Instructional drawing support does not significantly improve students' comprehension or transfer compared with unsupported drawing overall¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 The overall effect of drawing support on comprehension test scores is statistically non-significant (g = 0.04). → Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele 2025 q3 i0 The overall effect of drawing support on transfer test scores is statistically non-significant (g = −0.10). → Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele 2025¶

Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele. (2025). Without Integration, Everything Is Nothing: A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Instructional Support for Drawing-to-Learn. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10067-7

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of comparisons of supported versus drawing-only conditions, comprehension outcome. The pooled effect was "statistically non-significant" with g = 0.04, SE = 0.11, p = 0.738, aggregated N = 590 supported and N = 623 unsupported.

"The overall effect of drawing support (Hypothesis 1) turned out to be statistically non-significant for both the comprehension test, g = 0.04, SE = 0.11, p = 0.738, with an aggregated sample size of N = 590 for the supported and N = 623 for the unsupported drawing condition"

Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele 2025 (2)¶

Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele. (2025). Without Integration, Everything Is Nothing: A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Instructional Support for Drawing-to-Learn. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10067-7

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r?

Same random-effects meta-analysis, transfer outcome. The pooled effect was g = − 0.10, SE = 0.25, p = 0.696, with aggregated N = 274 supported and N = 255 unsupported; the article concludes there were no overall beneficial effects.

"and the transfer test, g = − 0.10, SE = 0.25, p = 0.696, with an aggregated sample size of N = 274 for the supported and N = 255 for the unsupported drawing condition"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Drawing conditions that were compared to control outperformed the read-only control condition on transfer performance — related
• Neither global nor local drawing support increased drawing quality, and local support significantly decreased it relative to unsupported drawing — related
• All three drawing conditions scored better than the control condition on the drawing test and performed equally well — related
• Drawing support that facilitates integration significantly increases comprehension, while support not expected to facilitate integration does not — related
• Generating drawings is effective for university students but largely ineffective for elementary-school children unless instructional support is extremely high — reports the opposite