Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Generative learning involves actively making sense of to-be-learned information by mentally reorganizing and integrating it with one’s prior knowledge, thereby enabling learners to apply what they have learned to new situations. In this article, we present eight learning strategies intended to promote generative learning: summarizing, mapping, drawing, imagining, self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and enacting. First, we provide an overview of generative learning theory, grounded in Wittrock’s (1974) generative model of comprehension and reflected in more recent frameworks of active learning, such as Mayer’s (2014) select-organize-integrate (SOI) framework. Next, for each of the eight generative learning strategies, we provide a description, review exemplary research studies, discuss potential boundary conditions, and provide practical recommendations for implementation. Finally, we discuss the implications of generative learning for the science of learning, and we suggest directions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., Ginns, P., Howard, S. J., Leahy, W., & Paas, F. (2015). Giving learning a helping hand: finger tracing of temperature graphs on an iPad. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 427–443. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9315-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in science learning. Journal of Education and Psychology, 73, 358–368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.3.358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G. A., Mahler, W. A., & Estes, W. K. (1969). Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired-associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 8(4), 463–470. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80090-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension? Acta Psychologica, 128, 110–118. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annis, L. F. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annis, L. F. (1985). Student-generated paragraph summaries and the information-processing theory of prose learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 54(1), 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Education and Psychology, 51, 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Education and Psychology, 72(5), 593–604. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching: a new paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3–4), 363–392. doi:10.1080/08839510590910200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biazak, J. E., Marley, S. C., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Does an activity-based learning strategy improve preschool children’s memory for narrative passages? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 515–526. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331–350. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(71)90019-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 145–153. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(79)90069-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(5), 1118–1133. doi:10.1037/a0019902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., & Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Education and Psychology, 105(2), 380–400. doi:10.1037/a0031084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283. doi:10.1177/0963721412452728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., & Rivkin, I. D. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 347–365. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0604_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching students about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Education and Psychology, 80(4), 448–456. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106, 1047–1058. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Swller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 7, 68–82. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.7.1.68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darabi, A. A., Nelson, D. W., & Palanki, S. (2007). Acquisition of troubleshooting skills in a computer simulation: worked example vs. conventional problem solving instructional strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1809–1819. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 183–194. doi:10.1002/acp.1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembo, M. H., & Junge, L. G. (2005). Learning strategies. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), What works in distance learning: guidelines (pp. 25–40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., & Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Education and Psychology, 70(2), 109–118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.70.2.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. R. (2007). Metacomprehension: a brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 228–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00509.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising direction from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science and the Public Interest, 14, 4–58. doi:10.1177/1529100612453266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75–85. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107707085.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, B. A., & Chi, M. T. H. (2011). Instruction based on self-explanation. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Learning and Instruction (pp. 296–319). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3–24. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujimura, N. (2001). Facilitating children’s proportional reasoning: a model of reasoning processes and effects of intervention on strategy change. Journal of Education and Psychology, 93(3), 589–603. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., & Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: a systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9249-3

  • Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 355–372). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39, 27–39. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Education and Psychology, 96(3), 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When imagining information is effective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 229–251. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00016-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 39–53. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257–283. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267–272. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02297.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 267–274. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (Eds.). (1984). Spatial learning strategies. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holley, C. D., Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Garland, J. C., & Collins, K. W. (1979). Evaluation of a hierarchical mapping technique as an aid to prose processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 227–237. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(79)90043-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S. M. M., & van Gog, T. (2014). Effects of creating video-based modeling examples on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 33, 108–119. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutto, D. D., Kirchhoff, M. D., & Abrahamson, D. (2015). The enactive roots of STEM: rethinking educational design in mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 371–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jairam, D., Kiewra, K. A., Rogers-Kasson, S., Patterson-Hazley, M., & Marxhausen, K. (2014). SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems. Instructional Science, 42, 409–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Education and Psychology, 101(3), 621–629. doi:10.1037/a0015183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1246–1252. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juarez Collazo, N. A., Elen, J., & Clarebout, C. (2015). The multiple effects of combined tools in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 51A, 82–95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 528–558. doi:10.1080/09541440601056620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. doi:10.1177/0963721412443552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 317–326. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: a perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401–418. doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, S. S. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: the need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 198–206. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. I. I. I. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479. doi:10.1080/09658210802647009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and memorizing. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A. (2005). Learn how to study and SOAR to success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. R., Biggs, S., & Lipsky, S. (1984). Students’ self-questioning and summarizing as reading study strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(3), 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368. doi:10.3102/00028312031002338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749. doi:10.1177/0956797615569355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurby, C. A., Magliano, J. P., Dandotkar, S., Woehrle, J., Gilliam, S., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Changing how students process and comprehend texts with computer-based self-explanation training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 429–459. doi:10.2190/EC.47.4.e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 266––276. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2008). The imagination effect increases with an increased intrinsic cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 273–283. doi:10.1002/acp.1373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., Hanham, J., & Sweller, J. (2015). High element interactivity information during problem solving may lead to failure to obtain the testing effect. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9296-4.

  • Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Education and Psychology, 107, 47–63. doi:10.1037/a0037142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mental imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284–289. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second Editionth ed., pp. 433–448). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., & Zabrucky, K. M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(4), 345–391. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Metamemory monitoring and control following retrieval practice for text. Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 85–98. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0453-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, S. C., & Carbonneau, K. J. (2014). Future directions for theory and research with instructional manipulatives: commentary on the special issue papers. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 91–100. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9259-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., & Glenberg, A. M. (2010). What cognitive benefits does an activity-based reading strategy afford young Native American readers? Journal of Experimental Education, 78(3), 395–417. doi:10.1080/00220970903548061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, S. C., & Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving children’s listening comprehension with a manipulation strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 227–238. doi:10.1080/00220670903383036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second Editionth ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265. doi:10.2190/EC.42.3.a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem solving and transfer. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 45–61). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. Alexander, P. Winne, & G. Phye (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 494–513. doi:10.1080/09541440701326154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: an experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 18–26. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2011.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, N. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22, 440–448. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2012). First principles of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Leo, I. D., & Lajoie, S. P. (2015a). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/edu0000071.

  • Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S. P., Leo, I. D., & Chevrier, M. (2015b). The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adelsope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448. doi:10.3102/00346543076003413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 75–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novack, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). Learning from gesture: how our hands change our minds. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 405–412. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9325-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 27–45. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. doi:10.1177/0956797615571017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponce, H. R., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 121–130. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipuluatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51–72. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9255-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Education and Psychology, 78(1), 34–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Snyder, B. L. (1995). Reading comprehension strategies. In M. Pressley & V. Woloshyn (Eds.), Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s academic performance (pp. 57–100). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A. (2015). The status of the testing effect for complex materials: still a winner. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 327–331. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9308-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262–270. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2014). The worked examples principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second editionth ed., pp. 391–412). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: the effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327–351. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534–574. doi:10.3102/0034654307309920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Kirby, F. J. (1976). Oral summary as a review strategy for enhancing recall of textual material. Journal of Education and Psychology, 68(6), 686–695. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.6.689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. doi:10.1037/a0037559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Education and Psychology, 102, 872–879. doi:10.1037/a0019640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selcuk, G. S., Sahin, M., & Acikgoz, K. U. (2011). The effects of learning strategy instruction on achievement, attitude, and achievement motivation in a physics course. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 39–62. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9145-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selig, J. P., Preacher, K. J., & Little, T. D. (2012). Modeling time-dependent association in longitudinal data: a lag as moderator approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 697–716. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., Dixon, B. L., Ryu, M., Kumi, B. C., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Strategy training eliminates sex differences in spatial problem solving in a STEM domain. Journal of Education and Psychology, 106(2), 390–402. doi:10.1037/a0034823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 134–146. doi:10.2307/747358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., & Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Education and Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonde (Eds.), Child psychology: a handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 177–192). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Kester, L. (2012). A test of the testing effect: acquiring problem-solving skills from worked examples. Cognitive Science, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12002

  • Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Not new, but nearly forgotten: the testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 247–264. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Dirkx, K., Hoogerheide, V., Boerboom, J., & Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L. (2015). Testing after worked example study does not enhance delayed problem-solving performance compared to restudy. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9297-3.

  • Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Education and Psychology, 69, 129–140. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction: learning through the construction of drawings. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247–280). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 142–166. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Education and Psychology, 74(5), 642–655. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. doi:10.3758/BF03196322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87–95. doi:10.1080/00461520903433554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1991). Educational psychology, literacy, and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 26, 109–116. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2602_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative processes of the brain. Educational Psychologists, 27, 531–541. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2704_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C., & Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 489–502.

  • Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second editionth ed., pp. 413–432). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Logan Fiorella

  2. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Richard E. Mayer

Authors
  1. Logan Fiorella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard E. Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Logan Fiorella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiorella, L., Mayer, R.E. Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 28, 717–741 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation