Drawing quality was positively associated with learning outcomes across the drawing conditions, replicating the prognostic drawing effect¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Drawing quality correlated positively with recognition (r = 0.42), transfer (r = 0.21), and drawing test (r = 0.28) performance. → Steffen P. Schmidgall 2020

Evidence¶

Steffen P. Schmidgall 2020¶

Steffen P. Schmidgall, Katharina Scheiter, Alexander Eitel. (2020). Can we further improve tablet-based drawing to enhance learning? An empirical test of two types of support. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09513-6

q3 · i3 · causal · r3

Exploratory correlational analysis of drawing quality scores (ranging from 3.33 to 71.72%, M = 28.66%, SD = 14.15) across the three drawing conditions. The article prints the correlations "recognition (r = 0.42, p < 0.001), transfer (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), and drawing test (r = 0.28, p < 0.01)".

"In line with the prognostic drawing effect (Schwamborn et al. 2010) and Hypothesis 1b, drawing quality was positively associated with better performance in the recognition (r = 0.42, p < 0.001), transfer (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), and drawing test (r = 0.28, p < 0.01)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Drawing quality predicted JOLs to a similar extent in both drawing conditions, contrary to the expectation that scaffolds would strengthen this cue use — related
• All three drawing conditions scored better than the control condition on the drawing test and performed equally well — related
• Effect sizes across drawing-support studies show significant heterogeneity for both comprehension and transfer outcomes — related