Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 1115–1137 | Cite as

Drawing Boundary Conditions for Learning by Drawing

  • Logan FiorellaEmail author
  • Qian Zhang
Review Article

Abstract

Learning by drawing can be an effective strategy for supporting science text comprehension. However, drawing can also be cognitively demanding and time consuming, and students may not create quality drawings without sufficient guidance. Furthermore, evidence for drawing is often based on comparisons to weak control conditions, such as students who only read the text without provided illustrations. In this review, we synthesize past research to help draw boundary conditions for learning by drawing, focusing on the role of comparison conditions and drawing guidance. First, we analyze how drawing compares to each of four control conditions: reading only, text-focused strategies (e.g., summarizing), other model-focused strategies (e.g., imagining), or viewing instructor-provided illustrations. Next, we distinguish among four levels of drawing guidance: minimal guidance, drawing training, partially provided illustrations, and comparison to instructor-provided illustrations. Our findings indicate that when compared to only reading the text or using text-focused strategies, creating drawings is consistently more effective at fostering comprehension and transfer, regardless of the level of drawing guidance provided. However, when compared to other model-focused strategies or to viewing instructor-provided illustrations, effects of creating drawings are mixed and may depend on the level of drawing guidance provided, among other factors. We discuss the theoretical and practical considerations of our findings and suggest several directions for broadening research on drawing.

Keywords

Learning strategies Generative learning Learning by drawing Science 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Deborah Barany for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Funding Information

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (1561728) awarded to Logan Fiorella.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications., 1, 27.Google Scholar
  6. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feurlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325–341.Google Scholar
  7. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68–82.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016a). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016b). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fonseca, B. A., & Chi, M. T. H. (2011). Instruction based on self-explanation. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction. New York, NY: Rougledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., & Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low-and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In Hr. Barr, M. L., Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 641-668). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 9(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: a cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lachner, A., Ly, K-T., & Nuckles, M. (2017). Providing written or oral explanations? Differential effects of the modality of explaining on students’ conceptual learning and transfer. Journal of Experimental Education. Google Scholar
  27. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49.Google Scholar
  29. Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2 nd ed.) (pp. 433–448). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lesgold, A. M., Levin, J. R., Shimron, J., & Guttman, J. (1975). Pictures and young children’s learning from oral prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(5), 636–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2017). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in comprehending a science text. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pretraining: evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(3), 147–154.Google Scholar
  37. McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McNamara, D. (Ed.). (2012). Reading comprehension strategies: theories, interventions, and technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: a theoretical framework and some new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125–173). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pilegard, C., & Fiorella, L. (2016). Helping students help themselves: generative learning strategies improve middle-school students’ self-regulation in a cognitive tutor. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ploetzner, R., & Fillisch, B. (2017). Not the silver bullet: learner-generated drawings make it difficult to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 47, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 717–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roediger III, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255.Google Scholar
  45. Scheiter, K., Schleinschok, K., & Ainsworth, S. (2017). Why sketching may aid learning from science texts: contrasting sketching with written explanations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(4), 866–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text? Learning and Instruction. Google Scholar
  47. Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed. (pp. 72-103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2018). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction. Google Scholar
  52. Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement? Educational Psychology Review, 27, 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Essen, G., & Hamaker, C. (1990). Using student-generated drawings to solve arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. M. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247–280). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  58. Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304).Google Scholar
  60. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu, S. P. W., & Rau, M. A. (2017). Effectiveness and efficiency of adding drawing prompts to an interactive educational technology when learning with visual representations. Learning and Instruction. Google Scholar
  62. Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: comparing generation and selection. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2174–2197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations