Abstract
This article explores learner-generated drawing, a strategy in which learners construct representative illustrations in support of learning goals. Both applied and empirical literature is reviewed with the purpose of stimulating research on this strategy. Clear from this review is the gap that exists between prescriptive readings on learner-generated drawing and research-based understandings.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.A theoretical framework for understanding the drawing strategy is proposed by extending R. E. Mayer's (1993) theoretical processes of selection, organization, and integration.The framework is intended to guide and organize future research efforts and, to that end, earlier proposed hypotheses are incorporated into the explanatory constructs of this theoretical perspective. The article concludes with a discussion of how strategy instruction might play a role in the effectiveness of the drawing strategy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial—verbal and analytic—holistic learning strategies in science learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 73: 358–368.
Alesandrini, K. L. (1984). Pictures and adult learning. Instr. Sci. (13): 63–77.
Alesandrini, K. L., and Rigney, J. W. (1981). Pictorial presentation and review strategies in science learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 18: 465–474.
Biller, J. (1994). A Creative Concept in Teaching Math to Art Students: Make-a-Problem. In Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Liberal Arts and Education of Artists, New York.
Boshuizen, H. P. A., and Tabachneck-Schiff, H. J. M. (1998). Problem solving with multiple representations by multiple and single agents: An analysis of the issues involved. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
Britton, L. A., and Wandersee, J. H. (1997). Cutting up text to make moveable, magnetic diagrams: A way of teaching and assessing biological processes. Am. Biol. Teach. 59: 288–291.
Butler, S., Gross, J., and Hayne, H. (1995). The effect of drawing on memory performance in young children. Dev. Psychol. (31): 597–608.
Caldwell, H., and Moore, B. H. (1991). The art of writing: Drawing as preparation for narrative writing in the primary grades. Stud. Art Educ. 32: 207–219.
Carney, R. N., and Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 14: 5–26.
Clark, J. M., and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. (3): 149–210.
Constantino, T. M. (1986). Drawing: Homework for remedial readers. Classroom Read. Teach. 737–739.
de Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., and Janssens, D. (1998). The predominance of the linear model in secondary school students' solutions of word problems involving length and area of similar plane figures. Educ. Stud. Math. (35): 65–83.
de Jong, T., Aisnworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
de Jong, T., and Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. J. Educ. Psychol. (78): 279–288.
Dempsey, B. C., and Betz, B. J. (2001). Biological drawing: A scientific tool for learning. Am. Biol. Teach. 63: 271–279.
Dietz, S. (1976). Monsters!? Teacher 93: 64.
Duffy, D. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In Block, C. C., and Pressley, M. (eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, Guilford, New York.
Ernst, K. (1997a). Connecting art, writing, learning, and life. Teach. preK –8 28: 46.
Ernst, K. (1997b). What a picture can be. Teach. preK –8 28: 26.
Ernst, K. (1997c). When teachers share, too. Teach. preK –8 28: 62.
Fisher, L. J. (1976). Language arts: Pictures tell the tale. Teacher 93: 64–73.
Freeport School District (1976). Sandburg Environmental Education Handbook, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED206418, Freeport, IL.
Graesser, A. C., and Goodman, S. M. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. In Britton, B. K., and Black, J. B. (eds.), Understanding Expository Text: A Theoretical and Practical Handbook for Analyzing Explanatory Text, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Greene, T. R. (1989). Children's understanding of class inclusion hierarchies: The relationship between external representation and task performance. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 48: 62–89.
Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., and Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? J. Educ. Psychol. (89): 677–681.
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjuct questions on prose learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 56: 212–242.
Haverty, L. A., Koedinger, K. R., Klahr, D., and Alibali, M. W. (2000). Solving inductive reasoning problems in mathematics: not-so-trivial pursuit. Cogn. Sci. 24: 249–298.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., and Pearson, D. P. (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II, Longman Publishing, White Plains, NY.
Holliday, W. G., and McGuire, B. (1992). How can comprehension adjunct questions focus students' attention and enhance concept learning of a computer-animated science lesson? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29: 3–15.
Hubbard, R. (1987). Transferring images: Not just glued on the page. Young Child. 42: 60–67.
Iding, M. K. (1997). Can questions facilitate learning from illustrated texts? Read. Psychol. Int. Q. 18: 1–29.
Johnson, D. (1988). Show me what you mean: Student posters teach lengthy material. Exerc. Exch. 34: 44–46.
Karnowski, L. (1986). How young writers communicate. Educ. Leadership 44: 58–60.
Katayama, A. D., and Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students partially involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. J. Exp. Educ. 68: 119–133.
Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S., Risch, N., and Christensen, M. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 20: 172–187.
Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christensen, M., Kim, S., and Lindberg, N. (1989). A more equitable account of the note-taking functions in learning from lecture and from text. Instr. Sci. 18: 217–232.
Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., and Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 240–245.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. Am. Psychol. 49: 294–303.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Rev. Educ. Res. (61): 179–211.
Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., and Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence. J. Educ. Psychol. 68: 522–528.
Lansing, K. M. (1981). The effect of drawing on the development of mental representations. Stud. Art Educ. 22: 15–23.
Lansing, K. M. (1984). The effect of drawing on the development of mental representations: A continuing study. Stud. Art Educ. 25: 167–175.
Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is sometimes worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. (11): 65–99.
Lesgold, A. M., DeGood, H., and Levin, J. R. (1977). Pictures and young children's prose learning: A supplementary report. J. Read. Behav. 9: 353–360.
Lesgold, A. M., Levin, J. R., Shimron, J., and Guttman, J. (1975). Pictures and young children's learning from oral prose. J. Educ. Psychol. 67: 636–642.
Levin, J. R., and Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B. K., Woodward, A., et al. (eds.), Learning from Textbooks: Theory and Practice, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 95–113.
Linden, M., and Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Read. Res. Q. 17: 44–57.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. J. Educ. Psychol. 81: 240–246.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. 4, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 253–284.
Mayer, R. E., and Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. J. Educ. Psychol. 83: 484–490.
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., and Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. J. Educ. Psychol. 88: 64–73.
Mayer, R. E., and Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth a thousand words? J. Educ. Psychol. 82: 715–726.
Mayer, R. E., and Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. J. Educ. Psychol. 90: 312–320.
Mayer, R. E., and Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 89: 389–401.
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., and Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using learning of science text. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 43: 31–43.
McConnell, S. (1993). Talking drawings: A strategy for assisting learners. J. Read. 36: 260–269.
McNamara, T. P, Miller, D. L., and Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models and reading comprehension. In Brown, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., and Pearson, D. P. (eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. II, Longman, White Plains, NY, pp. 490–511.
Moore, B. H., and Caldwell, H. (1993). Drama and drawing for narrative writing in primary grades. J. Educ. Res. 87: 100–110.
Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., and Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take on an old issue. Learn. Instr. (13): 511–532.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representation: A Dual-Coding Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual-coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Can. J. Psychol. (45): 255–287.
Palinscar, A. S., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cogn. Instr. (1): 117–175.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., and Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 8: 293–316.
Paris, S. G., and Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. J. Read. Behav. (13): 5–22.
Pressley, M. P., and Van Meter, P. (1993). Memory strategies: Natural development and use following instruction. In Pasnak, R., and Howe, M. L. (eds.), Emerging Themes in Cognitive Development: Vol. 2. Competencies, Springer-Verlag, NY.
Rasco, R. W., Tennyson, R. D., and Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Imagery instructions and drawings in learning prose. J. Educ. Psychol. 67: 188–192.
Rich, R. Z., and Blake, S. (1994). Using pictures to assist in comprehension and recall. Intervent. Sch. Clin. 29: 271–275.
Rosenshine, B., and Meister, C. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In Stahl, S. A., and Hayes, D. A. (eds.), Instructional Models in Reading, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Rothkopf, E. Z. (1982). Adjunct aids and the control of mathemagenic activities during purposeful reading. In Otto, W., and White, S. (eds.), Reading Expository Material, Academic, New York.
Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
Scevak, J. J., and Moore, P. J. (1998). Levels of processing effects on learning from text with maps. Educ. Psychol. 18: 133–155.
Scevak, J. J., Moore, P. J., and Kirby, J. R. (1993). Training students to use maps to increase text recall. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18: 401–413.
Schmalhofer, F. (1998). Constructive Knowledge Acquisition, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Silver, E. A. (1979). Student perceptions of relatedness among mathematical verbal problems. J. Res. Math. Educ. (10): 195–210.
Snowman, J., and Cunningham, D. J. (1975). A comparison of pictorial and written adjunct aids in learning from text. J. Educ. Psychol. 67: 307–311.
Steele, B. (1991). Integrating art. BCATA J. Art Teach. 31: 41–44.
Stein, M., and Power, B. (1996). Putting art on the scientist's palette. In Hubbard, R. S., and Ernst, K. (eds.), New Entries: Learning by Writing and Drawing, Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.
Tabachneck-Schiif, H. J. M., and Simon, H. A. (1998). One person, multiple representations: An analysis of a simple, realistic multiple representation learning task. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
Tirre, W. C., Manelis, L., and Leicht, K. (1979). The effects of imaginal and verbal strategies on prose comprehension by adults. J. Read. Behav. 11: 99–106.
van Essen, G., and Hamaker, C. (1990). Using student-generated drawings to solve arithematic word problems. J. Educ. Res. 83: 301–312.
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. J. Educ. Psychol. 69: 129–140.
Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., and Garner, J., (in press) Learner-Generated Drawing as a Strategy for Learning from Content Are Text. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
van Someren, M. W., Boshuizen, H. P. A., de Jong, T., and Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., and de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations, Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford.
Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative activity. Educ. Psychol. 11: 87–95.
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educ. Psychol. 24: 345–376.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Meter, P., Garner, J. The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing: Literature Review and Synthesis. Educ Psychol Rev 17, 285–325 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3