Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of student-generated drawing and imagination on science text reading in a computer-based learning environment

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of student-generated drawing and imagination on learning recall, learning transfer, and cognitive load, and also students’ attitudes towards the learning strategies when learning a computer-based science text, compared to learning with provided pictures. The study used three groups: drawing group, imagining group, and picture group (control). A total of 82 undergraduate students from a southeast university in the United States participated in this study. Results indicated there were no significant differences in the learning recall and transfer of the three groups overall; however, students’ prior knowledge and spatial ability were positively and significantly correlated with their learning recall and transfer. When spatial ability was high, students in the drawing group had significantly higher learning recall than students in the imagining group; and students in the imagining group had significantly higher learning transfer than students in the picture group. The drawing group had significantly higher cognitive load than the picture group. Students perceived drawing, imagining, and reading with pictures for learning as useful and there were no significant differences in their perceived usefulness among the three groups, but students were more intended to learn with provided pictures than to generate drawings. Discussions and implications are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction,16(3), 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, R., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications,1(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,7(1), 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction,9(4), 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2008). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015a). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707085.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015b). Learning by drawing. In L. Fiorella & R. E. Mayer (Eds.), Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding (pp. 62–78). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015c). Learning by imagining. In L. Fiorella & R. E. Mayer (Eds.), Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review,28(4), 717–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology,49, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review,30, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When imagining information is effective. Contemporary Educational Psychology,28(2), 229–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In H. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,20(8), 731–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer, B. D., & Plass, J. L. (2014). Level of interactivity and executive functions as predictors of learning in computer-based chemistry simulations. Computers in Human Behavior,36, 365–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, Y. C. J., & Cifuentes, L. (2006). Student-generated visualization as a study strategy for science concept learning. Educational Technology and Society,9(3), 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology,18(7), 857–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction,22(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology,107(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior,25(2), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 433–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2017). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in comprehending a science text. The Journal of Experimental Education,85(1), 142–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. X., Grady, C., & Moscovitch, M. (2018). The effect of prior knowledge on post-encoding brain connectivity and its relation to subsequent memory. NeuroImage,167, 211–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,38(3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist,59, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Multimedia learning: Guiding visuospatial thinking with instructional animation. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 477–508). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014c). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcguinness, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of multimedia learning and learner generated drawing (unpublished Thesis). Lancaster University. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/576632/1/McGuinness%20(Jessica)%202013%20(Lancaster)%20Quantitative.pdf.

  • Mnguni, L. E. (2014). The theoretical cognitive process of visualization for science education. SpringerPlus,3(1), 184. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,84(4), 429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ploetzner, R., & Fillisch, B. (2017). Not the silver bullet: Learner-generated drawings make it difficult to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction,47, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau, M. A. (2017). Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning. Educational Psychology Review,29(4), 717–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiter, K., Schleinschok, K., & Ainsworth, S. (2017). Why sketching may aid learning from science texts: Contrasting sketching with written explanations. Topics in Cognitive Science,9(4), 866–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology,39(4), 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2018). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction,60, 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 872–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior,27(1), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation,57, 147–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology,93(1), 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology,31(2), 142–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. M. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction: Learning through the construction of drawings. In G. Schraw, M. T. McCrudden, & D. Robinson (Eds.), Learning through visual displays (pp. 247–280). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review,17(4), 285–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist,11(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527409529129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist,24(4), 345–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist,27(4), 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(10), 1177–1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2013). Learning from chemical visualizations: Comparing generation and selection. International Journal of Science Education,35(13), 2174–2197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.792971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Dr. Albert D. Ritzhaupt for his review and insightful feedback to improve the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, 2-290 Norman Hall, PO BOX 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Li Cheng

  2. School of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh, 135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Carole R. Beal

  3. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

    Carole R. Beal

Authors
  1. Li Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carole R. Beal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Cheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, L., Beal, C.R. Effects of student-generated drawing and imagination on science text reading in a computer-based learning environment. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 225–247 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09684-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09684-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation