Assessing the efficacy of and preference for positive and corrective feedback

Simonian et al. (2022) compared two ways of telling a learner how they did. One way was positive feedback: 'Nice try!' The other way was corrective feedback: 'Next time, put the red block here.' Participants practiced new tasks under each style.

After the sessions, each person picked the style they liked best.

Only corrective feedback led to mastery. Positive feedback and no feedback did not. When asked, every single participant said they preferred the corrective style.

The learners wanted the information that showed them exactly what to fix.

Godinez et al. (2024) ran the same study two years later. They found the same thing: corrective feedback produced mastery more often than positive feedback. The twist? Only half of their learners preferred the corrective style. The drop from 100 % to 50 % shows preference can shift when you give people a real choice.

Cariveau et al. (2019) reviewed dozens of error-correction papers. They warn that tiny wording or timing changes can flip results. Simonian’s clean side-by-side design fits the review’s call for clear comparisons.

Dougherty et al. (1994) showed that immediate correction beats delayed correction. Simonian adds that even versus praise, immediate correction still wins.

Stop defaulting to ‘Great job!’ when teaching a new skill. Switch to brief, specific correction: ‘Touch the circle, not the square.’ Your learner will master the skill faster and, half the time, will tell you they like the clearer information. Save praise for maintenance or motivation, not acquisition.