Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

  • 148 Accesses

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 to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

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

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

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

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

  13. 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.

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

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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

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

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

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

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

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

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

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

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

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

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

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

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

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

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

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

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

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

  56. 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.

  57. 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.

Download references

Acknowledgement

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

Author information

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

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

Keywords

  • Student-generated drawing
  • Imagination
  • Multimedia learning
  • Generative learning
  • Learning outcomes
  • Cognitive load
  • Spatial ability
  • Prior knowledge