Generative Drawing Principle: Difference between revisions
m (updated citations) |
Tanvivartak (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=='''Overview'''== | =='''Overview'''== | ||
The | The [[Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning]] suggests that tasking students to create a drawing based on a lesson can foster [[generative processing]] <ref name="Mayer">Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref> by priming [[Metacognition | metacognitive processes]] <ref name="LEUTNERSCHMECK">Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The Generative Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 433-448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.022</ref>. Mayer explains that generative processing involves the learner selecting and organizing material and then integrating it with prior knowledge, which can result in making meaningful connections, or transfer.<ref name="Mayer" /> | ||
<br><br>To yield deep understanding, a drawing activity should activate all three areas of cognitive processing: selecting (identifying the key components), organizing (creating a spatial layout of the components to explain their relationships), and integrating (calling upon prior knowledge to relate the verbal information in a visual-spatial model)<ref name="Mayer" /><ref name="FIORELLAMAYER">Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2015). Learning by Drawing. In Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding (pp. 62-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107707085.006</ref>. As described in Fiorella and Mayer, drawings can serve four purposes in learning: decorative, representational, organizational, and explanatory; however, while decorative drawings can be extraneous and representational drawings can help with selection, tasking students with creating organizational and/or explanatory drawings can be more beneficial to learning because such drawings support organization and integration of material <ref name="FIORELLAMAYER"></ref> | <br><br>To yield deep understanding, a drawing activity should activate all three areas of cognitive processing: selecting (identifying the key components), organizing (creating a spatial layout of the components to explain their relationships), and integrating (calling upon prior knowledge to relate the verbal information in a visual-spatial model)<ref name="Mayer" /><ref name="FIORELLAMAYER">Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2015). Learning by Drawing. In Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding (pp. 62-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107707085.006</ref>. As described in Fiorella and Mayer, drawings can serve four purposes in learning: decorative, representational, organizational, and explanatory; however, while decorative drawings can be extraneous and representational drawings can help with selection, tasking students with creating organizational and/or explanatory drawings can be more beneficial to learning because such drawings support organization and integration of material <ref name="FIORELLAMAYER"></ref>. | ||
=='''Evidence'''== | =='''Evidence'''== | ||
Brod’s review of popular generative learning strategies and the strategies’ efficacy by age group, discusses the evidence that generative drawing is less effective for younger learners than for college students<ref name="BROD">Brod, G. (2021). Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1295–1318. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9</nowiki></ref>. Accordingly, without significant instructional support, younger learners are less likely to benefit from generative drawing than students at the secondary-level or higher<ref name="BROD" /> | Brod’s review of popular generative learning strategies and the strategies’ efficacy by age group, discusses the evidence that generative drawing is less effective for younger learners than for college students<ref name="BROD">Brod, G. (2021). Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1295–1318. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9</nowiki></ref>. Accordingly, without significant instructional support, younger learners are less likely to benefit from generative drawing than students at the secondary-level or higher<ref name="BROD" />, because older learners have acquired more knowledge and higher levels of cognitive capacities and metacognitive abilities<ref name="BROD" />. The review suggests that elementary aged students do not benefit from drawing and secondary school students are more likely to benefit from drawing when they are guided with prompts to compare their drawing with an existing representation<ref name="BROD" />. | ||
<br><br>In a study on the use of drawing at a college-level engineering course, Wu et al. found that drawing exercises increased students’ cognitive engagement and helped with conceptual problem solving<ref name="WU">Wu, S. P. W., Van Veen, B., & Rau, M. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 723–742. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20354</nowiki></ref>. Consistent with Brod’s assessment, Wu et al. indicate that advanced engineering students are more likely to find value in drawing than newer engineering students, as newer students may not be as readily able to engage with material without guidance. To more effectively implement this principle, instructors should help students understand how to focus on the relevant information and the relationships between the components; instructors should also guide students on when to draw and what to include in the drawing<ref name="WU" />. This supports the Clark and Mayer idea of ''supported'' drawing over generative drawing and could be implemented by | <br><br>In a study on the use of drawing at a college-level engineering course, Wu et al. found that drawing exercises increased students’ cognitive engagement and helped with conceptual problem solving<ref name="WU">Wu, S. P. W., Van Veen, B., & Rau, M. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 723–742. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20354</nowiki></ref>. Consistent with Brod’s assessment, Wu et al. indicate that advanced engineering students are more likely to find value in drawing than newer engineering students, as newer students may not be as readily able to engage with material without guidance. To more effectively implement this principle, instructors should help students understand how to focus on the relevant information and the relationships between the components; instructors should also guide students on when to draw and what to include in the drawing<ref name="WU" />. This supports the Clark and Mayer idea of ''supported'' drawing over generative drawing and could be implemented by providing components of the drawing for students to select and use<ref name="CLARKMAYER">Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2016). Engagement in e‐learning. In e‐Learning and the Science of Instruction (pp. 219–235). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.</ref>; in an electronic format, this could be achieved with a drag-and-drop feature<ref name="CLARKMAYER" />. | ||
=='''Design Implications'''== | =='''Design Implications'''== | ||
Latest revision as of 17:38, 16 December 2022
Overview[edit | edit source]
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning suggests that tasking students to create a drawing based on a lesson can foster generative processing [1] by priming metacognitive processes [2]. Mayer explains that generative processing involves the learner selecting and organizing material and then integrating it with prior knowledge, which can result in making meaningful connections, or transfer.[1]
To yield deep understanding, a drawing activity should activate all three areas of cognitive processing: selecting (identifying the key components), organizing (creating a spatial layout of the components to explain their relationships), and integrating (calling upon prior knowledge to relate the verbal information in a visual-spatial model)[1][3]. As described in Fiorella and Mayer, drawings can serve four purposes in learning: decorative, representational, organizational, and explanatory; however, while decorative drawings can be extraneous and representational drawings can help with selection, tasking students with creating organizational and/or explanatory drawings can be more beneficial to learning because such drawings support organization and integration of material [3].
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Brod’s review of popular generative learning strategies and the strategies’ efficacy by age group, discusses the evidence that generative drawing is less effective for younger learners than for college students[4]. Accordingly, without significant instructional support, younger learners are less likely to benefit from generative drawing than students at the secondary-level or higher[4], because older learners have acquired more knowledge and higher levels of cognitive capacities and metacognitive abilities[4]. The review suggests that elementary aged students do not benefit from drawing and secondary school students are more likely to benefit from drawing when they are guided with prompts to compare their drawing with an existing representation[4].
In a study on the use of drawing at a college-level engineering course, Wu et al. found that drawing exercises increased students’ cognitive engagement and helped with conceptual problem solving[5]. Consistent with Brod’s assessment, Wu et al. indicate that advanced engineering students are more likely to find value in drawing than newer engineering students, as newer students may not be as readily able to engage with material without guidance. To more effectively implement this principle, instructors should help students understand how to focus on the relevant information and the relationships between the components; instructors should also guide students on when to draw and what to include in the drawing[5]. This supports the Clark and Mayer idea of supported drawing over generative drawing and could be implemented by providing components of the drawing for students to select and use[6]; in an electronic format, this could be achieved with a drag-and-drop feature[6].
Design Implications[edit | edit source]
The generative drawing principle might be attractive to instructors who are trying to reach students who identify as visual learners; inviting a student to illustrate a lesson could be viewed as a natural way to engage a learner who might not be motivated to learn solely by reading text, which is generally a passive act.
However, Leutner and Schmeck state, “benefits of drawing are most likely to be revealed when instructional support is provided to the learner in order to constrain and structure the drawing activity”[2] (p. 443). Per Leutner and Schmeck, students might expend cognitive load on trying to figure out how to draw on the computer, so pre-training may be necessary. One tool that may be helpful is to provide students with specific components to create a drawing.[2]
Challenges[edit | edit source]
Generative drawing does not consistently yield high levels of transfer, and it appears to be most productive only when utilized under specific conditions [2]. Clark and Mayer importantly discuss the observation that behavioral engagement can get in the way of learning; indeed, the act of drawing may interfere with learning due to extraneous cognitive load. They note that “supported drawing” may be more effective than generative drawing[6].
A limitation to the utility of generative drawing is that most research has explored its impact on science and math classrooms, which often focus on procedural knowledge; further research must be conducted on the utility of this principle as related to more descriptive texts[2].
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The Generative Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 433-448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2015). Learning by Drawing. In Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding (pp. 62-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107707085.006
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Brod, G. (2021). Generative Learning: Which Strategies for What Age? Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1295–1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09571-9
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Wu, S. P. W., Van Veen, B., & Rau, M. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20354
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2016). Engagement in e‐learning. In e‐Learning and the Science of Instruction (pp. 219–235). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.