Generating drawings is effective for university students but largely ineffective for elementary-school children unless instructional support is extremely high¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2–q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 A meta-analysis found drawing more effective than reading for text comprehension (0.46 SDs) and transfer (0.75 SDs), but advantageous over provided illustrations only when instructional support was very high. → Garvin Brod 2021 q2 i? Direct age comparisons show only sixth-graders benefited from drawing while fourth-graders did not even with high support, and first- and second-graders' problem solving did not profit at all whereas fifth-graders' did. → Garvin Brod 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Garvin Brod 2021¶

Garvin Brod. (2021). Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9

q3 · i2 · review · r2

The review reports Fiorella and Zhang's (2018) meta-analysis of published studies, with effect sizes of 0.46 SDs for text comprehension and 0.75 SDs for transfer against reading-only conditions; drawing beat provided illustrations only under very high instructional support.

"drawing was clearly more effective than just reading a text for both text comprehension (0.46 SDs) and transfer performance (0.75 SDs)."

Garvin Brod 2021 (2)¶

Garvin Brod. (2021). Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9

q2 · i? · review · r2

Van Meter et al. (2006) compared fourth- and sixth-graders: only sixth-graders benefited, enhanced under high support, while fourth-graders did not benefit even with high support despite comparable prior knowledge. Van Essen and Hamaker (1990) found first- and second-graders' problem solving did not profit from drawing at all whereas fifth-graders' did.

"Only the sixth-graders benefited from drawing, and this benefit was enhanced in the high-support condition, in which students were prompted to compare their drawing with a provided illustration."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Drawing improves STEM learning by a small-to-moderate amount over not drawing and over other active study strategies, in one meta-analysis — related
• Learning by drawing outperforms text-based strategies but is often less effective than studying pre-made drawings, with guidance and drawing training as key determinants — related
• Instructional drawing support does not significantly improve students' comprehension or transfer compared with unsupported drawing overall — reports the opposite
• Generating questions is effective for university students but likely ineffective for younger elementary students, working at intermediate ages only with instructional scaffolding — related
• Drawing to learn shows positive effects on learning performance compared with non-generative and text-focused learning strategies — related