When mistakes instruct: Explaining errors in diagrams supports comprehension for low spatial individuals

Abstract

Learning from expository science text is challenging and often relies on spatial thinking skills to build an accurate mental model of the phenomena being described. Generative learning strategies have been shown to support improved text comprehension and may be especially beneficial for students with low spatial skills who struggle to generate spatial mental models. The present set of studies examined the effect of sketching versus explaining errors in diagrams on science text comprehension. Further, this work examined if the impacts of these generative learning activities interacted with spatial thinking skills. In Study 1, generating sketches or explaining erroneous diagrams resulted in lower comprehension compared to an active control condition. In Study 2, the generative learning activities were adapted to reduce extraneous cognitive processing and an additional erroneous examples condition with highlighted errors was included. Results demonstrated that explaining highlighted errors supported comprehension compared to generating sketches or copying correct diagrams. There was an interaction with spatial skills such that high spatial students demonstrated improved comprehension in the sketch and copy conditions, whereas students with high and low spatial students performed equally in the highlighted erroneous examples condition. These findings demonstrate that explaining errors in diagrams can support science text comprehension, and that this type of learning activity may rely less on spatial thinking skills.

Educational relevance and implications statement

Learning from expository science text is challenging and often relies on spatial thinking skills to build an accurate mental model of the phenomena being described. The goal of the present study was to examine the impact of different generative learning strategies on science text comprehension and how the impact of those strategies interacts with individual differences in spatial thinking skills. The results indicated that having students explain errors in example diagrams supported comprehension and was a more effective learning strategy for individuals with low spatial thinking skills than generating sketches. These results suggest that science instruction can be adapted to provide more support for students with lower spatial skills, which could ultimately have implications for increasing diversity and representation in the STEM pipeline.