Drawing-to-Learn: Does Meta-Analysis Show Differences between Technology-Based Drawing and Paper-and-Pencil Drawing?

Autor/inn/en	Cromley, Jennifer G.; Du, Yang; Dane, Aygul Parpucu
Titel	Drawing-to-Learn: Does Meta-Analysis Show Differences between Technology-Based Drawing and Paper-and-Pencil Drawing?
Quelle	In: Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29 (2020) 2, S.216-229 (14 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Cromley, Jennifer G.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1059-0145
DOI	10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6
Schlagwörter	Reading Strategies; Meta Analysis; Visual Aids; Freehand Drawing; Comparative Analysis; Transfer of Training; Learning Strategies; Inferences; Teaching Methods; Computer Software + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Reading strategy; Leselernstufe; Lesetechnik; Meta-analysis; Metaanalyse; Anschauungsmaterial; Drawing; Zeichnen; Training; Transfer; Ausbildung; Learning methode; Learning techniques; Lernmethode; Lernstrategie; Inference; Inferenz; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode
Abstract	Drawing-to-learn is a specific learning/reading strategy studied across many domains. In response to gaps in our knowledge about drawing-to-learn, we conducted a systematic meta-analysis of the literature published since the influential 2005 Van Meter and Garner literature review. We analyzed the benefits of directed learner-generated visual representations such as sketching, drawing, or computer-assisted creation of a full or partial static image. Forty-one peer-reviewed articles were screened in, together with 9 dissertations and 2 other documents; published from 2005 to 2018, these included 53 studies and 166 effects based on 8111 participants. The overall effect of drawing-to-learn across all dependent variable types (factual, inferential, and transfer) and both types of effects--comparing different types of drawing and comparing drawing to non-drawing conditions--was a significant g = 0.69. The overall effect was significant but differed across outcomes (g = 0.85 for factual, g = 0.44 for inferential, and g = 0.22 for transfer). Analyses across 6 moderators are presented. Not only does the literature continue to show that drawing-to-learn is better than the status quo, but directed drawing improves factual as well as inferential and transfer learning. Finally, researchers have found ways to improve drawing-to-learn instruction so that it can be even more effective than the simple directive to make a drawing. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01