Correction: Discrepancy between performance and feedback affects mathematics student teachers' self-efficacy but not their self-assessment accuracy

Helen M. Ernst^1*Anja Prinz-Weiß²Jörg Wittwer¹Thamar Voss¹

• ¹Department of Educational Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
• ²Department of Psychology, University of Education Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany

Frontiers' correction template for authors A correction refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish after publication. The publication of this article is subject to Frontiers' editorial approval. Instructions: ● Please read through all the templates before choosing ● Pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others. ● Edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. ● Please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary ● Submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page. When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example: There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used. The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original version of this article has been updated. In the published article, there was a mistake in the Funding statement. The funding statement for the Key Development Project of the Department of Science and Technology was displayed as "2015CBd051". The correct statement is "Key Development Project of Department of Science and Technology (2015C03Bd051).'' Correction: Discrepancy between performance and feedback affects mathematics student teachers' self-efficacy but not their self-assessment accuracy Correction on: Ernst HM, Prinz-Weiß A, Wittwer J and Voss T (2025) Discrepancy between performance and feedback affects mathematics student teachers' self-efficacy but not their self-assessment accuracy. Front. Psychol. 15:1391093. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1391093 Text correction Adding/removing text In the published article, there was an error. When the feedback conditions were introduced in the methods section of Study 2, they were interchanged. Specifically, the negative condition was labeled as positive, and the positive condition was labeled as negative. This error occurred only once. The feedback conditions were labeled correctly in the other paragraphs and the interpretation of the feedback conditions was clearly pointed out subsequently. A correction has been made to Study 2, Method, Measures, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated: "To be able to examine pronounced effects between the feedback valences, we created three distinct categories of feedback instead of observing feedback-performance discrepancy as a continuous variable: participants were randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions: positive (i.e., performance score minus 2 or a minimum of 0), negative (i.e., performance score plus 2 or a maximum of 5) and correct (i.e., performance score)." The corrected sentence appears below: "To be able to examine pronounced effects between the feedback valences, we created three distinct categories of feedback instead of observing feedback-performance discrepancy as a continuous variable: participants were randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions: negative (i.e., performance score minus 2 or a minimum of 0), positive (i.e., performance score plus 2 or a maximum of 5) and correct (i.e., performance score)." The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.