Summary of the results

This study, based on previous research finding assumed a positive effect of Leaner-Generated Drawing strategy in science learning. The author also extended the research questions to test the relative effectiveness of different supporting conditions accompanying LGD. First of all, the result showed that explicit instruction (DIPE) is apparently more effective than receiving illustration with LGD (DI) in all outcome measures, from retention test, transfer test to post mental model, for non-science major college students. Conversely, receiving illustration along with LGD demonstrated the poorest understanding among four experimental groups. The observation of learners’ serial drawings could be used as another approach to validate the results obtained from the statistical analyses. Researcher selected two typical leaners (participants A and B) benefited from the explicit instruction and their serial drawings at three time points either showed gradual or dramatic progress.

Second, the learning outcomes of receiving prompting questions (DIP) and pure LGD (D) were in between of (not significantly different from) the learning outcomes of either DIPE or DI. Without instruction, merely receiving prompting questions seemed to be a less effective external supports; however, if prompting questions could be given with an explicit strategy use instruction, the learning effects could be much better. The learners in these two conditions have shown various vague drawing patterns. Some of the learners reached a high quality level in pre mental model; some get regress eventually; some had no improvement; and some participants were more capable or willing to use verbal strategy (Participant C, F, G, and H).

44

Third, unexpectedly, pure LGD is not the least effective among four groups. The author suggests that illustration along with LGD might be used by learners as memory aid but not for the supports for selection, organization and integration. It is also possible that learners’ motivation or pre mental model result in an interaction effect with the treatment so that learning outcomes of DI group was unexpectedly the worst.

However, this study was not designed to explore the interaction effects of background factors (such as the interactions of pre mental model and motivation with treatment) but treated them as interferences that have been controlled. This study found two typical learners at the DI groups with poor pre mental models showed no improvement through three times of drawing who might simply give up learning or with low motivation and another learner showed un-interpretable learning pattern which could be also a low motivated participants.

Fourth, pre-mental model, motivation and the treatment explained about 1/4 percent variance of learner’s accuracy. Pre-mental model is the strongest predictor, followed by the treatment and motivation. The task-specific schemata, brought into the experiment, are assumed to be the most powerful cognitive factor exerting effect on the accuracy; however, a short treatment designed by the author showed a second strong influence on the accuracy. Apparently, LGD is a learner-active strategy (Wittrock, 1989, 1992) in which the learner’s engagement could enhance learning outcomes. There is no surprise to find that motivation showed the third powerful influence on accuracy.

Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 is supported that pre-mental model, treatment and motivation explains the learners’ accuracy. The hypothesis 2 has been rejected that illustration feedback has no positively effect on the outcomes. What’s more, the hypothesis 3 has also been rejected. The main effect of the prompting question showed an unclear result that the learning outcomes from group DIP showed no

45

statistically difference between group DIPI and D. However, the non-significant result still casts some light to my exploration that group DIP was positioned in between the others. Hypothesis 4 was supported because receiving instruction benefits learners’

understanding and the learners in DIPI group performed the best. Explicit instruction surly plays a crucial role to the effective of applying LGD.

The major outcome of this study are unanimous with the Generative Theory (Wittrock, 1989, 1992), which indicates participants would learn better when they actively engage in appropriate processing and receive supports while reading science text. Leaners that received prompting questions, illustration feedback, explicit instruction and used drawing strategy tended to gain significantly higher score on the post mental model, transfer test and even retention test.

Though the results do not completely support the original expectation, the outcomes still have some implications in applying Learner-Generated Drawing strategy. The results of this experiment suggest that that to reach the maximum efficiency of LGD teachers should arrange appropriate extra supports. The results are also consistent with the Generative Theory (Van Meter, 2001; Van Meter et al., 2006;

Van Meter & Garner, 2005), which posits that learners are more likely to construct meaningful learning outcome if they engaged more in generative process. Similar patterns have been found in other experiment outcomes. Van Meter (2001) had claimed that drawing strategy could assist learning. Leopold and Leutner (2012) also showed that students learned better on chemistry concepts by drawing strategy.

Hsieh’s research (2006) suggests about the benefits that student might get and the importance of this strategy.

Non-major college students perhaps mature enough to adopt LGD strategy; yet, with explicit instruction, leaners reached the peak of meaningful learning. The contribution of this study is that, unlike the past investigations focused on the external

46

supports, for a LGD to be most successful, it should be taught in explicit instruction with prompting questions.