Skip to main content

Drawing-to-Learn: Does Meta-Analysis Show Differences Between Technology-Based Drawing and Paper-and-Pencil Drawing?

Abstract

Drawing-to-learn is a specific learning/reading strategy studied across many domains. In response to gaps in our knowledge about drawing-to-learn, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis of the literature published since the influential 2005 Van Meter and Garner literature review. We analyzed the benefits of directed learner-generated visual representations such as sketching, drawing, or computer-assisted creation of a full or partial static image. Forty-one peer-reviewed articles were screened in, together with 9 dissertations and 2 other documents; published from 2005 to 2018, these included 53 studies and 166 effects based on 8111 participants. The overall effect of drawing-to-learn across all dependent variable types (factual, inferential, and transfer) and both types of effects—comparing different types of drawing and comparing drawing to non-drawing conditions—was a significant g = 0.69. The overall effect was significant but differed across outcomes (g = 0.85 for factual, g = 0.44 for inferential, and g = 0.22 for transfer). Analyses across 6 moderators are presented. Not only does the literature continue to show that drawing-to-learn is better than the status quo, but directed drawing improves factual as well as inferential and transfer learning. Finally, researchers have found ways to improve drawing-to-learn instruction so that it can be even more effective than the simple directive to make a drawing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Omitted domains (e.g., humanities and mathematics) were not represented among these effects for these dependent variables and research designs.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 101, 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.005.

  3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

  5. de Koning, B. B., & van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming part of the story! Refueling the interest in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 261–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9222-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Flippo, R. F. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research. Routledge.

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haenggi, D., Kintsch, W., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1995). Spatial situation models and text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 173–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 121–145). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J. M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.002

  13. Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2006). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.

  15. Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9435-9.

  16. Uesaka, Y., Manalo, E., & Ichikawa, S. I. (2007). What kinds of perceptions and daily learning behaviors promote students’ use of diagrams in mathematics problem solving? Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 322–335.

  17. 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.

  18. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48. URL: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/

Meta-analyzed studies

  1. *Adadan, E. (2013). Using multiple representations to promote grade 11 students’ scientific understanding of the particle theory of matter. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1079–1105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9299-9.

  2. *Anderson, S. M. (2010). Determining whether including student-generated drawing before narrative writing increases the clarity and description used by third-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.

  3. *Armstrong, D. C., & Hipp, S. (2006). Classroom reflections: Using drawn images of critical incidents for social construction of reflective practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  4. *Bollen, L., Gijlers, H., & van Joolingen, W. (2015). Drawings in computer-supported collaborative learning - Empirical and technical results. Computing and Informatics, 34(3), 559–587.

  5. *Chang, C.-J., Liu, C.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). Supporting scientific explanations with drawings and narratives on tablet computers: An analysis of explanation patterns. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 173–184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0247-0.

  6. *Chang, H.-Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20352.

  7. *Christensen, L. B. (2016). Artistic drawing as a mnemonic device. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Antioch University Seattle.

  8. *Cooper, M. M., Underwood, S. M., Hilley, C. Z., & Klymkowsky, M. W. *(2012). Development and assessment of a molecular structure and properties learning progression. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(11), 1351–1357. doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300083a

  9. *Cromley, J. G., Bergey, B. W., Fitzhugh, S., Newcombe, N., Wills, T. W., Shipley, T. F., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013). Effects of three diagram instruction methods on transfer of diagram comprehension skills: The critical role of inference while learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 45–58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.01.003.

  10. *Csíkos, C., Szitányi, J., & Kelemen, R. (2012). The effects of using drawings in developing young children’s mathematical word problem solving: A design experiment with third-grade Hungarian students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81(1), 47–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9360-z.

  11. *Gagnier, K. M., Atit, K., Ormand, C. J., & Shipley, T. F. (2017). Comprehending 3D diagrams: Sketching to support spatial reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(4), 883–901. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12233.

  12. *Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 427–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9180-5.

  13. *Heckler, A. F. (2010). Some consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 32(14), 1829–1851. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903199556.

  14. *Jansen, K. (2015). The impact of student generated sketches on vocabulary knowledge of fifth graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University.

  15. *Jarvinen, M. K., Jarvinen, L. Z., & Sheehan, D. N. (2012). Application of core science concepts using digital video: A “hands-on” laptop approach. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(6), 16–24. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/43748574.

  16. *Keesy, M. A. (2011). Word problems: The effects of learner generated drawings on problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.

  17. *Kim, H. J., Park, J. H., Yoo, S., & Kim, H. (2016). Fostering creativity in tablet-based interactive classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 207–220. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.19.3.207.

  18. *Kostons, D., & de Koning, B. B. (2017). Does visualization affect monitoring accuracy, restudy choice, and comprehension scores of students in primary education? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEDPSYCH.2017.05.001.

  19. *Kuo, E., Hallinen, N. R., & Conlin, L. D. (2017). When procedures discourage insight: Epistemological consequences of prompting novice physics students to construct force diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 814–839. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1308037.

  20. *Lam, D. P. N. (2015). Independent study strategies for learning about the cardiovascular system from text: A comparison of self-explanation and drawing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  21. *Landin, J. (2011). Perceptual drawing as a learning tool in a college biology laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University.

  22. *Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.

  23. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003.

  24. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010.

  25. *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. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 142–154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143796.

  26. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.04.001.

  27. *Padalkar, S., & Hegarty, M. (2015). Models as feedback: Developing representational competence in chemistry. Journal of Education & Psychology, 107(2), 451–467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037516.

  28. *Phonguttha, R., Tayraukham, S., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2009). Comparisons of mathematics achievement, attitude towards mathematics and analytical thinking between using the geometer's sketchpad program as media and conventional learning activities. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 3036–3039.

  29. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.002.

  30. *Ploetzner, R., Fillisch, B., Gewald, P.-A., & Ruf, T. (2016). The role of student-generated externalizations in strategic multimedia learning and how current (web-)technology fails to support learner engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1610–1628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1041401.

  31. *Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2017). Make a drawing. Effects of strategic knowledge, drawing accuracy, and type of drawing on students’ mathematical modelling performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95(1), 53–78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9736-1.

  32. *Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2005). Understanding molecular genetics through a drawing-based activity. Journal of Biological Education, 39(4), 174–178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655992.

  33. *Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 500–529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20144.

  34. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12261.

  35. *Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text? Learning and Instruction, 51, 10–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.002.

  36. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003.

  37. *Schmidt, T. A. (2015). A study of the impact of a drawing intervention on the spatial visualization skills of sixth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University.

  38. *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 & Psychology, 102(4), 872–879. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019640.

  39. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028.

  40. *Thomas, D. B. (2017). Using the multimedia strategies of learner-generated drawing and peer discussion to retain terminology in secondary education science classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

  41. *Thomas, S. (2013). Improving vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension through cartoon drawing instruction method. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University.

  42. *Toh, P. L. L., & Kapur, M. (2017). Is having more prerequisite knowledge better for learning from productive failure? Instructional Science, 45(3), 377–394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9402-0.

  43. *van Dijk, A. M., Gijlers, H., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Scripted collaborative drawing in elementary science education. Instructional Science, 42(3), 353–372. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9286-1.

  44. *van Joolingen, W. R., Aukes, A. V. A., Gijlers, H., & Bollen, L. (2015). Understanding elementary astronomy by making drawing-based models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 256–264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9540-6.

  45. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.

  46. *Wammes, J. D., Meade, M. E., & Fernandes, M. A. (2016). The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1752–1776. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1094494.

  47. *Wammes, J. D., Meade, M. E., & Fernandes, M. A. (2017). Learning terms and definitions: Drawing and the role of elaborative encoding. Acta Psychologica, 179, 104–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.07.008.

  48. *Wang, L.-C., Yang, H.-M., Tasi, H.-J., & Chan, S.-Y. (2013). Learner-generated drawing for phonological and orthographic dyslexic readers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 228–233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.08.006.

  49. *Willmott, C. J. R. (2015). Teaching bioethics via the production of student-generated videos. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 127–138. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.897640.

  50. *Wu, S. P. W., & Rau, M. A. (2018). Effectiveness and efficiency of adding drawing prompts to an interactive educational technology when learning with visual representations. Learning and Instruction, 55, 93–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.010.

  51. *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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20443.

  52. *Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: Comparing generation and selection. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2174–2197. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.792971.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Yanhong “Olivia” Zhong and Dawn M. Brown for assistance with tallying results and creating tables.

Funding

The research reported herein was supported by award #DRL-1560724 from the US National Science Foundation to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The opinions are solely the authors’ own and do not represent the policies of NSF or the US Government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer G. Cromley.

Ethics declarations

The authors have no conflicts of interest. The research did not involve human participants, so there was no consent procedure.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Submitted for consideration in Journal of Science Education and Technology on May 15, 2019.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 100 kb)

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 4 Correlations (Cramer’s V) among categorical moderators

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cromley, J.G., Du, Y. & Dane, A.P. Drawing-to-Learn: Does Meta-Analysis Show Differences Between Technology-Based Drawing and Paper-and-Pencil Drawing?. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 216–229 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Visual representations
  • Strategies
  • Mental models
  • STEM