psychological Association (APA).

The APA Editor's Choice recognises articles selected as outstanding, noteworthy, and impactful for the field. Selection is based on the discretion of APA Journal editors if the paper offers an unusually large potential impact to the field and/or elevates an important future direction for science.

Read more here: SMU School of Social Sciences Facebook, LinkedIn and X (previously Twitter)

Reference

Wong, S. S. H. (2025). Learning by teaching with deliberate errors promotes argumentative reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 117(7), 1013–1038. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000934

PDF

Wong (2025) Learning by teaching with deliberate errors promotes argumentative reasoning.p

Download P • 712KB

Abstract

Reasoning and arguing well lies at the core of thinking and constructing knowledge about complex, controversial issues. Leveraging the techniques of learning by teaching and deliberate erring, the present study developed and tested a novel intervention—learning by misteaching—to boost argumentative reasoning. University students (N = 208) were trained on argumentation strategies and studied a dual-position argumentative text on a controversial topic using one of three learning methods: notetaking, correct teaching, or misteaching. The notetaking group prepared to be tested and wrote study notes while generating good arguments about the topic, whereas both teaching groups prepared to teach and wrote a verbatim teaching script about the topic exactly as how they would orate a lecture while generating good arguments (correct teaching) or deliberately weak arguments (misteaching) for their intended audience to spot. All students were then tested on their basic recall of the text and higher order argumentative reasoning in integrating opposing views to form conclusions about the topic (e.g., weighing arguments and counterarguments, developing new alternative solutions or compromises). On both tests, students who had taught outperformed their peers who had written study notes. Importantly, misteaching produced additional gains for argumentative reasoning over correct teaching, even after controlling for recall performance. Yet, students’ metacognitive judgments revealed that they were largely unaware of these benefits even after the tests. Overall, these findings demonstrate how learning by teaching and deliberate erring can be strategically combined to improve higher order outcomes such as argumentative reasoning, while highlighting the counterintuitive benefits of intentionally making errors in low-stakes contexts.

Impact Statement

The skill to reason and argue well is vital for 21st-century education and democratic participation but is challenging to master. This study demonstrates how argumentative reasoning (e.g., weighing and integrating arguments, designing new solutions) can be enhanced via learning by misteaching—a novel combination of the techniques of learning by teaching and deliberate erring. Students displayed not only superior recall but also argumentative reasoning when they had taught a controversial issue by writing a verbatim teaching script than study notes. Crucially, students’ argumentative reasoning further benefited from teaching incorrectly with deliberately weak arguments they had generated for their intended audience to spot, relative to teaching correctly with good arguments. This advantage of misteaching held even when controlling for students’ recall of the material, suggesting that it was not merely driven by better memory per se. Learning by teaching with deliberate errors is a promising way to boost argumentative reasoning.