Empirical evidence on learner-generated drawing is inconsistent, and the review organizes it around hypotheses grounded in cognitive and strategic processing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2005 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of learner-generated drawing is inconsistent, and the review makes sense of it by organizing the research review around a series of hypotheses grounded in current understandings of cognitive and strategic processing. → Van Meter 2005

Evidence¶

Van Meter 2005¶

Van Meter, P., Garner, J. (2005). The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis. Educ Psychol Rev 17, 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3

q2 · i? · review · r2

This is the review's narrative synthesis of empirical studies of learner-generated drawing. The review reports that it organizes the research around "a series of hypotheses grounded in current understandings of cognitive and strategic processing" to address inconsistent evidence. No pooled effect size is reported in the material reviewed here.

"To make sense of inconsistent empirical evidence, the research review is organized around a series of hypotheses grounded in current understandings of cognitive and strategic processing."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The review's purpose is to stimulate research on learner-generated drawing, with the framework intended to guide and organize future research efforts — related
• Drawing improves STEM learning by a small-to-moderate amount over not drawing and over other active study strategies, in one meta-analysis — related