Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 285–325 | Cite as

The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis

  • Peggy Van MeterEmail author
  • Joanna Garner


This article explores learner-generated drawing, a strategy in which learners construct representative illustrations in support of learning goals. Both applied and empirical literature is reviewed with the purpose of stimulating research on this strategy. Clear from this review is the gap that exists between prescriptive readings on learner-generated drawing and research-based understandings.To make sense of inconsistent empirical evidence, the research review is organized around a series of hypotheses grounded in current understandings of cognitive and strategic processing.A theoretical framework for understanding the drawing strategy is proposed by extending R. E. Mayer's (1993) theoretical processes of selection, organization, and integration.The framework is intended to guide and organize future research efforts and, to that end, earlier proposed hypotheses are incorporated into the explanatory constructs of this theoretical perspective. The article concludes with a discussion of how strategy instruction might play a role in the effectiveness of the drawing strategy.

Key Words

drawing learning strategy comprehension strategy cognitive processes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial—verbal and analytic—holistic learning strategies in science learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 73: 358–368.Google Scholar
  2. Alesandrini, K. L. (1984). Pictures and adult learning. Instr. Sci. (13): 63–77.Google Scholar
  3. Alesandrini, K. L., and Rigney, J. W. (1981). Pictorial presentation and review strategies in science learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 18: 465–474.Google Scholar
  4. Biller, J. (1994). A Creative Concept in Teaching Math to Art Students: Make-a-Problem. In Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Liberal Arts and Education of Artists, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Boshuizen, H. P. A., and Tabachneck-Schiff, H. J. M. (1998). Problem solving with multiple representations by multiple and single agents: An analysis of the issues involved. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Britton, L. A., and Wandersee, J. H. (1997). Cutting up text to make moveable, magnetic diagrams: A way of teaching and assessing biological processes. Am. Biol. Teach. 59: 288–291.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, S., Gross, J., and Hayne, H. (1995). The effect of drawing on memory performance in young children. Dev. Psychol. (31): 597–608.Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell, H., and Moore, B. H. (1991). The art of writing: Drawing as preparation for narrative writing in the primary grades. Stud. Art Educ. 32: 207–219.Google Scholar
  9. Carney, R. N., and Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14: 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, J. M., and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. (3): 149–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Constantino, T. M. (1986). Drawing: Homework for remedial readers. Classroom Read. Teach. 737–739.Google Scholar
  12. de Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., and Janssens, D. (1998). The predominance of the linear model in secondary school students' solutions of word problems involving length and area of similar plane figures. Educ. Stud. Math. (35): 65–83.Google Scholar
  13. de Jong, T., Aisnworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. de Jong, T., and Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. J. Educ. Psychol. (78): 279–288.Google Scholar
  15. Dempsey, B. C., and Betz, B. J. (2001). Biological drawing: A scientific tool for learning. Am. Biol. Teach. 63: 271–279.Google Scholar
  16. Dietz, S. (1976). Monsters!? Teacher 93: 64.Google Scholar
  17. Duffy, D. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In Block, C. C., and Pressley, M. (eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst, K. (1997a). Connecting art, writing, learning, and life. Teach. preK –8 28: 46.Google Scholar
  19. Ernst, K. (1997b). What a picture can be. Teach. preK –8 28: 26.Google Scholar
  20. Ernst, K. (1997c). When teachers share, too. Teach. preK –8 28: 62.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, L. J. (1976). Language arts: Pictures tell the tale. Teacher 93: 64–73.Google Scholar
  22. Freeport School District (1976). Sandburg Environmental Education Handbook, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED206418, Freeport, IL.Google Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., and Goodman, S. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. In Britton, B. K., and Black, J. B. (eds.), Understanding Expository Text: A Theoretical and Practical Handbook for Analyzing Explanatory Text, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. Greene, T. R. (1989). Children's understanding of class inclusion hierarchies: The relationship between external representation and task performance. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 48: 62–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., and Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? J. Educ. Psychol. (89): 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjuct questions on prose learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 56: 212–242.Google Scholar
  27. Haverty, L. A., Koedinger, K. R., Klahr, D., and Alibali, M. W. (2000). Solving inductive reasoning problems in mathematics: not-so-trivial pursuit. Cogn. Sci. 24: 249–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., and Pearson, D. P. (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II, Longman Publishing, White Plains, NY.Google Scholar
  29. Holliday, W. G., and McGuire, B. (1992). How can comprehension adjunct questions focus students' attention and enhance concept learning of a computer-animated science lesson? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29: 3–15.Google Scholar
  30. Hubbard, R. (1987). Transferring images: Not just glued on the page. Young Child. 42: 60–67.Google Scholar
  31. Iding, M. K. (1997). Can questions facilitate learning from illustrated texts? Read. Psychol. Int. Q. 18: 1–29.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, D. (1988). Show me what you mean: Student posters teach lengthy material. Exerc. Exch. 34: 44–46.Google Scholar
  33. Karnowski, L. (1986). How young writers communicate. Educ. Leadership 44: 58–60.Google Scholar
  34. Katayama, A. D., and Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students partially involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. J. Exp. Educ. 68: 119–133.Google Scholar
  35. Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., and Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20: 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christensen, M., Kim, S., and Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instr. Sci. 18: 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., and Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 240–245.Google Scholar
  38. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. Am. Psychol. 49: 294–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Rev. Educ. Res. (61): 179–211.Google Scholar
  40. Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., and Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. J. Educ. Psychol. 68: 522–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lansing, K. M. (1981). The effect of drawing on the development of mental representations. Stud. Art Educ. 22: 15–23.Google Scholar
  42. Lansing, K. M. (1984). The effect of drawing on the development of mental representations: A continuing study. Stud. Art Educ. 25: 167–175.Google Scholar
  43. Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is sometimes worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. (11): 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lesgold, A. M., DeGood, H., and Levin, J. R. (1977). Pictures and young children's prose learning: A supplementary report. J. Read. Behav. 9: 353–360.Google Scholar
  45. Lesgold, A. M., Levin, J. R., Shimron, J., and Guttman, J. (1975). Pictures and young children's learning from oral prose. J. Educ. Psychol. 67: 636–642.Google Scholar
  46. Levin, J. R., and Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B. K., Woodward, A., et al. (eds.), Learning from Textbooks: Theory and Practice, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 95–113.Google Scholar
  47. Linden, M., and Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Read. Res. Q. 17: 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: 240–246.Google Scholar
  49. Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. 4, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 253–284.Google Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. E., and Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 484–490.Google Scholar
  51. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., and Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. J. Educ. Psychol. 88: 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mayer, R. E., and Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth a thousand words? J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 715–726.Google Scholar
  53. Mayer, R. E., and Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. J. Educ. Psychol. 90: 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mayer, R. E., and Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: 389–401.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., and Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using learning of science text. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 43: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McConnell, S. (1993). Talking drawings: A strategy for assisting learners. J. Read. 36: 260–269.Google Scholar
  57. McNamara, T. P, Miller, D. L., and Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models and reading comprehension. In Brown, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., and Pearson, D. P. (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II, Longman, White Plains, NY, pp. 490–511.Google Scholar
  58. Moore, B. H., and Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for narrative writing in primary grades. J. Educ. Res. 87: 100–110.Google Scholar
  59. Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., and Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take on an old issue. Learn. Instr. (13): 511–532.Google Scholar
  60. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representation: A Dual-Coding Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  61. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual-coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Can. J. Psychol. (45): 255–287.Google Scholar
  62. Palinscar, A. S., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cogn. Instr. (1): 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., and Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 8: 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Paris, S. G., and Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. J. Read. Behav. (13): 5–22.Google Scholar
  65. Pressley, M. P., and Van Meter, P. (1993). Memory strategies: Natural development and use following instruction. In Pasnak, R., and Howe, M. L. (eds.), Emerging Themes in Cognitive Development: Vol. 2. Competencies, Springer-Verlag, NY.Google Scholar
  66. Rasco, R. W., Tennyson, R. D., and Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Imagery instructions and drawings in learning prose. J. Educ. Psychol. 67: 188–192.Google Scholar
  67. Rich, R. Z., and Blake, S. (1994). Using pictures to assist in comprehension and recall. Intervent. Sch. Clin. 29: 271–275.Google Scholar
  68. Rosenshine, B., and Meister, C. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In Stahl, S. A., and Hayes, D. A. (eds.), Instructional Models in Reading, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  69. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1982). Adjunct aids and the control of mathemagenic activities during purposeful reading. In Otto, W., and White, S. (eds.), Reading Expository Material, Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.Google Scholar
  71. Scevak, J. J., and Moore, P. J. (1998). Levels of processing effects on learning from text with maps. Educ. Psychol. 18: 133–155.Google Scholar
  72. Scevak, J. J., Moore, P. J., and Kirby, J. R. (1993). Training students to use maps to increase text recall. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18: 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schmalhofer, F. (1998). Constructive Knowledge Acquisition, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  74. Silver, E. A. (1979). Student perceptions of relatedness among mathematical verbal problems. J. Res. Math. Educ. (10): 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Snowman, J., and Cunningham, D. J. (1975). A comparison of pictorial and written adjunct aids in learning from text. J. Educ. Psychol. 67: 307–311.Google Scholar
  76. Steele, B. (1991). Integrating art. BCATA J. Art Teach. 31: 41–44.Google Scholar
  77. Stein, M., and Power, B. (1996). Putting art on the scientist's palette. In Hubbard, R. S., and Ernst, K. (eds.), New Entries: Learning by Writing and Drawing, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.Google Scholar
  78. Tabachneck-Schiif, H. J. M., and Simon, H. A. (1998). One person, multiple representations: An analysis of a simple, realistic multiple representation learning task. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.Google Scholar
  79. Tirre, W. C., Manelis, L., and Leicht, K. (1979). The effects of imaginal and verbal strategies on prose comprehension by adults. J. Read. Behav. 11: 99–106.Google Scholar
  80. van Essen, G., and Hamaker, C. (1990). Using student-generated drawings to solve arithematic word problems. J. Educ. Res. 83: 301–312.Google Scholar
  81. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. J. Educ. Psychol. 69: 129–140.Google Scholar
  82. Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., and Garner, J., (in press) Learner-Generated Drawing as a Strategy for Learning from Content Are Text. Contemporary Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
  83. van Someren, M. W., Boshuizen, H. P. A., de Jong, T., and Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.Google Scholar
  84. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative activity. Educ. Psychol. 11: 87–95.Google Scholar
  85. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educ. Psychol. 24: 345–376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational and School Psychology and Special EducationThe Pennsylvania State University
  2. 2.Cognitive Learning CentersElizabethtown
  3. 3.203 CEDAR Building

Personalised recommendations