A further investigation regarding the efficacy of and preference for positive and corrective feedback

Godinez et al. (2024) ran a single-case test with ten learners.

They compared two feedback styles: positive praise only versus corrective feedback that told the learner what to fix.

Each learner tried both styles while learning a new skill. The team tracked who reached mastery and which style each person liked best.

Nine out of ten kids mastered the skill when they got corrective feedback.

Only one mastered with praise alone.

When asked to pick, half the group chose the corrective style, showing it can be both effective and liked.

Simonian et al. (2022) ran almost the same study two years earlier. They also saw corrective feedback beat praise, but every single learner in that study picked the corrective style. The new paper lowers the preference rate to 50%, reminding us choice can vary across groups.

van der Kooij et al. (2026) looked at success rates instead of words. They found letting people fail about half the time sped up motor learning. Together the three papers show the same big idea: useful information after a mistake helps more than constant praise.

Cariveau et al. (2019) reviewed dozens of error-fix procedures and found no clear winner. The Godinez paper adds a fresh vote for plain corrective feedback while confirming the field still needs more head-to-head tests.

If you usually praise to keep things positive, try asking the learner which feedback style they want. Many will pick clear correction, and it is likely to produce mastery faster. Start your next session by offering both styles and let the data guide you.