Drawing quality was diagnostic for later test performance only when drawings were made with spatial scaffolds, not when made from scratch¶

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 with posttest performance when drawings were scaffolded (r = 0.70) but not when made from scratch (r = 0.18); the difference between the correlations was significant (z = − 2.49, p = 0.006). → Julia Kollmer 2020

Evidence¶

Julia Kollmer 2020¶

Julia Kollmer, Katrin Schleinschok, Katharina Scheiter, Alexander Eitel. (2020). Is drawing after learning effective for metacognitive monitoring only when supported by spatial scaffolds? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09521-6

q3 · i3 · causal · r3

Manipulation check in the randomized experiment: overall drawing quality correlated with posttest scores (r = 0.43, p < 0.001), but condition-split correlations showed quality was diagnostic "only when drawings were made with scaffolds". The difference between coefficients was significant.

"the quality significantly related to performance only when drawings were made with scaffolds (r = 0.70, p < 0.001), but not when made without scaffolds (r = 0.18, p = 0.35). The difference between both correlation coefficients was significant, z = − 2.49, p = 0.006."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Scaffolded drawing showed no significant advantage over drawing from scratch for absolute monitoring accuracy — related
• Drawing quality predicted JOLs to a similar extent in both drawing conditions, contrary to the expectation that scaffolds would strengthen this cue use — related