Spatial thinking and generative activity reduced monitoring error while higher interest increased it¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · checked against its sources 2026-10-16 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? All three predictors (spatial thinking contrast, generative activity contrast, interest ratings) significantly predicted absolute error in monitoring. → Wiley 2019
Evidence¶
Wiley 2019¶
Wiley, J. (2019). Picture this! Effects of photographs, diagrams, animations, and sketching on learning and beliefs about learning from a geoscience text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3495
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Second regression in the same study testing the subsidiary hypotheses: "all three factors were significant predictors of absolute error". Spatial thinking and generative activity each reduced error; higher interest increased error. No standardized coefficients printed.
"these three predictors were entered into a simultaneous regression, R2 = .18, F (3, 116) = 8.29, p < .001. As shown in Table 3, all three factors were significant predictors of absolute error."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Motivation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Interest — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Spatial Ability — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Metacognition — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Interest ratings were the only significant predictor of readers' predictive judgments of understanding — related
- Sketching and viewing animations produced the best understanding of a geoscience text, while the photograph condition produced the worst — related
- Sketching during reading yielded the most accurate comprehension monitoring, with significantly less absolute error than photograph, no-image, and animation conditions — related
- Drawing after learning, both from scratch and with spatial scaffolds, improves absolute monitoring accuracy (calibration) compared with a time-matched mental reactivation control condition — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
spatial-generative-reduce-error-interest-increases |
title |
Spatial thinking and generative activity reduced monitoring error while higher interest increased it |
description |
Spatial thinking and generative activity reduced monitoring error while higher interest increased it |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
source_checked |
2026-10-16 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — wiley-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.