Learning the control-of-variables strategy through self-generated and vicarious errors: the mediating roles of affect, motivation, cognitive load, and error awareness

Abstract Controlled experiments are essential for causal reasoning, yet students struggle with the control-of-variables strategy (CVS). Self-generated errors, vicarious errors, or a combination could provide learning opportunities; however, error awareness, motivation, affect, and cognitive load may shape whether students benefit from different types of errors. This study examines the effect of self-generated, vicarious, combined, or no errors on CVS learning, and investigates affect, motivation, cognitive load, and error awareness as potential mediators. 255 seventh- and eighth-grade students (40% female) participated. In an experimental intervention study with three experimental groups and one control group, students engaged with experiments before receiving instruction and error-reflection prompts, following a problem-solving prior to instruction approach. We assessed CVS skills, affect, cognitive load, motivation, and error awareness. Analyses included ANCOVA, ANOVA, and path models. The self-generated errors group scored highest on the CVS-posttest, followed by the no-errors, vicarious errors, and combination groups. Group differences in CVS performance were not statistically significant, although all groups improved from pre- to posttest. No mediation effects were found for affect, motivation, or cognitive load. Error awareness positively predicted posttest performance, but negatively mediated the effect of self-generated errors on learning. Different types of errors and error-free examples were all associated with CVS learning gains, even though the different types did not differentially affect CVS learning outcomes when controlling for prior knowledge. Error awareness showed a complex pattern, being positively associated with performance while marginally negatively mediating the effect of self-generated errors. These findings highlight the need for further research to better understand the complex role of errors in science learning.