Results (
Thai) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
Overview of the experiments
Research on drawing – i.e., the generative and the prognostic
drawing effect – is promising; however, at the present time there
is a need for a more solid evidence base and for a closer examination
of theoretical issues. First, the generalizability is limited at
this point as replication studies using learning outcome tests that
are sensitive to the underlying process of drawing as well as new
learning materials other than the washing lesson (e.g., Schwamborn
et al., 2010) or the birds wing (van Meter, 2001) are yet missing.
In their report for the U.S. National Research Council, entitled
Scientific Research in Education, Shavelson and Towne (2002, p. 4),
for example, highlighted the need to “replicate and generalize
across studies” as one of the six essential scientific principles of
educational research. It has to be mentioned at this point, that when
generalizing results to new domains or lessons, one should carefully
consider whether these are comparable at all. In our
experiments, we aimed at generalizing results by Schwamborn et al.
(2010), who worked with a science text explaining the causal
steps regarding the chemistry of washing, to a new lesson that is,
however, comparable in that the text we used also described
causal steps of a process, in this case regarding the infection with
influenza and regarding the immune response. That is, although
there were differences between the two domains (chemistry versus
biology), the lessons showed structural similarities and thus
allow for comparing results and drawing conclusions regarding
generalizability.
Second, research on drawing indicates that some form of support
is needed to assist learners during drawing. Schwamborn et al.
(2010), for example, introduced a drawing prompt as helpful support
for learners to benefit from drawing. They proposed that the resulting
positive drawing effect is based on students’ engagement
in generative learning activities during reading due to drawing (consistent
with the GTDC of vanMeter & Garner, 2005; see also de Jong,
2005; Mayer, 2004, 2009; Wittrock, 1990). However, the results reported
by Schwamborn et al. (2010) might rather reflect a
multimedia effect (Mayer, 2005, 2009) than the proposed drawing
effect as the learning lesson used – a scientific text and a drawing
prompt consisting of pictorial elements and backgrounds – created
amultimedia lesson. In otherwords, the results of Schwamborn et al.
(2010) might not be due to the drawing activity but rather due to
the multimedia effect that students “learn better from words and
pictures than from words alone” (Mayer, 2009, p. 223). In this case,
Being translated, please wait..