Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity.

Schwamborn, Annett; Mayer, Richard E.; Thillmann, Hubertina; Leopold, Claudia; Leutner, Detlev

doi:10.1037/a0019640

Cited by 134 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

111

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, no text-only group (with no provided illustrations) was utilized to provide a baseline for the effectiveness of pure drawing activity. However, the results of Schwamborn, Mayer, Thillmann, Leopold, and Leutner (2010) showed that students learned better from a text about the chemistry of the washing process when they were asked to draw and were given drawing prompts compared to a text-only control group that received neither prompts nor drawing instructions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies

Leopold

Leutner

2012

Learning and Instruction

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe purpose of two experiments was to contrast instructions to generate drawings with two text-focused strategiesdmain idea selection (Exp. 1) and summarization (Exp. 2)dand to examine whether these strategies could help students learn from a chemistry science text. Both experiments followed a 2 Â 2 design, with drawing strategy instructions (yes vs. no) and main idea/summarization strategy instructions (yes vs. no) as experimental factors. The main dependent variable was science text comprehension, measured by a multiple-select test and a transfer test. Participants were 90 (Exp. 1) and 71 (Exp. 2) students (grade 10). The results of both experiments showed positive effects of the drawing strategy instructions and negative effects of the text-focused strategy instructions without interactions. These results are consistent with the mental model approach to comprehension, showing advantages of drawing activity in fostering science text comprehension.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies

Leopold

Leutner

2012

Learning and Instruction

Self Cite

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accuracy in technical drawings predicted learning and memory in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) science subjects (Schwamborn et al, 2010). Hence, it would be interesting to see in future research whether getting children to sketch in perspective could also actually accelerate their understanding of the underlying mathematical and geometrical principles.…”

Section: Do Drawing Stages Really Exist?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dubery and Willats (1972) were the first to establish the notion of spatial drawing systems to explain that there is not usually a one-to-one mapping between, for instance, seeing a table and drawing a table on paper. Instead, several drawing systems for the graphic representation of space and spatial objects are gradually developing in children in a more or less sequential fashion (LangeKüttner, 1989(LangeKüttner, , 1994(LangeKüttner, , 2008Schwamborn, Mayer, Thillmann, Leopold, & Leutner, 2010;Vinter & Marot, 2007;Willats, 1995Willats, , 1997Willats, , 2005. When referring to ready-made predrawn spatial axes systems on a page designed to help young children to draw foreshortened figures, Lange-Küttner used the term "spatial systems" (Lange-Küttner, 2009).…”

Section: Drawing and Perceivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do drawing stages really exist? Children’s early mapping of perspective.

Lange-Küttner¹

2014

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing in perspective seems to involve a prolonged development and is not usually present in children's drawings before about age 9 -at least as found in previous research. In the study presented here, we built several three-dimensional spatial models to simulate the developmental stages of children's spatial drawing systems, a simple platform without spatial constraints (Stage 1), and a platform with walls and a sky lid (earth model; Stage 2). Stage 3 (orthogonal) and Stage 4 (perspective) models had explicit boundaries around the spatial field to denote areas and a matched control that controlled for the surround area outside of the boundaries. Four age groups from 7 to 10 years of age drew five non-overlapping figures. All age groups adapted the average figure size to the level of the spatial system (stage) of the models but only when explicit spatial field boundaries were available: The more advanced the spatial system, the smaller the average figure size. It was striking to note that 7-to 8-year-old children drew in perspective as often as 9-to 10-year-olds when the spatial models had a trapezoid field with converging diagonal sides. This early perspective mapping may have occurred because of the agreement between retinal image (appearance) and design (identity) of the perspective models. Hence, it would be more useful to think of the perspective drawing development as a layered rather than as a stagewise process because typically developing young children can access low-level visual information and draw in perspective instead of deploying high-level conceptual knowledge about the geometrical principles of perspective construction.

show abstract

“…Based on the learning by doing approach [36] and the traditional use of images as a learning strengthening [37,38], experiments have demonstrated how drawing can also be an effective memorizing and learning strategy. It has been shown that the drawing of the information to be stored allows achieving better results than other storage techniques because of its ability to enhance the verbal language with the non-verbal language of the images.…”

Section: Graphic Learning: Using Graphic Intelligencementioning

confidence: 99%

Drawing and Cognition in Learning Graphics and in Graphic Learning

Cicalò

2017

Proceedings of the International and Interdisciplinary Conference IMMAGINI? Brixen, Italy, 27–28 November 2017.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the relationships between drawing and cognition starting from the concept of graphic intelligence, and going beyond the classic approach, widely deepened in the literature from the field of clinical neuropsychology, linked to a concept of drawing as tool for the evaluation of the cerebral connections functionalities in cases of particular disabilities. Instead, this article analyses the relationships between drawing and cognition focusing to learning processes. Therefore, drawing is considered not only as a product with which to interpret the psychological, bodily-kinesthetic and cognitive spheres of the individual, but also as a tool for stimulating the development of such spheres.Keywords: drawing; cognition; graphic intelligence; graphicacy; learning Drawing and CognitionResearch on the relationship between drawing and cognition have been largely developed in the field of clinical neuropsychology in order to rehabilitate patients affected by particular forms of neurological disabilities. Within these studies, drawing is generally considered as a tool through which to test the functionality of brain connections [1,2]. For this reason, these studies generally focus on drawing as a process aimed to graphically reproduce what has been observed, and therefore through which to test the ability to command gestures in a conscious way. Accordingly, in literature the process of drawing is generally observed and described mainly in relation to the reproduction of what is perceived, with emphasis on the stratification of graphic signs corresponding to the various perceptive phases.This literature considers Van Sommers's works [3,4] to be the only studies that has really analyzed the relations between drawing and cognition this studies describe two different processes: the first linked to perception and the second linked to graphic production. The first model, linked to the process of perception, is finalized to the re-copying of a subject that is articulated, consistently with the Marr's model [5], in three hierarchically structured passages: -a first phase in which the perceived image is represented through a synthetic two-dimensional description based on variations in intensity in which background and figure are not distinct; -a second phase in which the previous representation is enriched by information about surfaces and placed in a three-dimensional reference system centered on the observer through an estimation of distances and orientations; -a third phase in which, the information relating to the three-dimensionality of the structure of the object represented is completed.The second model is about the graphic production. It consists of four phases. In the act of copying a perceived or a remembered subject, the draughtsman makes a series of choices or

show abstract

Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity.

Cited by 134 publications

References 34 publications

Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies

Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies

Do drawing stages really exist? Children’s early mapping of perspective.

Drawing and Cognition in Learning Graphics and in Graphic Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About