Self-generated Drawing: A Help or Hindrance to Learning from Animation?

  • Richard Lowe
  • Lucia Mason


The considerable potential of animations to aid learning about dynamic systems too often remains unfulfilled when the targeted subject matter is complex and unfamiliar. Various approaches designed to support learning from animation in such cases have met with limited success. Recent studies on learning from demanding texts indicate that educational outcomes can be improved if learners are required to self-generate drawings during their study of a text. This improvement has been attributed to the role of drawing in fostering deeper learner processing of the presented information and superior self-regulation as learning proceeds. It is possible that learner self-generation of drawings during the study of demanding animations could provide similar benefits. However, the fundamental differences in how animation and text represent information suggest that using drawing-based interventions aimed at improving learning from animations should be approached with caution. This chapter adopts a process-oriented perspective to examine the prospects for using self-generated drawing to support learning from instructional animations. It concludes that while this approach may have potential benefits when the subject matter is simple and familiar, it is less likely to be beneficial for more complex, unfamiliar types of content.


Subject Matter Static Graphic Dynamic Visualization Spatiotemporal Information Drawing Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bangert-Downs, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boucheix, J.-M. (2008). Young learners’ control of technical animations. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 208–234). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boucheix, J.-M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boucheix, J.-M., Lowe, R. K., Breyer, B., & Ploetzner, R. (2015, August). How self-generated drawing may impact learning from animation. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial EARLI Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  6. Boucheix, J.-M., Lowe, R. K., & Thibaut, J.-P. (2015, August). Graphicacy in children: An experimental study of the comprehension of paired graphics conventions. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial EARLI Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  7. Brodatz, P., & Watson, D. (1968). The human form in action and repose: A photographic handbook for artists. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
  8. Calderon, W. F. (2011). Animal painting and anatomy. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  9. Chamberlain, R., McManus, I. C., Riley, H., Rankin, Q., & Brunswick, N. (2013). Local processing enhancements associated with superior observational drawing are due to enhanced perceptual functioning, not weak central coherence. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1448–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. J. (2005). Look little, look often: The influence of gaze frequency on drawing accuracy. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 997–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutting, J. E. (2002). Representing motion in a static image: Constraints and parallels in art, science, and popular culture. Perception, 31, 1165–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fillisch, B., & Ploetzner, R. (2015, August). The role of support in drawing for learning from complex animation. Paper presented at the 16th Biennial European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, Limassol, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1126–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkinson, J. (2017). The role of craft-based knowledge in the design of dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  15. Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning from animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extrating information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe, R. K. (2008). Learning from animation: Where to look, when to look. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 49–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lowe, R. K. (2014). Dynamic visualizations: A two-edged sword? In W. Huang (Ed.), Handbook of human centric visualization (pp. 581–604). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2008). Learning from animated diagrams: How are mental models built? In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Diagrammatic representations and inference – Proceedings of the fifth international conference, diagrams 2008 (pp. 266–281). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21, 650–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2017). A composition approach to design of educational animations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lowe, R., Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2011). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Meyer, K., Rasch, T., & Schnotz, W. (2010). Effects of animation’s speed of presentation on perceptual processing and learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muybridge, E. (1899). Animals in motion. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Perdreau, F., & Cavanagh, P. (2013). The artist's advantage: Better integration of object information across eye movements. Perception, 4, 380–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perdreau, F., & Cavanagh, P. (2014). Drawing skill is related to the efficiency of encoding object structure. i-perception, 5, 101–119. Google Scholar
  34. Ploetzner, R., & Breyer, B. (2017). Strategies for learning from animation with and without narration. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  35. Ploetzner, R., Lowe, R., & Schlag, S. (2013). A systematic characterization of cognitive techniques for learning from textual and pictorial representations. Journal of Education and Learning, 2, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ploetzner, R., Lowe, R., Schlag, S., & Hauß, C. (2012). Lernen mit statischen und dynamischen Bildern – Welche kognitiven Techniken kennen Lehramtsstudierende? [Learning from static and dynamic pictures – Which cognitive techniques are known by pre-service teachers?] In I. Oomen-Welke & M. Staiger (Hrsg.), Bilder in Medien, Kunst, Literatur, Sprache, Didaktik [Pictures in media, art, literature, language, pedagogy] (S. 249–259). Freiburg, Germany: Fillibach Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Ploetzner, R., & Schlag, S. (2013). Strategic learning from expository animations: Short- and mid-term effects. Computers & Education, 69, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing to learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–16.Google Scholar
  39. 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, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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, 872–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knot. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior., 27, 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stieff, M. (2017). Drawing for promoting learning and engagement with dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  45. Stubbs, G. (1766). The anatomy of the horse. London: J. Purser.Google Scholar
  46. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tchalenko, J. (2009). Segmentation and accuracy in copying and drawing: Experts and beginners. Vision Research, 49, 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tchalenko, J., Nam, S.-H., Moshe, L., & Miall, R. C. (2014). The gazeshift strategy in drawing. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. M. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction: Learning through the construction of drawings. In G. Schraw, M. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247–280). Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Sommers, P. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.University of BurgundyDijonFrance
  3. 3.University of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations