# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Want students to remember something? Ask them to draw it.

It's long been known that drawing something helps a person remember it. A new study shows that drawing is superior to activities such as reading or writing because it forces the person to process information in multiple ways: visually, kinesthetically, and semantically. Across a series of experiments, researchers found drawing information to be a powerful way to boost memory, increasing recall by nearly double.

Myra Fernandes, Jeffrey Wammes, and Melissa Meade are experts in the science of memory-how people encode, retain, and recall information. At the University of Waterloo, they conducted experiments to better understand how activities such as writing, looking at pictures, listening to lectures, drawing, and visualizing images affect a student's ability to remember information.

In an early experiment, they asked undergraduate students to study lists of common terms-words like truck and pear -and then either write down or illustrate those words. Shortly afterward, participants recalled 20 percent of words they had written down, but more than twice as many-45 percent-of the terms they had drawn. This experiment helped to establish the benefits of drawing.

In a follow-up experiment, the researchers compared two methods of note-taking-writing words by hand versus drawing concepts-and found drawing to be "an effective and reliable encoding strategy, far superior to writing." The researchers found that when the undergraduates visually represented science concepts like isotope and spore, their recall was nearly twice as good as when they wrote down definitions supplied by the lecturer.

Importantly, the benefits of drawing were not dependent on the students' level of artistic talent, suggesting that this strategy may work for all students, not just ones who are able to draw well.

Across a total of eight experiments, the researchers confirmed drawing to be a "reliable, replicable means of boosting performance"-it provided a significant boost to students' ability to remember what they were learning.

Why is drawing such a powerful memory tool? The researchers explain that it "requires elaboration on the meaning of the term and translating the definition to a new form (a picture)." Unlike listening to a lecture or viewing an image-activities in which students passively absorb information-drawing is active. It forces students to grapple with what they're learning and reconstruct it in a way that makes sense to them.

The researchers also suggest that drawing results in better recall because of how the information is encoded in memory. When a student draws a concept, they "must elaborate on its meaning and semantic features, engage in the actual hand movements needed for drawing (motor action), and visually inspect [the] created picture (pictorial processing)."

At a neural level, the strength of a memory depends largely on how many connections are made to other memories. An isolated piece of information-such as a trivial fact-is soon forgotten in the brain's constant effort to prune away unused knowledge. The opposite, however, is also true: The more synaptic connections a memory has, the more it resists eventually being forgotten.

So when we draw, we encode the memory in a very rich way, layering together the visual memory of the image, the kinesthetic memory of our hand drawing the image, and the semantic memory that is invoked when we engage in meaning-making. In combination, this greatly increases the likelihood that the concept being drawn will later be recalled.

This Is Not About Learning Styles

It would be a mistake to think that drawing is beneficial because it taps into a particular learning style. Research has debunked the idea that students learn best when teachers try to match instruction to a single modality.

Instead, what's happening is that drawing taps into multiple modalities-visual, kinesthetic, and semantic-which is superior to tapping into only one. When students draw something, they process it in three different ways, in effect learning it three times over.

In the Classroom

Student-created learning aids: Instead of buying or printing posters that reinforce learning-maps, anchor charts, or diagrams-have students create them.

Interactive notebooks: Don't let students take notes verbatim-push them to be creative. One side of their notebooks can be used for written notes, the other for drawings, diagrams, and charts.

Data visualization: Asking students to collect, analyze, and present data in visual form can deepen their understanding of a topic. Examples include visualizing concepts in math, analyzing classical literature, and exploring fractals.

Bookmaking: Blending academics and art, students at Symonds Elementary create their own books to visually represent topics in subjects ranging from science to English language arts. Students can also create comics books to tell stories or describe events.

Assessing learning through art: Jill Fletcher, a middle school teacher in Hawaii, uses "one-pagers" to challenge students to show their understanding about a topic through art, making it less about finding the "single correct answer" and more about crafting a response they can stand behind. And students at Normal Park Museum Magnet School create travel journals as a visible record of their learning.

There are several ways that teachers can incorporate drawing to enrich learning.

The takeaway: Encourage students to draw. Doing so is a powerful tool to boost student learning because it improves recall by challenging students to explore an idea in different ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Want students to remember something? Ask them to draw it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Workshop with Silvia Duckworth November 2019

# data[].attributes.subject
Workshop with Silvia Duckworth November 2019

# data[].attributes.headline
Workshop at GESS 22.02.2020 - Check @teams!

# data[].attributes.subject
Workshop at GESS 22.02.2020 - Check @teams!

# data[].attributes.body
Search on Twitter for @blaho_blaho and #sketch50

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lean into your growth mindset with other edu-sketchers. Let's grow together. You CAN draw!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT
How can science teachers support students in developing an appropriate declarative knowledge base for solving problems? This article focuses on the question whether the development of students' memory of scientific propositions is better served by writing propositions down on paper or by making drawings of propositions either by silent or muttering rehearsal. By means of a memorisation experiment with eighth- and ninth-grade students, we answer this question. In this experiment, students received instruction to memorise nine science propositions and to reproduce them afterwards. To support memorisation students were randomly assigned either to a group that received instruction to write each proposition on paper or to a group that received instruction to make a drawing about the content of the proposition. In addition, half of the students in both groups received instruction to mutter and the other half of them received instruction to write or draw in silence. The main conclusion from the experiment is that after four weeks students who had made a drawing remembered significantly more propositions than those who had memorised the propositions by writing them down. Our research further revealed that it did not matter whether students muttered or memorised silently.

Introduction

The main task of pre-university teachers is to aid students in developing a sound knowledge base. In science education, where students need to develop a thorough understanding of abstract concepts, the teachers' challenge is to illustrate things that cannot be seen by referring to concrete situations. Establishing links between concrete situations and abstract phenomena seems essential for students to be able to adequately represent relations between abstract concepts in symbols, formulae and graphs (Johnstone, 2000). Establishment of links between concrete situations and abstract concepts and recurrent priming seem also essential in developing students' ability to solve science problems. To give an example from chemistry education: students already know something about the process of burning (for instance, cooking potatoes without water). This prior knowledge could be the starting point for elucidating what happens in the process of heating (without oxygen): sugar can turn among other things into carbon and tar (please see Table 1, proposition 3). Teachers can connect daily-life experiences of students to school science practice and coach them by logical steps to gain insight into and to solve problems of the origin of oil.

Published online:

29 November 2017

As learning content about science topics is covered over longer periods, it is essential that teachers promote the development of strong linkages between knowledge of concrete situations and abstract concepts. To support students in their learning, science teachers need to be aware of memorisation methods that aid students in reproducing links between relevant core principles and situational knowledge in an effective manner (cf. De Jong & Ferguson-Hessler, 1996). Students' ability to recall such so-called declarative knowledge not only facilitates the understanding of new and related learning material. It may help to enhance students' capacity to analyse the nature of science problems (cf. Pol, Harskamp, Suhre & Goedhart, 2008).

Despite the fact that memorisation has been studied extensively in the past, little is known about the differential effectiveness of memorisation methods to scaffold learning in science and the rate at which subject content is forgotten.

In this article, we report on an investigation into memorisation methods science teachers could encourage students to use to establish firm links between concrete situational knowledge and abstract concepts. Our main interest lies in determining which tactics make such memorisation most effective. We specifically focus on two activities in the learning phase: drawing pictures or writing down propositions to frame what students need to learn and remember. We expect that making personal drawings about concepts and relations between certain concepts, as well as writing propositions that express these relations, help students to become aware about the conceptual relations. However, we expect that the use of drawings results in better memory and recall because of its appeal to mental imagery (Edens & Potter, 2003; Van Meter, 2001; Wammes, Meade & Fernandes 2016).

Besides writing down propositions or making drawings, teachers could also encourage students to mutter during memorisation. Research by MacLeod et al. ( 2010) shows that when students mutter while studying words, sentences and texts, their recall of textual content is better than when they read in silence. They suggest that when more modalities are involved in encoding information recall may benefit. Icht & Mama ( 2015) confirmed the findings of Macleod, when they tested preschoolers in controlled testing conditions. Although the conditions of the present experiment differs from the research by MacLeod et al. (2010) and Icht & Mama (2015), the similarity is to investigate memorization results by applying several encoding processes in conjunction with silence or while talking.

Practical and theoretical considerations

Practical considerations

In secondary education, learning typically is a shared responsibility of teachers and students. Teachers usually commence their lessons by framing sections and clarifying of subject matter from the students' textbooks. Teachers are accustomed to verbally comment on a topic, sometimes using visual aids to support students' understanding.

Subsequently, they have students make assignments, either as seatwork or as homework (TALIS-report, 2009, pp. 99-100). Such a way of teaching works well if students apply effective memorisation methods and show discipline in using them. Otherwise, the continuous flow of information contained in daily instruction can easily overwhelm students and diminish their motivation to pay attention (Martin, 2015; Mayer, 2014a). To facilitate students' ability to memorise core subject matter content, it is crucial for teachers to indicate how this content relates to students' prior knowledge and induct them in the use of memorisation methods that take into account limitations and affordances of their working memory (Allen, Baddeley, & Hitch, 2006).

In this study, we compare memorisation methods differing on two crucial activities: the mode of encoding information and the mode of rehearsal. In designing and investigating memorisation methods, we restrict ourselves to methods that comply with prevailing instructional practices. Feasible encoding tasks include having students rewrite propositions or making a drawing. By 'drawing', we mean that students form personal associations regarding the content and integrate these in a picture, thus allowing for the creation of a mental image (Van der Veen, 2012).

Theoretical considerations

According to Baddeley ( 2000), human working memory comprises four components: a central executive control system and three slave systems, consisting of a phonological loop, a visuospatial sketchpad and an episodic buffer. The episodic buffer integrates information from the phonological loop and the visual sketchpad with information already residing in long-term memory (Baddeley, 2000; Rudner & Rönnberg, 2008). Research by Baddeley ( 2000) shows that the phonological loop and the visual sketchpad can be used relatively independently, allowing students to simultaneously complete two simple tasks that rely on information received from these two senses. The ability of students to simultaneously process phonological and visual spatial information seems a valid reason to investigate the effectiveness of a method that combines drawing a picture about science propositions and compare its effectiveness to writing in combination with verbal rehearsal. For science teachers to be able to support students' learning, it would be useful to know which memorisation methods they could teach students best, in line with the theory of Baddeley ( 2000). Schnotz' integrated model of text and imagination (ITPC) uses this theory to provide a comprehensive view on the way alternative methods of encoding information may affect students' ability to recall information differently. The ITPC model has therefore the potential to guide us in the design of alternative memorisation methods and in explaining why these methods could lead to differences in short-term and long-term memory loss.

Among other things, Schnotz ( 2014) has contributed to the development on this body of knowledge of a comprehensive view on remembering information from text by constructing a model. His integrated model of text and picture comprehension (ITPC) assumes that the nature of memories differs depending on how information from pictures (or drawings) and written text is processed. The ITPC model is actually based on four components of empirical evidence about human information processing:

Inclusion of information takes place via two separate sensory systems (Baddeley, 1986, 1999; Paivio, 1986);

The capacity of the working memory is limited for each separate system (Baddeley, 1986, 1999; Chandler and Sweller, 1991);

Meaningful learning results from activation of prior knowledge and integration of both propositional and visual information into one coherent mental representation (Mayer, 2001, 2014a, 2014b); Wittrock, 1989; Kosslyn, 1994);

Pictures or drawings that align with students' knowledge base are beneficial for learning and memorisation.

According to a classical experiment by Peterson and Peterson ( 1959), still considered valid in cognitive science (Boyd, 2015; Cyr et al., 2017), content is most likely forgotten within a few seconds if it is not rehearsed. Moreover, it is necessary that the information is processed with attention (Oberauer and Bialkova, 2009). Baddeley and Hitch ( 1974) proposed the phonological loop is an active rehearsal mechanism as 'being responsible for temporary storage of speech-like information'. Allen, Baddeley and Hitch ( 2006) promote elaborative rehearsal of information to stimulate transfer of knowledge from working memory into long-term memory. Feasible rehearsal tasks in the classroom include repeating words or propositions silently or while muttering. By repeating words, while muttering, we mean that students talk inaudibly or softly hum while memorising.

There is increasing evidence that the use of drawings can support students' understanding of science and their learning (Wilson & Bradbury, 2016). Pictorial representations could help students in schematising subject matter elements as well as in reproducing them correctly (cf. Akaygun & Jones, 2014). The use of drawings as a memory tactic has been brought forward by other researchers in different ways, for example, through the concept mapping method (Novak & Canas, 2006) or other graphical methods (Katz, 2017; Pals, 2003). Kosslyn ( 1994) advocates the establishment of mental representations by letting students create drawings. Boers, Eykmans and Stengers ( 2006) concluded that students can benefit from memorising words when they can form a picture of that word. The present study continues on this track asking: if this is true for (single) words, would this also apply to propositions or text sections? Research by Presley, Cariligia-Bull, Deane, & Schneider ( 1987) seems to confirm the benefit of using imagination. They found that primary school students could remember propositions better when they were asked to imagine, rather than when they memorised propositions in their own way. The importance of combining mental imagination with verbal memorisation to improve the retrieval of knowledge was initially proposed by Paivio ( 1986). This combination of verbal learning and visualisation is one of the basic principles of education. According to Kosslyn, Jolicoeur, & Gluck ( 1984), mental images of an event are held in the left hemisphere, while the coherence of the images of events is stored in the right hemisphere. In modern neurological research, the focus shifts to more specific places, the front, rear or centre of the brain, dependent on the type of information received. Dekker & Jolles ( 2016) suggest that 'vocabulary learning' activates the anterior lobes of the brain and 'drawing pictures' the rear. Yurgelun-Todd ( 2007) observed that adults more often use the anterior lobes of the brain than children to recognise and interpret words. We can interpret this as a psychological consequence of the fact that the frontal lobes are not yet (fully) developed in children (Dekker & Jolles, 2016; Yurgelun-Todd, 2007). In the current study, we assume that this still counts when children have developed into teenagers (Crone, 2012).

That teenagers focus more than adults, on recognising and interpreting images (Yurgelun-Todd, 2007), may have implications for education. In this study, we investigate the difference in effectiveness between having students write down propositions or having them to make drawings based on personal associations to propositions. The value of visualisation for learning is for instance examined by Bull and Wittrock ( 1973). They showed that imagination, by making visual representations, can help the memory. In exploring students' drawings, Neumann and Hopf ( 2017) show links between students' understanding of a specific concept and their personal experiences. Leutner and Schmeck ( 2014) state that if students are asked to depict the contents of a text, they are invited thereby to tap deeper layers in learning and understanding of the material. On the other hand, Dunlosky, Rawson, March, Nathan, and Willingham ( 2013) state with respect to the use of imagery that (p. 26):

Nevertheless, the benefits of imagery are largely constrained to imagery-friendly materials and to tests of memory, and further demonstrations of the effectiveness of the technique (across different criterion tests and educationally relevant retention intervals) are needed.

In this study, we address the call of Dunlosky et al. ( 2013) by also testing over a longer period of time, i.e. four weeks after memorisation. We are further interested in assessing whether there is an additional memory advantage when students mutter during memorisation. This is an interesting question as MacLeod et al. ( 2010) have reported that talking aloud may increase recall of words to be learned.

Research questions and hypotheses

1.

Does drawing pictures about science propositions result in better memory recall of propositions than writing them down?

The second question pertains to the way students pay attention to the content of the propositions during the drawing or writing activities:

2.

Does muttering during drawing or writing science propositions result in better memory recall than using inner silent speech?

On the basis of the above literature review, we formulated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. We expect drawing during memorisation to result in a better reproduction than when writing during memorisation.

Hypothesis 2. We expect muttering while memorisation to result in a better reproduction than when learning in silence.

Method

Materials

In this study, we examine students' ability to reproduce nine scientific propositions ( Table 1) around certain phenomena in the fields of physics and chemistry. The propositions include safety prescriptions, cause-effect propositions and statements usable during (theory) classes or practicums. All propositions are briefly formulated and stated in active form and formulated in the Dutch language. The number of words ranges from 4-10 ( M = 6.78; SD = 2.04). The average number of letters per word ranges from 2-18 ( M = 10:11; SD = 3.70). There are two propositions consisting of 4 words (the shortest propositions), and there is one proposition consisting of 10 words (the longest proposition). The number of monosyllabic words is 40. The number of monosyllabic words per proposition ranges from one to nine ( M = 4:44; SD = 2.50). The number of nouns per proposition ranges from two to three ( M  = 2:22; SD = 0.42).

Participants

We conducted the experiment in eight classes of the same school: four 9th-grade and four 10th-grade pre-university education classes. One hundred and fifty-seven students participated in this study, 92 girls and 65 boys. All students were between 13 and 15 years old (average 13.77 years, standard deviation 0.72). The school is located in a rural region in the Northern part of the Netherlands. The propositions are stated in Dutch, so where mentioned in the article, they are translations of the Dutch propositions.

Students from each of the eight classes were assigned to either a writing condition or a drawing condition, using a 'heads' or 'tails' throw. The resulting 16 groups were systematically assigned to either a 'muttering' condition or a silent condition. In total, there were 74 students in the 'writing' condition and 83 students in the 'drawing' condition. In total, 76 students learned in silence and 81 were instructed to mutter (without disturbing others). Students were informed that their performance on the reproduction test would be graded, but students' term score could only positively influence their term score.

Design

The design is based on two essential components of memorisation methods. The first component is the mode of encoding and the second component refers to the mode of rehearsal. In this experiment, each component can take two values. In Table 2, we portray the four resulting conditions (2 × 2 design). Concerning encoding, we make a distinction between drawing and writing. Concerning rehearsal, we make a distinction between silent rehearsal and rehearsal by talking or muttering.

29 November 2017

In this study, students in condition D4, writing and silent, constitute the control group. Students usually apply this method when memorising in class or in a library. The other conditions constitute experimental methods. Students in condition D2, the drawing and talking condition, were instructed to use a method that deviates strongly from their usual practice.

Measuring the memorisation effects

Three reproduction tests were conducted one immediately after the instruction and memorisation episode, a second one week later and a third four weeks after the initial instruction and memorisation episode.

Procedure

One week before the start of the experiment, students were informed that they were to participate in a memory test. At the start of the experiment, the researcher informed the students that their task was to study and memorise a list of nine propositions. The students were asked to reproduce as many propositions as they could on three occasions (five minutes, one week and four weeks after memorisation).

Depending on the condition, students received instruction to either draw a picture to summarise the content of each of the nine propositions or to write the propositions down on paper. All students were shown the same nine propositions. These propositions (included in PowerPoint) were projected on a classroom wall by means of a data projector. The proposition was read aloud twice by the researcher (or by a colleague when the researcher could not be present), and then the proposition was displayed for 45 seconds. We choose 45 seconds to facilitate ample opportunity to rehearse the propositions several times (Boyd, 2015). During the 45 seconds that each proposition was displayed, students either made a drawing or wrote the proposition down on a sheet provided by the experimenter. The time on task was the same in all conditions. The instruction to the drawing groups read:

The intention is you draw the most important parts of the sentence so that you can remember the sentence. You only have to draw and / or use strip symbols, you are not allowed to write words. The notes of a sentence you make have to support your memorization of the sentences. While drawing, do not speak with the teachers or pupils.

The instruction to the writing groups read: 'The intention is you write the complete sentence so that you can remember the sentence. You only have to write and you are not allowed to make a drawing. While writing, do not speak with the teachers or pupils.' The students were instructed to take full advantage of the available time for memorisation by repeating the content of the propositions silently or by muttering. Students were told that they would not be assessed on correct spelling or grammar. Students in the drawing condition were told that their drawing would not be part of any assessment. After the presentation, which lasted nine minutes, students returned their sheets to the researcher/supervisor. Then after five minutes, the researcher/supervisor asked the students to write down as many of the nine propositions as they could recall. Students had five minutes to write the propositions down on a new blank sheet of paper. All students were once again told that they would be asked to reproduce as many propositions as they could after one week and again three weeks after that. The reproduction tests were all conducted in the same manner. Students had to write down as many propositions as they could recall. The testing procedure (writing down) corresponds to the usual way students reproduce what they have learned in class. Of course, during the second and third assessment occasions, the PowerPoint presentation episode was not repeated.

Scoring procedure and outcome measures

After each test occasion, the numbers of correctly reproduced propositions were counted. The order of the reproduced propositions was allowed to deviate from the order during the initial presentation. Propositions were counted correct if all three components (subject, verb and a correct relation) were correctly reproduced. Only a 'correctly reproduced proposition' was awarded one point. Partially correctly reproduced propositions were awarded no point. As a result, students could receive a minimum score of no point and a maximum score of 9 points on each reproduction test.

To illustrate the scoring procedure we provide two examples:

One of the propositions read: 'You put your hair in a ponytail with an elastic band.' One student replied: 'With a rubber band you do your hair in a ponytail.' That response contained tail, hair, and to do. Therefore, it was scored as correct recall (score 1 point).

Another proposition was: 'You heat sugar in a test tube.' One of the students responded with: 'note in a test tube starch'. Since this answer only contains the word 'test tube', the response was scored as incorrect recall.

Data analysis

We conducted a repeated measurement analysis of variance to examine the differences in reproduction scores between the four memorisation conditions on the three occasions. The four conditions were specified as a between-subjects factor and the three measurements as a within-subjects factor. The writing group that received instruction to rehearse the propositions in silence was designated as control condition, since the learning method of this condition corresponds with the learning practice that is advocated by most teachers. The other three groups were designated as experimental conditions. Contrast analysis was used to assess the significance of the differences between the four conditions in reproduction scores and the decrease between the first and later test occasions.

Results

Table 3 summarises the descriptive statistics about student performance in the four conditions. Table 3 shows that there are clear differences between conditions in the reproduction scores.

Published online:

29 November 2017

A statistical tests of the differences between the conditions reveals that the four conditions differ significantly in mean reproduction scores on the three measurement occasions: F (3,153) = 19.85; p < .01, η 2 =  0.16. Notice in Table 3 that there is a large difference in the reproduction scores of the drawing groups and the writing groups during the three measurements. Students in the drawing groups have average reproduction scores near or above seven on all three measurements. Students in the writing groups have average reproduction scores near or above seven on the first measurement, but on the succeeding measurements, the average scores drop to average reproduction scores of less than six. Notice also that there is a large difference in the reproduction scores of the drawing groups and the writing groups, especially on the second and third measurement occasion. Students in the drawing groups reproduced on average about three propositions more than the students in the writing groups. On average these students have significantly higher reproduction scores than students in the writing groups ( T = 4.71; p < .01).

This result allows us to accept hypothesis 1, which read: 'We expect drawing during memorisation to result in a better reproduction than writing.' We thus conclude that on average students in the drawing group achieve higher reproduction scores than students in the writing groups. Hypothesis 1 is thus confirmed. In the section 'Drawing versus writing' we will elaborate on this result.

The overall difference in reproduction scores between the three measurement occasions proves to be significant: F (2, 152) = 36.11, p < .01,  = 0.32. Figure 1 shows that the average number of reproduced propositions is fairly high in all four groups immediately after memorisation but rapidly decreases afterwards. The amount of the decrease differs between the four conditions: F (6,304) = 5.81;  = 0.10. The presence of this interaction effect and the nature of the decrease was the reason for further investigation of the differences between conditions in memory performances on the measurement occasions. p < .01,

29 November 2017

Looking in more detail at Figure 1, it becomes apparent that students in the writing group who received instruction to memorise while muttering (D3) achieved the lowest reproduction scores on all three occasions. Figure 1 further shows that the students in the other writing group, the students who received instruction to memorise silently (D4), unexpectedly achieved somewhat higher reproductions scores. Both writing groups performed less well after the first measurement than students in both drawing conditions. Figure 1 shows that the difference in the reproduction scores on the second and third occasion of measurement between the writing and drawing groups increased. In other words, in the long-term (between the first and the last measurement there are four weeks) students in the drawing group retain a higher reproduction level than the students in the writing group. Figure 1 further shows that the differences between students in the drawing group who received instruction to memorise silently and those who receive instruction to talk during drawing are small.

Talking during memorisation versus silent memorisation

Figure 1 shows that in both writing groups the average reproduction score dropped sharply after the first measurement. Strikingly, the scores of students who received instruction to talk or mutter while writing (D3) are significantly lower on the first and second measurement that those of students who received instruction to write in silence ( T = −2.42; p = .018 on the first measurement, T = −2.45; p = .017 on second measurement and T = −1.11; p = .27 on the third measurement). This allows us to reject hypothesis 2, which read: 'We expect muttering while learning to result in a better reproduction than when learning in silence.'

Drawing versus writing

Analysis of the measurement data reveals that there is a significant overall difference between the drawing and writing groups in the reproduction scores on the three measurement occasions: F (1,156) = 3400.809, p < .01, η ² = 0.120. See Table 4 and Figure 2.

29 November 2017

The drawing and writing groups differ sharply in the decrease regarding the reproduction scores after measurement occasion 1. This is shown in Figure 2. In the drawing groups, the observed decrease between the first and last measurement is only 0.37. The decrease in the writing groups is significantly larger: 1.70. This signifies that students in the drawing groups maintain a much higher reproduction level in the long term than the writing groups. The control group in this experimental study (writing propositions in combination with silent rehearsal) mirrors the usual learning practice. Students in this group did not achieve the lowest reproduction scores, but this group had significantly lower reproduction scores than both drawing groups on the second test occasion ( T = 2.22, p = .03, Cohen's d = 0.43) and on the third test occasion ( T = 3.45, p = .001, d  = 0.71).

Discussion

In order to master science content, it is essential to develop a sound knowledge base to ground students' problem-solving. The major goal of this study was to investigate and evaluate the differential effectiveness of drawing and writing as memorisation tactics to improve students' memory of propositions relevant in the field of science. In addition, we aimed to assess the additional value of talking or muttering while performing both tactics.

The results of this study allow us to answer the following two hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 reads: we expect drawing during memorisation to result in a better reproduction than when writing during memorisation. This study provides evidence that confirms this hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 reads: we expect muttering while memorisation to result in a better reproduction than when learning in silence. This study points out to reject this hypothesis. There is no significant difference between the memorisation tactics learning while muttering or silently.

Our study shows that students remember significantly more propositions after receiving instruction to make associated drawings, than after receiving instruction to write propositions on paper. Our study further reveals that, while drawing is more effective than writing down propositions, it does not matter whether students perform both activities in silence or muttering. This result seems to contradict the results of MacLeod et al. ( 2010), at least in the context of memorising propositions. The results of this study seems to conflict with previous findings of MacLeod et al. ( 2010). This conflict might be the result of differences in the tasks used (recognition and recall tasks). Our research casts doubt on the usefulness of muttering in addition to either drawing or writing propositions as information encoding tactics to support the recall of scientific propositions. Further research is necessary to clarify this contradiction.

The results about the effectiveness of drawing pictures to summarise propositions as a memory tactic match with earlier studies about the usefulness of drawing as a memory tactic. Wammes et al. ( 2016) established the effectiveness of drawing as a means to remember words. These authors assume that drawing prepares for a seamless integration of semantic, visual and motor aspects into a memory trace. In this integrated context, students learn to remember a proposition in connection with prior knowledge. Van Meter ( 2001) observed that drawing as a learning strategy improved students' recall of a two-page science text. Van Meter and Garner ( 2005, p. 317) speculate that the graphical representation helps constructing the internal nonverbal representation and persistent nonverbal memory traces. This may improve memory retrieval later. In contrast to the former two studies, our study investigated the effects of drawing on memory over a longer period. It provides evidence that drawing pictures to summarise propositions helps in creating a long lasting effect on students' memory.

Besides theoretical implications, the results of our study also have implications for teaching and learning in science education. In contrast to traditional investigations about memory retrieval, which focused on memorisation of lists of unconnected words or (parts of) texts, our investigation, focused on memory retrieval of common used meaningful propositions in daily-life classroom practice. Our study supports claims of earlier studies that making drawings can contribute to further and thorough understanding of abstract concepts (Katz, 2017; Pals, 2003). An interesting question regarding the development of a sound knowledge base concerns the reproduction effect of drawing if more abstract propositions are used.

Another interesting question to investigate concerns the way students focus their attention while learning the propositions and finally how do they spend their time during memorisation. In other words, is there is a 'time on task' effect (Slavin, 2013) that has an impact in memorisation when students construct their drawing.

A limitation of the design we used in the present study is that it did not allow us to control for a possible confounding effect due to subsequent test periods, which may help students to retain information (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). It is not impossible that testing after drawing promotes the retrieval of a visual image, which in itself offers a more powerful opportunity for re-encoding propositional information than testing after writing sentences on paper. Further research is necessary to resolve this issue.

In the broader context of education, it deserves further investigation whether the results of this study will also apply to other subjects, at other ages, and on different levels of education. Drawing as a memorisation method to develop a sound knowledge base, as applied in this study, is not a common practice in secondary education, but strategies like these can contribute to learning that is more meaningful.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the knowledge base of teaching strategies in science education. In science education, it is considered essential to prime students' prior knowledge of concrete situations to link it to abstract concepts. We assume that these links are helpful in developing students' skilfulness for solving problems. In this article, the focus is on comparing the effectiveness of different memory strategies in the domain of science. By analysing whether the development is better served by writing down on paper for further study or by making drawings, this study reveals that students remember significantly more propositions after receiving instruction to make associated drawings than after receiving instruction to write propositions on paper.

This research was conducted in science education, but the findings could also apply to other subjects, because every subject domain uses words, sentences, rules relations and concepts. Another relevant outcome of this study is the long-term effect of on memory of making drawings (four weeks). The beneficial effect of this memory strategy can enable students to ground a solid prior knowledge, to construct relations between fields of knowledge to improve students' capacity in applying higher cognitive processes and deep learning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Propositions to remember

Concept of the propositions

1. You put your hair in a ponytail with an elastic band

Safety instructions in practical chemistry and physics related to the hair

2. With your pencil, you draw a figure

Use of visual aids in making chemical and physical lab setups and an example of carbon layers in graphite when drawing with a pencil

3. You heat sugar in a test tube

A chemical reaction (decomposition) during a practicum

4. Your pen drops. Now it has a scratch

Falling bodies in mechanics and the relation with (potential - and) kinetic energy

5. The Aldel plant produces aluminium

Part of a process line (inorganic) raw material to finished product

6. After one day in the sun, your skin is tanned

Example of a chemical reaction under the influence of light

7. The laundry is hanging to dry

Evaporation process of a liquid (water)

8. You make wine from grape juice

Part of a process line (organic) from a raw material to a finished product

9. You use vinegar to remove the calcium deposits in the coffee maker

Practical application of a chemical (acid-base) reaction

Mode of encoding the propositions

Mode of rehearsing the propositions

Drawing

Writing

Silent

D1

D4

Talking

D2

D3

Condition/Measurement

Mean

Std. deviation

n

Memorisation group

Measurement

Mean

Std. deviation

n

References

Allen, R. J. , Baddeley, A. D. , & Hitch, G. J. (2006). Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 298-313. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.298

Baddeley, A. D. , & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.

Boers, F. , Eyckmans, J. , & Stengers, H. (2006). Motivational multiword units: Rationale, mnemonic benefits, and cognitive style variables. In S. H. Foster-Cohen, M. Medved Krajnovic, & J. Miihaljevic Djigunovic (Eds.), Eurosla yearbook 6 (pp. 169-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Boyd, L. (2015). After watching this, your brain will not be the same. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNHBMFCzznE

Cyr, M. , Nee, D. E. , Nelson, E. , Senger, T. , Jonides, J. , & Malapani, C. (2017). Effects of proactive interference on non-verbal working memory. Cognitive Processing, 18(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10339-016-0784-3

Dunlosky, J. , Rawson, K. A. , March, E. J. , Nathan, M. J. , & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266

Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Chemical education research: Where from here? University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 34-38.

Katz, P. (2017). Drawing for science education: An international perspective (1st ed.). Rotterdam: Sense.

Kosslyn, S. M. , Jolicoeur, P. , & Gluck, M. A. (1984). Pictures and names: Making the connection. Cognitive Instruction, 16(16), 243-275.

Leutner, D. , & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. (2nd ed., pp. 433-448). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

MacLeod, C. M. , Gopie, N. , Hourihan, K. L. , Neary K. R. , Oorschot, F. , & Ozubko, J. D. (2010). The production effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 671-685. doi: 10.1037/a0018785

Mayer, R. E. (2014b). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Neumann, S. , & Hopf, M. (2017). Discovering children's science association utilizing drawings. In P. Katz (Ed.), Drawing for science education. An international perspective. (1st ed., pp. 111-121). Rotterdam: Sense.

Novak, J. D. , & Canas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Pensacola, FL: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.

Pals, F. F. B. (2003). Een samenvatting in beelden [Pictured abstract of learning content]. Impuls, 11(1), 31-36.

Pol, H. J. , Harskamp, E. G. , Suhre, C. J. , & Goedhart, M. J. (2008). The effect of hints and model answers in a student-controlled problem-solving program for secondary physics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(4), 410-425. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9110-x

Presley, M. , Cariligia-Bull, T. , Deane, S. , & Schneider, W. (1987). Short-term memory, verbal competence, and age as predictors of imagery instructional effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 194-211. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(87)90059-2

Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Multimedia learning (2nd. ed., pp. 72-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Slavin, Robert E. (2013). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (10th ed.). London: Pearson Education Limited.

TALIS. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/edu/school/43023606.pdf

Wammes, J. D. , Meade, M. E. , & Fernandes, M. A. (2016). The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1752-1776. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1094494

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Memorisation methods in science education: tactics to improve the teaching and learning practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ABSTRACT ABSTRACT How can science teachers support students in developing an appropriate declarative knowledge base for solving problems? This article focuses on the question whether the development of students' memory of scientific propositions is better served by writing propositions down on paper or by making drawings of propositions either by silent or muttering rehearsal.

# data[].attributes.headline
Note Taking - Summarise main ideas visually

# data[].attributes.subject
Note Taking - Summarise main ideas visually

# data[].attributes.headline
Content Creation - Take content and visualise to share to a larger audience

# data[].attributes.subject
Content Creation - Take content and visualise to share to a larger audience

# data[].attributes.headline
A 5-Step Guide to Making Your Own Instructional Videos (Edutopia)

# data[].attributes.subject
A 5-Step Guide to Making Your Own Instructional Videos (Edutopia)

# data[].attributes.headline
Mind Map - Brainstorm and organise ideas

# data[].attributes.subject
Mind Map - Brainstorm and organise ideas

# data[].attributes.headline
Storytelling - Conveying of events through image and text

# data[].attributes.subject
Storytelling - Conveying of events through image and text

# data[].attributes.headline
Memory Aid - Visualisation beat text to remember 

# data[].attributes.subject
Memory Aid - Visualisation beat text to remember 

# data[].attributes.headline
Reflection - "We don't learn from experiences, we learn from reflections of experiences." John Dewey

# data[].attributes.subject
Reflection - "We don't learn from experiences, we learn from reflections of experiences." John Dewey

# data[].attributes.headline
Anchor Charts for supporting instructions

# data[].attributes.subject
Anchor Charts for supporting instructions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 7 free-recall experiments, the benefit of creating drawings of to-be-remembered information relative to writing was examined as a mnemonic strategy. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were presented with a list of words and were asked to either draw or write out each. Drawn words were better recalled than written. Experiments 3-5 showed that the memory boost provided by drawing could not be explained by elaborative encoding (deep level of processing, LoP), visual imagery, or picture superiority, respectively. In Experiment 6, we explored potential limitations of the drawing effect, by reducing encoding time and increasing list length. Drawing, relative to writing, still benefited memory despite these constraints. In Experiment 7, the drawing effect was significant even when encoding trial types were compared in pure lists between participants, inconsistent with a distinctiveness account. Together these experiments indicate that drawing enhances memory relative to writing, across settings, instructions, and alternate encoding strategies, both within- and between-participants, and that a deep LoP, visual imagery, or picture superiority, alone or collectively, are not sufficient to explain the observed effect. We propose that drawing improves memory by encouraging a seamless integration of semantic, visual, and motor aspects of a memory trace.

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall - Jeffrey D. Wammes, Melissa E. Meade, Myra A. Fernandes, 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 7 free-recall experiments, the benefit of creating drawings of to-be-remembered information relative to writing was examined as a mnemonic strategy. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were presented with a list of words and were asked to either draw or write out each. Drawn words were better recalled than written.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Want students to remember something? Ask them to draw it.

It's long been known that drawing something helps a person remember it. A new study shows that drawing is superior to activities such as reading or writing because it forces the person to process information in multiple ways: visually, kinesthetically, and semantically. Across a series of experiments, researchers found drawing information to be a powerful way to boost memory, increasing recall by nearly double.

Myra Fernandes, Jeffrey Wammes, and Melissa Meade are experts in the science of memory-how people encode, retain, and recall information. At the University of Waterloo, they conducted experiments to better understand how activities such as writing, looking at pictures, listening to lectures, drawing, and visualizing images affect a student's ability to remember information.

In an early experiment, they asked undergraduate students to study lists of common terms-words like truck and pear -and then either write down or illustrate those words. Shortly afterward, participants recalled 20 percent of words they had written down, but more than twice as many-45 percent-of the terms they had drawn. This experiment helped to establish the benefits of drawing.

In a follow-up experiment, the researchers compared two methods of note-taking-writing words by hand versus drawing concepts-and found drawing to be "an effective and reliable encoding strategy, far superior to writing." The researchers found that when the undergraduates visually represented science concepts like isotope and spore, their recall was nearly twice as good as when they wrote down definitions supplied by the lecturer.

Importantly, the benefits of drawing were not dependent on the students' level of artistic talent, suggesting that this strategy may work for all students, not just ones who are able to draw well.

Across a total of eight experiments, the researchers confirmed drawing to be a "reliable, replicable means of boosting performance"-it provided a significant boost to students' ability to remember what they were learning.

Why is drawing such a powerful memory tool? The researchers explain that it "requires elaboration on the meaning of the term and translating the definition to a new form (a picture)." Unlike listening to a lecture or viewing an image-activities in which students passively absorb information-drawing is active. It forces students to grapple with what they're learning and reconstruct it in a way that makes sense to them.

The researchers also suggest that drawing results in better recall because of how the information is encoded in memory. When a student draws a concept, they "must elaborate on its meaning and semantic features, engage in the actual hand movements needed for drawing (motor action), and visually inspect [the] created picture (pictorial processing)."

At a neural level, the strength of a memory depends largely on how many connections are made to other memories. An isolated piece of information-such as a trivial fact-is soon forgotten in the brain's constant effort to prune away unused knowledge. The opposite, however, is also true: The more synaptic connections a memory has, the more it resists eventually being forgotten.

So when we draw, we encode the memory in a very rich way, layering together the visual memory of the image, the kinesthetic memory of our hand drawing the image, and the semantic memory that is invoked when we engage in meaning-making. In combination, this greatly increases the likelihood that the concept being drawn will later be recalled.

This Is Not About Learning Styles

It would be a mistake to think that drawing is beneficial because it taps into a particular learning style. Research has debunked the idea that students learn best when teachers try to match instruction to a single modality.

Instead, what's happening is that drawing taps into multiple modalities-visual, kinesthetic, and semantic-which is superior to tapping into only one. When students draw something, they process it in three different ways, in effect learning it three times over.

In the Classroom

Student-created learning aids: Instead of buying or printing posters that reinforce learning-maps, anchor charts, or diagrams-have students create them.

Interactive notebooks: Don't let students take notes verbatim-push them to be creative. One side of their notebooks can be used for written notes, the other for drawings, diagrams, and charts.

Data visualization: Asking students to collect, analyze, and present data in visual form can deepen their understanding of a topic. Examples include visualizing concepts in math, analyzing classical literature, and exploring fractals.

Bookmaking: Blending academics and art, students at Symonds Elementary create their own books to visually represent topics in subjects ranging from science to English language arts. Students can also create comics books to tell stories or describe events.

Assessing learning through art: Jill Fletcher, a middle school teacher in Hawaii, uses "one-pagers" to challenge students to show their understanding about a topic through art, making it less about finding the "single correct answer" and more about crafting a response they can stand behind. And students at Normal Park Museum Magnet School create travel journals as a visible record of their learning.

There are several ways that teachers can incorporate drawing to enrich learning.

The takeaway: Encourage students to draw. Doing so is a powerful tool to boost student learning because it improves recall by challenging students to explore an idea in different ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Want students to remember something? Ask them to draw it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Data Vizualisation for deeper understanding

# data[].attributes.subject
Data Vizualisation for deeper understanding

# data[].attributes.body
Collect, analyse, and present data in visual form

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My students couldn't get past the language, the sizes of the different numbers, or the science concepts addressed in the question. In short, I had effectively shut them down, and I needed a new approach to bring them back to their learning. So I started drawing on the whiteboard and created something with a little whimsy, a cartoon photon asking how much energy a photon has.

Immediately, students started yelling out, "2.48 × 10⁻¹⁹ joules," and they could even cite the text where they had learned the information. I knew I was on to something, so the next thing I drew was a series of boxes with our friend the photon.

If all of the photons in the image below were to hit in one second, how much energy is represented in the drawing?

Students realized that we were just adding up all the individual energy from each photon and then quickly realized that this was multiplication. And then they knew that the question we were trying to answer was just figuring out the number of photons, and since we knew the total energy in one second, we could compute the number of photons by division.

The point being, we reached a place where my students were able to process the learning. The power of the visual representation made all the difference for these students, and being able to sequence through the problem using the visual supports completely changed the interactions they were having with the problem.

If you're like me, you're thinking, "So the visual representations worked with this problem, but what about other types of problems? Surely there isn't a visual model for every problem!"

The power of this moment, the change in the learning environment, and the excitement of my fifth graders as they could not only understand but explain to others what the problem was about convinced me it was worth the effort to pursue visualization and try to answer these questions: Is there a process to unlock visualizations in math? And are there resources already available to help make mathematics visual?

I realized that the first step in unlocking visualization as a scaffold for students was to change the kind of question I was asking myself. A powerful question to start with is: "How might I represent this learning target in a visual way?" This reframing opens a world of possible representations that we might not otherwise have considered. Thinking about many possible visual representations is the first step in creating a good one for students.

The Progressions published in tandem with the Common Core State Standards for mathematics are one resource for finding specific visual models based on grade level and standard. In my fifth-grade example, what I constructed was a sequenced process to develop a tape diagram-a type of visual model that uses rectangles to represent the parts of a ratio. I didn't realize it, but to unlock my thinking I had to commit to finding a way to represent the problem in a visual way. Asking yourself a very simple series of questions leads you down a variety of learning paths, and primes you for the next step in the sequence-finding the right resources to complete your visualization journey.

Posing the question of visualization readies your brain to identify the right tool for the desired learning target and your students. That is, you'll more readily know when you've identified the right tool for the job for your students. There are many, many resources available to help make this process even easier, and I've created a matrix of clickable tools, articles, and resources.

The process to visualize your math instruction is summarized at the top of my Visualizing Math graphic; below that is a mix of visualization strategies and resources you can use tomorrow in your classroom.

Our job as educators is to set a stage that maximizes the amount of learning done by our students, and teaching students mathematics in this visual way provides a powerful pathway for us to do our job well. The process of visualizing mathematics tests your abilities at first, and you'll find that it makes both you and your students learn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Power of Visualization in Math | Edutopia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My students couldn't get past the language, the sizes of the different numbers, or the science concepts addressed in the question. In short, I had effectively shut them down, and I needed a new approach to bring them back to their learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
iPad Screenshots

Because beautiful tools make beautiful drawings, we endlessly refined Sketches brushes to create the most realistic drawing tools.

Sketches school is a special edition of Sketches targeted for a younger audience, with a specifically designed interface making it very accessible to kids.

Sketches is the most realistic, versatile and user-friendly sketching app designed for iPad. This exhaustive artist's toolbox helps users create dazzling sketches, cheerful paintings and smashing illustrations on the go.

* Features
- Over 20 ultra realistic tools
- Import photos

* Folders
Easily organize your drawings in beautiful and easy to personalize folders.

* Pressure Stylus support
Discover even more realistic brushes while Apple Pencil.

A Unique feeling: Each stroke behaves vividly and truly like a brush on paper, adapting the opacity, angle, and width to your movements.

* List of tools
- Pencil
- Marker
- Felt Pen
- Pen Brush
- Oil Pastel
- Watercolor
- Acrylic brush
- Airbrush
- Area and Filling tool
- Text
- Shapes
- Eraser
- Cutter
- Smudge tool
- Ruler

There is one thing...

When I go to the text thing to enter text on the page, and I want to click 'enter' to go down, it got out of the text editor. I thought it was going to actually enter down the text (like what most apps use). You guys could do that and then click anywhere else on the screen to exit. Just a suggestion!

A few days ago the folder icon on the top of the screen disappeared and now I have no way to get out of the current picture except restarting the iPad. I am on an iPad Pro 12.9 inch. Could you please fix this problem?

While Less Features Than Sketches Pro, This IS STILL A Very Good Version of Tayasui Sketches!

The one thing I really like about the "School" version of Tayasui Sketches is if you have to use your finger OR any type of common capacitive stylus, the line work will get thick or thin based on the speed that you draw the line stroke at.
This is a great feature if not using an Apple Pencil on the 2018 iPad or using this app on other iPads that cannot use the Apple Pencil, but can still use other types of capacitive or "active" battery powered capacitive stylii
Good work on getting a great student version of this app!
I think it's terrific that you were able to do this version for elementary and high school students to get their hands on and use. Whether they have a Apple Pencil or Logitech Crayon or just their fingers!
Great Job!

This is my love sketches school

I'm a student at Jersey shore elementary school there was a teacher that was named Mrs. Taylor she is the best she created an app that's called sketchers school I love it and all my classmates love it to some of them don't love it because they weren't here from last year the reason I love it is because it lets me use multiple tools that let me do my artAnd I love it and I can download it on my home iPad and on my school iPad that's just amazing to me it doesn't have to be a school electronic to download it so yeah that is why I love sketchers schools

The developer, Tayasui.com, indicated that the app's privacy practices may include handling of data as described below. For more information, see the developer's privacy policy.

Data Not Linked to You

The following data may be collected but it is not linked to your identity:

Privacy practices may vary, for example, based on the features you use or your age. Learn More

Information

Languages

English, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Simplified Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Traditional Chinese

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
‎Because beautiful tools make beautiful drawings, we endlessly refined Sketches brushes to create the most realistic drawing tools. Sketches school is a special edition of Sketches targeted for a younger audience, with a specifically designed interface making it very accessible to kids. Sketches i...

# data[].attributes.headline
Elements of Sketchnoting (Sylivia Duckworth) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Elements of Sketchnoting (Sylivia Duckworth) 

# data[].attributes.headline
Learn to sketchnote with Sylvia Duckworth #sketchnotefever

# data[].attributes.subject
Learn to sketchnote with Sylvia Duckworth #sketchnotefever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hello sketchnoter friends!

Please click here to receive regular email updates to this page (Note: Not necessary to sign up again if you already signed up on the pop-up form to this website).

Welcome to the page for #SKETCHNOTEFEVER resources. This campaign was designed to bring awareness to sketchnoting and to build people's visual dictionaries or vocabularies for use in sketchnotes.

What is sketchnoting? Sketchnoting, or visual note-taking, is an effective and fun way to take notes using doodles and text. It has many other benefits such as increased focus and engagement in class, improved comprehension and memory retention, helps develop creative thinking skills and allows students an alternative way to display their learning and make connections to course content. It has a calming and relaxing effect too! ( Click here for articles and studies that support sketchnoting.)

Please click the links below for the 3-minute video lessons (Note that you might need to pause the video from time to time while you and your students are drawing if it goes too fast). There is also a link to a slide with the icons which you can use or show your students afterwards.

Please note that these are only mini-lessons for sketchnoting. For a detailed teacher's manual on how to sketchnote, check out my new book published by ElevateBooksEdu which you can order from

Please note that a new, UPDATED VERSION of my book is now available with 100+ new icons, new fonts, a new "Icons with shapes" activity and all thirty-four #sketchnotefever lessons below!

(Animation above by the amazing Brian Briggs)

1. School icons: for the video. for the slide.
2. Easy fonts: for the video. for the slide.
3. Animal icons: for the video. for the slide.
4. Fancy fonts: for the video. for the slide.
5. Transportation icons: for the video. for the slide.
6. More fancy fonts: for the video. for the slide.
7. Weather icons: for the video. for the slide.
8. Food and drink icons: for the video. for the slide.
9. Halloween icons: for the video. for the slide.
10. Banners: for the video. for the slide.
11. Containers/frames: for the video. for the slide.
12. Arrows: for the video. for the slide.
13. Bullets and Dividers: for the video. for the slide.
14. Faces: for the video. for the slide.
15. Female hairstyles: for the video. for the slide.
16. Male Hairstyles: for the video. for the slide.
17. People: for the video. for the slide.
18. School subject icons: for the video. for the slide.
19. More icons: for the video. for the slide.
20. Remembrance Day/Veteran's Day icons: for the video. for the slide. Bonus lesson: Even more icons! for the video. for the slide.
21. Winter Holidays: for the video. for the slide.

22. Spring icons: for the video. for the slide.
23. Summer icons: for the video. for the slide.
24. Fall icons: for the video. for the slide.
25. Sports icons: for the video. for the slide.
26. Space icons: for the video. for the slide.
27. Travelling icons: for the video. for the slide.
28. Musical instruments: for the video. for the slide.
29. Hands: for the video. for the slide.
30. Baby icons: for the video. for the slide.
31. Wedding icons: for the video. for the slide.
32. Social Media icons: for the video. for the slide.
33. Table icons: for the video. for the slide.
34. Kitchen icons: for the video. for the slide.
Please use the hashtag #SKETCHNOTEFEVER to tweet/Instagram/Facebook your drawings so that we can all share in our progress.
(Another creation by the brilliant Brian Briggs . Yes, he sketchnoted this. With a Google Tilt Brush!)

Did you complete all 34 #SKETCHNOTEFEVER lessons and post your drawings on social media? If so, contact me (with your full name) on or (@sylviaduckworth) or by email (sduckworth100@gmail.com) and you will receive a personalized certificate!

Or did you complete all 13 NEW #SKETCHNOTEFEVER lessons?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hello sketchnoter friends! Please click here to receive regular email updates to this page (Note: Not necessary to sign up again if you already signed up on the pop-up form to this website). Welcome to the page for #SKETCHNOTEFEVER resources. This campaign was designed to bring awareness to sketchnoting and to build people's visual...

# data[].attributes.body
www.frei-day.org