Active-processing focus-support techniques such as testing, self-explaining, concept mapping, and drawing show positive effects on learning¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Testing, self-explaining, concept mapping, and drawing each show positive empirical effects on learning outcomes by stimulating SOISG processing. → Eitel 2025
Evidence¶
Eitel 2025¶
Eitel, A., Krebs, M.-C., Schöne, C. (2025). Introducing the FoRe-Squares Model: Focus Support and Reward as Key Predictors of Effective Technology-Augmented Instruction. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10045-z
q2 · i? · theoretical · r3
The review's synthesis of active-processing techniques states that "empirical evidence reveals the positive effects" of testing, self-explaining, concept mapping, and drawing, each mapped to SOISG processes such as strengthening and generating. No pooled effect sizes are printed in this sentence.
"Accordingly, empirical evidence reveals the positive effects of techniques such as testing (e.g., Yang et al., 2021), self-explaining (Bisra et al., 2018), concept mapping (Schroeder et al., 2018), or drawing (Cromley et al., 2020)."
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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Prompting learners to self-explain, one generative strategy, improves learning by a moderate average amount; other generative activities are not tested by the evidence recorded here — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Learner-constructed graphic organizers are not shown to outperform provided ones: the one direct test, with college readers, favoured provided organizers on transfer — related
- Constructive learning beats active and passive learning — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
focus-support-active-processing-techniques-positive-effects |
title |
Active-processing focus-support techniques such as testing, self-explaining, concept mapping, and drawing show positive effects on learning |
description |
Active-processing focus-support techniques such as testing, self-explaining, concept mapping, and drawing show positive effects on learning |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — eitel-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.