This study tested how different implementations of explaining and drawing activities affect learning from a multimedia science lesson. After studying a multimedia slideshow about the human respiratory system, college students (n = 145) were assigned randomly to one of four learning activity conditions: write explanations before drawing pictures (explain-then-draw group), draw pictures before writing explanations (draw-then-explain group), study provided explanations before drawing pictures (provided explanation-then-draw), or study provided pictures before writing explanations (provided drawing-then-explain). One week following the learning activity, all students completed post-tests of their understanding. Results from the learning activity supported the scaffolding hypothesis: students generated better explanations when they used provided (rather than their own) drawings, and they generated better quality drawings when they used provided (rather than their own) explanations. However, this difference in learning activity performance did not correspond to higher performance on the delayed post-tests. We discuss implications for how to best sequence and scaffold generative activities.

Two experiments compared the effects of learning by drawing to studying instructor-provided visuals on learning outcomes, learning time, and cognitive load. College students studied a text on the human circulatory system and completed comprehension and transfer tests. In Experiment 1 (N = 107), students studied the text with provided visuals (provided visuals) or generated their own drawings from the text with text-based support (verballysupported drawing) or without support (unsupported drawing). Results showed that while the verballysupported drawing condition spent significantly more time and experienced significantly higher cognitive load than the provided visuals condition, there were no differences across the three conditions in learning outcomes. In Experiment 2 (N = 85), students studied the text with provided visuals (provided visuals) or generated drawings from the text with provided visuals as feedback (visually-supported drawing). Results showed that the visually-supported drawing condition spent significantly more time and experienced significantly higher cognitive load than the provided visuals condition but also performed significantly better than the provided visuals condition on the comprehension test. These findings suggest generating drawings prior to studying provided visuals is worth the time and effort.

Virtual reality is a powerful tool for teaching 3D digital technologies in building engineering, as it facilitates the spatial perception of three-dimensional space. Spatial orientation skill is necessary for understanding 3D space. With VR, users navigate through virtually designed buildings and must be constantly aware of their position relative to other elements of the environment (orientation during navigation). In the present study, 25 building engineering students performed navigation tasks in a desktop-VR environment workshop. Performance of students using the desktop-VR was compared to a previous workshop in which navigation tasks were carried out using head-mounted displays. The Perspective Taking/Spatial Orientation Test measured spatial orientation skill. A questionnaire on user experience in the virtual environment was also administered. The gain in spatial orientation skill was 12.62%, similar to that obtained with head-mounted displays (14.23%). The desktop VR environment is an alternative to the HMD-VR environment for planning strategies to improve spatial orientation. Results from the user-experience questionnaire showed that the desktop VR environment strategy was well perceived by students in terms of interaction, 3D visualization, navigation, and sense of presence. Unlike in the HDM VR environment, student in the desktop VR environment did not report feelings of fatigue or dizziness.