Drawing To Learn¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (3 for, 2 mixed) · 16 studies (6 causal, 5 review, 3 quant-synthesis, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 2 of 16 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Drawing to learn asks learners to create their own external visual representations — sketches, concept diagrams, annotated illustrations — of the content they are studying. The generative act of translating verbal or numerical information into spatial form forces selection, organization, and integration of ideas, which is where the learning benefit arises. It differs from studying prepared visuals: the cognitive work of constructing the representation is done by the learner, not the designer.

Design Implications¶

Drawing is a generative learning activity: it requires learners to select key information, organize it into a coherent structure, and integrate it with prior knowledge — the core processes of generative theory [Fiorella & Mayer's generative learning framework identifies drawing as one of eight learning strategies that induce these processes] [+M]. Benefits are strongest when the drawing is accompanied by self-explanation, since the drawing alone does not guarantee that learners reason about why the depicted structure is correct Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S]. Drawing also exploits dual coding — verbal and visual codes provide redundant retrieval routes Media combinations affect recall and retention. [+M] — but only when learners actually connect the two representations rather than producing them in parallel.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Source material that has a mappable structure (processes, systems, causal chains, spatial relations)
• Time and low stakes — drawing takes longer than reading and must not be penalized as an assessment artifact
• Prompts or checklists that specify what the drawing must show (e.g., "label the causal arrows"), preventing decorative rather than explanatory sketches
• An opportunity to compare the drawing against correct representations or explain it aloud

Constraints¶

• Drawing can overload working memory when the material is already high in element interactivity; learners may spend capacity on the mechanics of drawing rather than on reasoning Chunking reduces working memory load. [~M] — provide partial templates or cutaways for complex content
• Learners with low spatial ability or low drawing skill benefit less unless scaffolds (stencils, given components to arrange) reduce the production burden [~M]
• Inaccurate drawings that go uncorrected can entrench misconceptions; feedback or comparison with expert diagrams is needed [-M]
• Benefits shrink for content that is purely verbal, definitional, or procedural without structural relations [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Free drawing vs. completion tasks (learners add labels or missing components to a given diagram) — completion reduces load for novices
• Individually or in pairs; collaborative drawing adds negotiation of meaning but risks one partner doing the cognitive work
• Paper or digital; tools like concept-mapping software (e.g., IHMC CmapTools) shift effort from rendering to structure
• Drawing from text vs. drawing from observation (as in science notebook practices)

Target Learners¶

• Novices and intermediate learners studying structured content; effects diminish or reverse for experts, consistent with the expertise-reversal pattern Expertise reversal: guidance that helps novices can hinder experts. [~M]
• Learners who benefit from dual-channel encoding, including many struggling readers Media combinations affect recall and retention. [+M]
• Less suitable without scaffolds for learners with fine-motor difficulties or very low prior knowledge facing complex systems

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual understanding of systems, processes, and causal relations
• Model-based reasoning in science: constructing, revising, and justifying representations
• Structural knowledge: seeing relations among concepts rather than isolated facts

Instructions¶

1. Select content with a depictable structure and set a clear purpose ("draw how X causes Y").
2. Provide a prompt specifying required components and relations, or a partial diagram to complete — a form of Annotating when learners label given visuals.
3. Have learners draw, then self-explain: articulate why each component and arrow is placed as it is Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S].
4. Compare drawings against an expert or peer representation and revise; contrasting multiple versions supports abstraction of the underlying structure Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction. [+M].
5. Revisit the drawing later (e.g., as a retrieval prompt) to leverage its value for retention.

Related Strategies¶

• Concept Mapping — a constrained, node-and-link form of drawing to learn suited to relational knowledge
• Self-Explanation — the verbal companion that converts a drawing into reasoning
• Use interdependence chains in which students link interdependent jobs and explain why each job needs the others
• Prompt students to sketch a drawing of the system while reading an expository science text
• Strategy instruction may play a role in the effectiveness of the learner-generated drawing strategy: teaching learners how to draw, which the review suggests may decide whether drawing helps

Examples¶

• Science notebooks (elementary) — Students draw and annotate observations of plant growth or simple circuits before writing conclusions; Ainsworth, Prain, and Tytler (2011) argue drawing should be a core science practice alongside observation and experiment.
• Anatomy study — Medical students sketch structures from memory as a retrieval and elaboration activity, then check against atlases.
• IHMC CmapTools — Free concept-mapping software that lets learners build node-link diagrams of a domain, shifting effort from rendering to relational structure.

Key Sources¶

• Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
• Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-8126-3
• Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097. doi:10.1126/science.1204153
• Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872–883. doi:10.1037/a0019640