Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

Empirical study

Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text

Logan Fiorella a,⇑, Richard E. Mayer b
a
University of Georgia, United States
b
University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two studies explored the role of the spontaneous use of spatial note-taking strategies (i.e., creating maps
Available online 5 January 2017 and drawings) and spatial ability in learning from a scientific passage. In Study 1, college students read
and took notes by hand on a 10-paragraph scientific passage about the human respiratory system.
Keywords: Students tended to use verbal strategies such as lists (on 48% of the paragraphs), outlines (29%) and run-
Learning strategies ning text (15%), but also used spatial strategies such as maps (28%) and drawings (11%). Regression anal-
Spatial ability yses indicated that spatial ability and the use of spatial strategies (maps or drawings) significantly
Scientific text
predicted learning outcomes, with spatial strategy use explaining additional variance beyond spatial abil-
Comprehension
Note taking
ity. In Study 2, students read the same scientific passage and took notes either by hand on paper (paper
group), by hand on a large whiteboard (whiteboard group), or on a laptop computer (computer group). A
similar general pattern as Study 1 was found for the paper group, but this pattern was not found for the
computer or whiteboard groups, suggesting that the relationships found in Study 1 might depend on the
note-taking medium. Results also indicated that students in the paper and whiteboard groups sponta-
neously used more spatial strategies, whereas the computer group tended to use verbal strategies (i.e.,
words only), suggesting that different note-taking contexts encourage different strategies.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Objective 2. Rationale

Although much attention has been directed toward the role of
spatial ability in learning in science, technology, mathematics
and engineering (STEM) disciplines, the present study examines
the additional role that might be played by spatial learning strate-
gies – specifically, the spontaneous use of spatial note-taking
strategies while studying scientific text. The goals of the present
studies are to determine (a) the unique roles of the spontaneous
use of spatial note-taking strategies (i.e., creating maps and draw-
ings) and spatial ability in explaining learning from a scientific pas-
sage, and (b) whether the medium in with which students take
notes (i.e., on paper, on a whiteboard, or on a computer) affects
the note-taking strategies that students spontaneously use and
the relationship between spatial note-taking strategies and learn-
ing outcomes.
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Educational Psychology, University of
Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States.
E-mail addresses: lfiorella@uga.edu (L. Fiorella), mayer@psych.ucsb.edu
(R.E. Mayer).
There is now substantial evidence that individual differences in
spatial ability predict students’ pursuit, persistence, and achieve-
ment in STEM disciplines (Wai, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009). In a
massive longitudinal study involving over 400,000 participants,
Wai et al. (2009) found that people who scored highly on measures
of spatial ability as adolescents were much more likely to achieve
advanced degrees and occupations in STEM fields than people with
lower spatial ability. Subsequent research has found similar evi-
dence linking spatial ability to STEM learning, likely because many
STEM concepts involve representing and manipulating complex
spatial relations (Uttal & Cohen, 2012), such as spatial configura-
tions of molecules in chemistry or the structures and processes
of the human respiratory system in biology.
One implication of this relationship is to attempt to improve
students’ general spatial skills through training. If certain spatial
skills are important for STEM fields, then targeted training might
enhance underlying cognitive processes that ultimately lead to
better academic learning. A meta-analysis by Uttal and colleagues
(Uttal et al., 2013) found evidence that spatial skills can be
improved through training (average Hedge’s g = 0.47) and can
transfer across different measures of spatial ability; however,
whether spatial training transfers to authentic STEM learning

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002
0361-476X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
remains unclear. As the authors noted, ‘‘. . . the lack of studies that
directly assess the effects of spatial training on performance in a
STEM discipline is disappointing” (p. 356). Furthermore, a long his-
tory of research on the transfer of learning suggests that transfer is
often highly domain-specific (e.g., Mayer & Wittrock, 2006;
Salomon & Perkins, 1989; Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901). As
one example related to spatial cognition, a study by Sims and
Mayer (2002) found that playing the game Tetris improved mental
rotation ability only for Tetris-like shapes. In short, the extent to
which spatial training yields educationally relevant benefits might
be limited, and, at this point, such benefits have not been convinc-
ingly demonstrated (Stieff & Uttal, 2015).
This suggests an alternative approach might be appropriate for
understanding the relationship between spatial ability and STEM
learning, and ultimately, for developing methods to enhance STEM
instruction. One possibility is that general spatial ability is related
to the use of domain-specific learning and problem-solving
strategies. For example, Stieff, Dixon, Ryu, Kumi, and Hegarty
(2014) found that training college students on mental imagery
and analytic problem-solving strategies in chemistry eliminated
gender differences in achievement. This finding suggests that
focusing on effective strategy use in a STEM discipline can improve
academic performance, and further, that ‘‘achievement is
dependent not only on spatial ability but also on strategy
choice . . .” (p. 390).
More broadly, a vast research literature demonstrates that
learning outcomes largely depend on the quality of strategies stu-
dents use during learning (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015, 2016; Dunlosky,
Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013; Weinstein & Mayer,
1985). Popular but suboptimal strategies include rereading,
restudying, underlining, highlighting, and verbatim note taking
(e.g., Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1979; Callender & McDaniel, 2009;
Fowler & Barker, 1974), whereas effective strategies involve deeper
generative processing, which require learners to actively organize
and integrate the material with their existing knowledge (Fiorella
& Mayer, 2015, 2016; Wittrock, 1990) – such as by self-testing,
self-explaining, explaining to others, creating a knowledge or con-
cept map, or drawing a diagram (e.g., Fiorella & Mayer, 2013;
Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Schwamborn, Mayer, Thillmann,
Leopold, & Leutner, 2010). Importantly, students can be taught to
use such strategies effectively with relatively little explicit instruc-
tion (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015, 2016; Dunlosky et al., 2013;
Weinstein & Mayer, 1985). Thus, strategy use might be more mal-
leable and transferrable to STEM contexts than general spatial abil-
ity. The present study focuses on students’ spontaneous use of a
particular class of strategies – called spatial learning strategies
(Fiorella & Mayer, 2015, 2016; Holley & Dansereau, 1984) – which
are especially useful in understanding STEM concepts.
3. Spatial learning strategies
Learning for understanding involves building a coherent
mental model based on the material’s underlying structure
(Gentner & Stevens, 1983; Kintsch, 1998; Mayer, 2014;
Wittrock, 1990), such as understanding a cause-and-effect system
or a hierarchy (Cook & Mayer, 1988). Spatial learning strategies
help students represent these structural features by making spa-
tial relations among the material more explicit (Holley &
Dansereau, 1984; Pressley, 1990). This advantage is especially
important when learning from scientific texts, for which no
external spatial representations of the material are provided to
the learner (e.g., Leopold & Leutner, 2012). Two of the most
common forms of spatial strategies are creating knowledge or
concept maps, and drawing diagrams.
67
3.1. Mapping
Learning by mapping involves creating an abstract spatial
arrangement of the text by connecting key ideas based on their
conceptual relationships (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015, 2016; Holley &
Dansereau, 1984). In research on mapping, learners create maps
by establishing their own conceptual labels for the relationships,
or they might be provided with labels (e.g., ‘‘part of,” ‘‘type of,”
or ‘‘leads to”). A classic study by Holley, Dansereau, McDonald,
Garland, and Collins (1979) demonstrates the benefits of teaching
students to engage in learning by mapping. College students
received training in creating knowledge maps for expository texts
(mapping group) or they did not receive training (control group).
Then students read a new text on geology while either creating a
knowledge map or taking notes normally. The mapping group out-
performed the control group on recall and recognition tests, with
the strongest effects for lower-achieving students. A subsequent
study by Roberts and Dansereau (2008) found that mapping was
more effective than creating verbal summaries for students with
low verbal ability, but less effective for students with high verbal
ability. This suggests that using a spatial strategy such as mapping
might be more effective than a verbal strategy for students with
low ability, although the study did not include a measure of spatial
ability.
A related form of mapping is to create or fill in a graphic orga-
nizer or matrix to spatially represent one’s notes, such as to repre-
sent a compare-and-contrast structure (e.g., Kiewra et al., 1991;
Robinson & Kiewra, 1995). For example, in a study by Jairam and
Kiewra (2010), college students read a text lesson presented on a
computer about different types of wildcats. Students were either
asked to take linear notes using a window on the screen or to fill
in an onscreen matrix that helped students organize different char-
acteristics attributed to each type of wildcat. Results indicated that
students who filled in a matrix organizer during learning per-
formed better on subsequent retention and comprehension tests,
compared to students who took notes normally. A more recent
study by Ponce and Mayer (2014) provides similar support for ask-
ing students to complete a matrix organizer when learning about
different types of steamboats. Overall, research on learning by
mapping suggests that creating knowledge or concept maps, or
using matrix or graphic organizers when learning from text is gen-
erally more effective than generating verbal summaries or using
one’s own note-taking techniques, particularly for low-ability stu-
dents (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015; Nesbit & Adesope, 2006).
3.2. Drawing
Learning by drawing involves creating a concrete illustration
that spatially depicts the key ideas in the text (Fiorella & Mayer,
2015, 2016; Leutner & Schmeck, 2014; Van Meter & Garner,
2005). In a classic study by Alesandrini (1981), college students
read a lesson about the chemistry of electric batteries. Some stu-
dents were asked to create drawings to represent each of the four-
teen components described in the lesson (drawing group), whereas
other students were asked to use a verbal paraphrase strategy
(paraphrase group). The drawing group outperformed the para-
phrase group on a subsequent test that included factual, compre-
hension, and transfer questions, providing early evidence for the
benefit of drawing over a purely verbal strategy.
In a more recent study, Leopold and Leutner (2012) compared
the effects of creating drawings (drawing group), generating verbal
summaries (summary group), or using no strategy (control group),
while learning from a scientific text about water molecules. Results
indicated that the drawing group outperformed the control group
68 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
on tests of comprehension and transfer, and the summary group
performed worse than the control group. Taken together with the
early findings from Alesandrini (1981), these results suggest that
when learning from a scientific text that describes complex spatial
relations, using a spatial learning strategy such as creating a draw-
ing is more effective than a verbal learning strategy such as writing
a summary. Overall, similarly to mapping, reviews of drawing
(Ainsworth, Prain, & Tytler, 2011; Fiorella & Mayer, 2015;
Leutner & Schmeck, 2014; Van Meter & Garner, 2005) indicate that
creating illustrations to depict a scientific text generally results in
better learning than generating verbal summaries or using one’s
own strategies.
4. Spontaneous spatial strategy use
It is important to note that the research discussed above
involved situations in which learners were told which strategy to
use and often were provided with training in how to use the strat-
egy. Much less research has systematically investigated the sponta-
neous use of spatial note-taking strategies (such as mapping and
drawing) when learning from a scientific text. Spontaneous strat-
egy use has often been studied by analyzing verbal think-aloud
protocols, such as the extent to which students generate self-
explanations during learning (e.g., Azevedo, Guthrie, & Seibert,
2004; Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989); or by analyzing
text-based note-taking or study strategies, such as the quantity
and quality of students’ lecture notes, or the information students
underline or highlight when reading a text (e.g., Kiewra & Benton,
1988; Peper & Mayer, 1986; Wade & Trathen, 1989). Strategy use is
also often assessed via self-report questionnaires (e.g., Cromley &
Azevedo, 2006; Kardash & Amlund, 1991) or interviews (e.g., Van
Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994). Although there is experimental
evidence that training students to engage in mapping or drawing
can promote learning (as discussed above), strategies imposed by
an experimenter likely do not reflect the types of strategies stu-
dents choose when learning on their own (Kardash & Amlund,
1991; Lahtinen, Lonka, & Lindblom-Ylanne, 1997; Wade &
Trathen, 1989). This is because students often report using ineffec-
tive strategies when studying on their own (Karpicke, Butler, &
Roediger, 2009), and without training, might employ effective
strategies inappropriately. Furthermore, studying spontaneous
strategy use requires students to select, employ, and monitor the
use of multiple strategies based on their own judgments about
the nature of the to-be-learned material and about which strate-
gies they believe are most appropriate, given their perceived level
of understanding. Thus, it is important to understand the types of
strategies that successful students employ spontaneously, and the
factors contributing to effective spontaneous strategy use.
A study by Lahtinen et al. (1997) provides preliminary evidence
that the spontaneous use of spatial learning strategies might sup-
port learning from text. Medical school applicants read text pas-
sages about risk theories or about health hazards and were told
they could take notes however they preferred. Students’ notes dur-
ing learning were coded based on one of five categories: no notes,
underlining only, verbatim notes, summary notes, or concept map-
ping. Each student was classified based on the most dominant
strategy used in his or her notes. Results indicated that students
who spontaneously used generative strategies – taking summary
notes or creating concept maps – performed better on a subse-
quent comprehension test, compared to students who did not take
notes or who chose rote strategies (underlining or verbatim notes).
However, this study is limited because it combined the use of sum-
mary notes or concept maps, and because it categorized students
based on the most dominant strategy rather than taking into
account that students might use multiple strategies during
learning.
In summary, research is needed to systematically explore stu-
dents’ spontaneous use of spatial strategies during learning. The
present study addressed this gap by closely examining the quality
of students’ attempted note-taking strategies across ten sections of
a scientific text about the human respiratory system. Strategies
were coded based on the frequency with which students used each
of five strategies to represent the material in each section of the
text: words only, list, outline, map, or drawing. The main focus of
the present study was on students’ spontaneous use of spatial
strategies (i.e., maps and drawings). We also tested the role of spa-
tial ability in predicting learning outcomes and spontaneous spa-
tial strategy use. In short, the present study aimed to provide
insight into (a) the note-taking strategies students spontaneously
use when studying scientific text and (b) relationships among spa-
tial ability, spontaneous spatial strategy use, and learning
outcomes.
5. Theory and predictions
According to generative learning theory (Fiorella & Mayer, 2015,
2016; Wittrock, 1990), meaningful learning depends on whether
students use appropriate strategies to select the most relevant
material from a lesson, organize it into a coherent mental repre-
sentation, and integrate it with their prior knowledge – which
we refer to as generative learning strategies. When learning from a
scientific text, this often involves building a mental model of the
text to represent complex spatial relations, such as the structures
and processes involved in the human respiratory system. Thus,
using spatial learning strategies such as creating a knowledge
map or drawing a diagram should support the construction of an
appropriate mental representation of the material, thereby result-
ing in better learning outcomes. Study 1 tests the prediction that
students who spontaneously employ strategies that make use of
space to support knowledge construction (i.e., by creating maps
or drawings) will show better learning outcomes than students
who primarily use text-based verbal strategies (i.e., words only,
lists, or outlines).
An additional theoretical consideration addressed in Study 1 is
the role of general spatial ability in explaining spatial strategy use
and learning. Students with high spatial ability tend to succeed in
STEM fields presumably because they have greater cognitive
capacity to mentally represent and manipulate complex spatial
concepts. However, it is unclear whether this relationship is medi-
ated by spatial strategy use, or whether spatial ability and spatial
strategy use might provide independent paths to learning in STEM.
According to the mediator hypothesis, students with high spatial
ability are able to better represent scientific concepts because they
are more likely and/or better able to use appropriate spatial strate-
gies than students with low spatial ability. Alternatively, the inde-
pendent paths hypothesis posits that spatial strategy use predicts
learning even after accounting for the influence of spatial ability.
Study 1 directly tests these two hypotheses by analyzing the
strategies that students use while taking notes on paper. If STEM
learning is affected independently by both domain-specific spatial
strategies and domain-general spatial abilities as specified in the
independent paths hypothesis, this suggests that spatial strate-
gies—which might be relatively easier to train—might compensate
for spatial abilities.
Study 2 tests whether the relationships among spatial ability,
spatial strategy use, and learning from a scientific text depend on
the medium through which students take notes. According to situ-
ated theories of cognition, human thought and action is shaped by
the specific context in which it occurs and the affordances offered
by one’s environment (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1996; Greeno &
the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
Group, 1998; Jarvenoja, Jarvela, & Malmberg, 2015). Thus, different
note taking environments might afford the use of different learning
strategies, resulting in different learning outcomes (e.g., Bui,
Myerson, & Hale, 2013; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). For exam-
ple, whereas taking notes by hand on paper (as in Study 1) might
afford the spontaneous use of spatial learning strategies, taking
notes on a laptop computer likely does not, and instead may
encourage the use of primarily verbal strategies. This study also
incorporates a third study environment that might more strongly
afford the use of space and encourage the use of spatial strategies
– taking notes on a large whiteboard. Further, the note-taking envi-
ronment might moderate the influence of spatial ability on learn-
ing, because situations that do not afford the use of space – such
as taking notes on a computer – may rely less heavily on spatial
ability. Study 2 tests these predictions by analyzing the strategies
that students use while taking notes either on paper, on a white-
board, or on a laptop computer. This study helps determine
whether the relationship between spatial strategies and learning
outcomes found in Study 1 with paper-based note-taking depend
on the medium with which students take notes.
6. Study 1
The purpose of Study 1 was to explore the relationships among
spatial ability, the spontaneous use of spatial learning strategies,
and learning from a scientific text. Participants completed spatial
ability measures, studied and took notes by hand on a scientific
text about the human respiratory system, and then completed
learning outcome measures (including retention, transfer, and
drawing items) on the material. Students’ notes were coded for
each of ten sections of the lesson, based on the frequency at which
they used no strategy, words only, lists, outlines, maps, or draw-
ings to represent the content of the lesson.
6.1. Method
6.1.1. Participants and design
Participants were 108 undergraduate students recruited from
the Psychology Subject Pool at a large western university, who
received course credit for their participation. The mean age was
19.0 (SD = 1.2), and there were 32 men and 76 women. Self-
reported prior knowledge related to the human respiratory system
was generally low (M = 3.9; SD = 2.2), as reported on a question-
naire with a maximum score of 12.
6.1.2. Materials
Materials consisted of a consent form, a demographics ques-
tionnaire, spatial ability tests, a lesson on the human respiratory
system, note-taking sheets, learning outcome tests, and a post-
experiment questionnaire. The consent form described the details
of the study and included a place for participants to sign. The
demographics questionnaire asked participants to provide their
age and gender. It also asked participants to place a check mark
next to each of the following twelve items that applied to them:
‘‘I have participated in science programs or fairs,” ‘‘Biology was
my favorite subject in high school,” ‘‘I sometimes watch science
documentaries about anatomy in my free time,” ‘‘I can name most
of the parts of the human heart from memory,” ‘‘I have taken a
course in human anatomy or physiology,” ‘‘I attended a course
on cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR),” ‘‘I can explain what pul-
monary embolism means,” ‘‘I sometimes find myself on the Inter-
net looking up biology related topics,” ‘‘I have watched an
educational video on how the respiratory system works,” ‘‘I talked
to a doctor about the process of how respiration works,” ‘‘I know
69
what the terms ‘diastolic’ and ‘systolic’ mean,” and ‘‘I took
advanced biology courses in high school (AP, IB, Honors).” This
twelve-item checklist, from Leopold and Mayer (2015), was used
as an indicator of students’ self-reported prior knowledge related
to the human respiratory system (a = 0.57).
The spatial ability tests consisted of the cube comparison test
and the paper folding test, both acquired from the ETS Kit of
Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests by Ekstrom, French, Harman,
and Dermen (1976). Both tests load on the Spatial Visualization
(VZ) factor of spatial ability, which involves imagining and men-
tally manipulating two- and three-dimensional spatial forms
(Carroll, 1993). Research suggests spatial visualization is particu-
larly important in many disciplines of science, such as biology,
geology, chemistry, and physics (Uttal & Cohen, 2012).
The paper-folding test consisted of one sheet with 10 problems.
Each item required imagining a paper being folded, punched with a
hole, and reopened. The scoring procedure consists of awarding
one point for each correct answer, and subtracting one point for
each incorrect answer, for possible scores ranging from
10 to
+10. The cube comparison test consisted of one sheet with 21 prob-
lems. Each item required determining whether two cubes, pre-
sented at different orientations and with letters written on each
side, could be the same cube or must be different cubes. The scor-
ing procedure consists of awarding one point for each correct
answer, and subtracting one fifth of a point was for each incorrect
answer, for a total possible score of 21. As expected, the two spatial
ability measures significantly positively correlated with each other
(r = 0.46, p < 0.001). Since there is no theoretical basis for expecting
the two measures to differentially predict spatial strategy use or
learning outcomes, we created a composite spatial ability score
by averaging the z scores of the two measures.
The lesson on the human respiratory system (adapted from
Leopold & Mayer, 2015) contained 786 words and consisted of an
introductory part and nine main parts. Each of the ten parts of
the lesson was presented on a separate PowerPoint slide with
the following headings: (1) Introduction, (2) Structure of the Ner-
vous System, (3) Steps in the Nervous System to Control Breathing,
(4) Structure of the Thoracic Cavity, (5) Structure of the Airway
System, (6) Process of Inhaling, (7) Structure of the Exchange Sys-
tem, (8) Structure of the Circulatory System, (9) Process of
Exchanging, and (10) Process of Exhaling. Students clicked on each
slide to move from one part to the next at their own pace. The
mean study time was 978.2 (SD = 284.3) s. The complete lesson is
presented in Appendix A.
The note-taking sheets consisted of five stapled sheets of paper,
with each sheet containing two labeled empty boxes correspond-
ing to the ten parts of the lesson. Students recorded their notes
in the corresponding boxes as they read each part of the lesson.
Notes were coded by the type of strategy (or strategies) students
used for each part of the lesson:
 No strategy: The student did not write anything in the box.
 Words only: The student wrote text only, without showing evi-
dence of using a list or an outline; see below). For example, a
student may write a string of words, a complete sentence, or
a paragraph about the material. Fig. 1 presents a representative
example of a participant using the words only strategy.
 List: The student wrote text presented as a sequence, such as by
using bullet points or numbering. Thus, the list strategy differs
from the words-only strategy in that it involves arranging one’s
notes from top-to-bottom on the page. Fig. 2 presents a repre-
sentative example of a participant using the list strategy.
 Outline: The student wrote text that was arranged from top-to-
bottom as well as from left-to-right on the page. Generally,
students wrote a main idea or heading at the top; then below,
70 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
Example of Words-Only Strategy from Study 1
Fig. 1. Example of words-only strategy from Study 1.
Example of List Strategy for Study 1
Fig. 2. Example of list strategy for Study 1.
Example of Outline Strategy for Study 1
Fig. 3. Example of outline strategy for Study 1.
students indented to the right and wrote supporting details.
Fig. 3 presents a representative example of a participant using
the outline strategy.
 Map: The student created an abstract spatial representation of
the material by using shapes, lines, arrows, or brackets to group
or connect multiple elements of text (words or phrases). Maps
may be arranged linearly with arrows, as a web with lines, or
as a matrix organizer. Generally, students used maps by con-
necting elements of text with arrows, either linearly or as a
web.1 Fig. 4 presents a representative example of a participant
using the map strategy.
 Drawing: The student created a pictorial representation of the
material that represented appearance and location of specific
parts of the human respiratory system, such as the heart or
lungs. Fig. 5 presents a representative example of a participant
using the drawing strategy.
For each of the ten sections of the lesson, students received one
point for each type of strategy they attempted. Students could also
receive credit for multiple strategies on a given section. Thus,
scores for each type of strategy ranged from 0 (i.e., the strategy
was used on 0 sections of the lesson) to 10 (i.e., the strategy was
used on all ten sections of the lesson). A spatial strategy score
was calculated by adding the number of maps and diagrams scores,
for a total possible score of 20. Two raters scored the note-taking
sheets and any discrepancies were settled by consensus. Inter-
rater reliability on the first 25% of the data (n = 27) was generally
high across the two raters (no strategy: r = 0.99; words only:
r = 0.98, lists: r = 0.77, outlines: r = 0.83; maps: r = 0.93; drawings:
r = 0.98).
The learning outcome measures (from Leopold & Mayer, 2015)
consisted of one retention item, five transfer items, and two draw-
ing items. Each of the eight items was printed on its own sheet of
paper. Table 1 presents the test items and examples of acceptable
responses. For scoring the retention item, students received one
point for each correct idea unit included in their response (out of
76 possible idea units from the text). The participant did not have
to show the exact wording or correct spelling to receive credit for
an idea unit but had to express the correct idea.
For the five transfer items (a = 0.59), students received one
point for each acceptable response. For the two drawing items
(a = 0.51), students received two points for each correctly drawn
and labeled component, one point for each partially correctly-
drawn (and correctly labeled) component, and zero points for com-
ponents that were not correctly drawn or that were not labeled.
The drawing test was worth a total of 22 possible points. Inter-
rater reliability between total scores of two raters based on the first
25% of the data (n = 27) was r = 0.84 for the retention test, r = 0.79
for the transfer test, and r = 0.79 for the drawing test.
To maximize the reliability of our measure of learning out-
comes, we created a composite learning outcome score by averag-
ing the z scores of performance on the retention, transfer, and
drawing tests. Each of these tests significantly correlated with each
other (r’s > 0.47, p’s < 0.001). Further, a confirmatory factor analy-
sis suggested that a single factor represented an appropriate factor
structure among the eight items, accounting for 37% of the vari-
ance. The reliability of the composite learning outcome measure
is a = 66.
The post-experiment questionnaire was intended to assess stu-
dents’ perceived difficulty of the material, motivation to learn, per-
ceived understanding of the material, learning preferences/
strategies, and mental effort exerted to learning. Students were
asked to rate their level agreement, on a five-point scale ranging
(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, for each of seven state-
ments: ‘‘I felt that the subject matter was difficult,” ‘‘I enjoyed
learning from this lesson,” ‘‘I would like to learn more about the
1
Our operationalization of ‘map’ is broader than past research distinguishing
between knowledge maps, concept maps, and graphic organizers (e.g., Holley &
Dansereau, 1984). In the present study, a map involved any abstract spatial
arrangement attempting to connect or group elements of text. In general, if the
strategy organized the material beyond a typical outline but did not involve a
concrete drawing, it was considered a map.
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79 71

Example of Map Strategy for Study 1 Table 1

Retention, transfer and drawing test items.

Question Question Example accepted responses

type
Retention Using what you have learned in Brain detects need for oxygen;
the session, please write and diaphragm contracts
explanation of how the human downward; thoracic cavity
respiratory system works contains the lungs
Transfer Although there is oxygen in the Heart not pumping; capillaries
lungs, the cells in the body do are not picking up oxygen
not get enough oxygen to make
energy. What could have
caused this problem?
Suppose you are a scientist who Increase number of capillaries
is trying to improve the human surrounding alveoli; increase
respiratory system for people volume/capacity of lungs
who climb high mountains
(where less oxygen is in the
air). What could be done to
Fig. 4. Example of map strategy for Study 1.
make the human respiratory
system more effective for
mountain climbing?
Example of Drawing Strategy for Study 1 Joe has small lungs and Moe Joe has more frequent
has big lungs, but both have the inhaling/exhaling; less oxygen
same body height and weight, in his lungs
and the same kind of lifestyle.
Is there a difference in their
respiration? Please explain
When Sue is afraid, her heart Frequency of exchange
rate increases. What happens to process increases; body/cells
her respiration? Why does this need more energy
happen?
What does the concept of Related to inhalation process
suction have to do with the of taking in air into the lungs
respiration process?
Drawing Please draw a picture of the Draw and label lungs and
exchange system and label the bronchial tubes
different parts
Please draw a picture of the Draw and label diaphragm
respiratory system when the moving down
person inhales and label the
different parts
Fig. 5. Example of drawing strategy for Study 1.

respiratory system in the future,” ‘‘I feel like I have a good under-
standing of how the respiratory system works,” ‘‘I prefer to learn
visually,” ‘‘I formed mental pictures about the text content in order
to understand it,” and ‘‘I felt motivated to try to understand the
material.” Students also rated their level of effort exerted during
learning on a scale from (1) very low to (5) very high. Data from
the post-experiment questionnaire were not analyzed in this study
because they are not relevant to our primary research questions.
The apparatus consisted of five Dell computers with 17-in.
screens.
6.1.3. Procedure
Students were tested in groups of two to five per session. Each
student was seated at an individual cubicle in front of a computer
and out of sight from the other participants. First, the experimenter
provided a brief oral introduction to the experiment, passed out
the consent form to sign, and collected the consent forms. Second,
the experimenter passed out the demographics questionnaire and
collected them when participants were finished. Third the experi-
menter administered the two spatial ability tests: the cube com-
parison test and the paper-folding test. For each test, participants
first read an instructions sheet and then were given 3 min to work
on the test sheet.
After participants completed the spatial ability tests, the exper-
imenter passed out the note-taking sheets and asked students to
read instructions presented on the computer screen. The instruc-
tions informed students that they would be studying a lesson on
the human respiratory system and would later be asked to answer
some questions about what they learned. They were told that the
lesson consisted of ten parts presented on individual slides and
that they should ‘‘put anything on the sheets in front of you that
you think will help you learn and remember the material.” Finally,
students were told that they would have time to review what they
put on their sheets of paper before being tested on the material.
Students studied the 10 slides in the lesson sequentially and at
their own pace. The total amount of time students spent studying
the lesson was recorded.
After studying the lesson, students were given 3 min to review
what they had recorded on their note-taking sheets without refer-
ring back to the lesson. Then, the experimenter collected the note-
taking sheets and administered the learning outcome measures.
Students were given 5 min for the retention item, and they were
given 2.5 min for each of the transfer and drawing items. Finally,
students completed the post-experiment questionnaire at their
own pace and then were debriefed and thanked for their participa-
tion. The study lasted a total of approximately 60 min.
6.2. Results
The primary research questions for Study 1 concern the types of
strategies students use spontaneously during learning and the
relationships among spatial ability, spatial strategy use, and learn-
ing outcomes.
72 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
6.2.1. What types of learning strategies do students use
spontaneously?
Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for the frequency of
each type of strategy used across the ten sections of the lesson.
To compare the frequency of each strategy type, paired-samples t
tests were conducted with Bonferroni corrections applied, result-
ing in a significance level of p < 0.005. Results indicated that stu-
dents used significantly more lists than each of the other four
strategies – words only (p < 0.001, d = 0.88), outlines (p < 0.001,
d = 0.37), maps (p < 0.001, d = 0.43), and drawings (p < 0.001,
d = 0.91). Students also used significantly more maps than words
only (p < 0.001, d = 0.44), and they used more outlines (p < 0.001,
d = 0.51) and maps (p < 0.001, d = 0.65) than drawings. These data
suggest that when studying a scientific text, students tend to lar-
gely rely on creating verbal lists, and they create relatively few
drawings.
Regarding spatial strategy use, 82% of participants (n = 89) used
at least one map but only 39% of participants (n = 42) used at least
one drawing. Participants’ use of maps and drawings was not sig-
nificantly correlated (r = 0.14, p = 0.139). Overall, 89% of partici-
pants (n = 96) created at least one map or drawing across the ten
sections of the lesson. The bottom row of Table 2 presents the
descriptive statistics for the use of spatial strategies (i.e., the sum
of maps and diagrams). This composite spatial strategies score
was used in the following analyses.
6.2.2. How are spatial ability, strategy use, and learning outcomes
related?
Table 3 reports the correlation coefficients among the key vari-
ables of interest – spatial ability, spatial strategy use (i.e., use of
maps and drawings), and learning outcomes. Results indicate that
spatial ability significantly correlated with learning outcomes
(r = 0.33, p < 0.001) but not with spatial strategy use (r = 0.17,
p = 0.085). Further, spatial strategy use significantly correlated
with learning outcomes (r = 0.27, p = 0.005). In contrast, the use
of verbal strategies (words only, lists, and outlines) was not signif-
icantly correlated with learning outcomes (r =
0.06, p = 0 0.556).
These data indicate that spatial ability and spatial strategy use
may be somewhat independently related to learning outcomes.
6.2.3. What is the role of spatial ability and spatial strategy use in
explaining learning outcomes?
The mediator hypothesis predicts that spatial strategy use
mediates the relationship between spatial ability and overall learn-
ing outcomes – that is, students with high spatial ability perform
better on learning outcome measures because they use more spa-
tial learning strategies. Alternatively, the independent paths
hypothesis predicts that spatial ability and spatial strategy use
independently predict learning outcomes. To test these hypotheses
directly, we conducted (a) a hierarchical regression analysis to
determine the extent to which spatial ability and spatial strategy
use uniquely predict learning outcomes, and (b) a mediation anal-
ysis to test whether spatial strategy use partially mediates the rela-
tionship between spatial ability and learning outcomes.
First, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted, with
learning outcomes as the outcome variable and spatial ability (Step
1) and spatial strategy (Step 2) entered as predictor variables. Anal-
ysis of the residuals of indicated that the assumption of normality
was met. Step 1 of the model was statistically significant, F(1, 106)
= 12.92, p < 0.001, with spatial ability explaining 10.9% of the vari-
ance in learning outcomes (b = 0.33). In Step 2, spatial strategy use
explained an additional 4.6% of the variance in learning outcomes
beyond spatial ability (b = 0.22). The change from Step 1 to Step 2
was statistically significant, F(1, 105) = 5.67, p = 0.019. This sug-
gests that spatial ability uniquely predicts learning outcomes
beyond spatial ability, consistent with the independent paths
hypothesis.
To test whether spatial strategy use partially mediates the rela-
tionship between spatial ability and learning outcomes, we con-
ducted a mediation analysis using bootstrapping, based on
guidelines by Hayes and Preacher (2014). First, the direct effect
of spatial ability on learning outcomes was statistically significant
(b = 0.28; SE = 0.09), t(106) = 3.22, p = 0.002. Second, the path from
spatial ability to spatial strategy use was not statistically signifi-
cant (b = 0.19; SE = 0.11), t(106) = 1.73, p = 0.085, but the path from
spatial strategy use to learning outcomes was statistically signifi-
cant (b = 0.18; SE = 0.07), t(106) = 2.38, p = 0.019. Finally, using a
95% confidence interval of the indirect effects obtained from
5000 bootstrap resamples, the analysis indicated that the indirect
effect of spatial ability on learning outcomes through spatial strat-
egy use was not statistically significant (b = 0.03; SE: 0.03;
CI =
0.001 to 0.101). Fig. 6 depicts the results of the mediation
analysis.
Overall, these results provide evidence in support of the inde-
pendent paths hypothesis and against the mediator hypothesis –
that is, rather than mediating the relationship between spatial abil-
ity and learning outcomes, spatial strategy use appears to indepen-
dently predict learning outcomes. Given the independent
relationship between spatial strategy use and learning outcomes
for STEM material, an important avenue for future research
involves techniques for improving students’ spatial strategies
(which might be more trainable and more transferable to STEM
learning) rather than spatial abilities (which might be less train-
able and less transferable to STEM learning).
7. Study 2
The purpose of Study 2 was to experimentally test whether dif-
ferent note-taking environments cause students to spontaneously
choose different learning strategies. Previous research comparing
note-taking media (e.g., computer vs. hand-written notes) has
focused on the use of verbal strategies and its effects on learning
outcomes, showing somewhat mixed results (e.g., Bui et al.,
2013; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014). Bui et al. (2013) found that
transcribing notes on a computer led to better immediate recall
from a lecture than taking notes by hand. However, Mueller and
Oppenheimer (2014) found that students who took notes by hand
during a lecture performed better on conceptual questions than
students who took notes on a computer, likely because students
taking notes on a computer tended to take verbatim notes,
whereas students taking notes by hand tended to summarize the
material into their own words. Study 2 focused on how note-
taking mediums influence the spontaneous use of spatial learning
strategies and the relationships among spatial ability, strategy
use, and learning outcomes.
Participants studied the human respiratory system lesson and
took notes either by writing on paper (paper group), writing on a
whiteboard (whiteboard group), or typing on a laptop computer
(computer group). The paper group most resembles how students
took notes in Study 1, although there were not separate boxes for
the notes on each part of the lesson. As the study by Mueller and
Oppenheimer (2014) demonstrated, different note-taking medi-
ums can encourage students to use different types of strategies
(such as verbatim or summary notes). This is in line with a situated
view of cognition and learning (Anderson et al., 1996; Greeno,
1998; Jarvenoja et al., 2015), which posits that the affordances
and limitations of one’s environment influences how one repre-
sents and solves problems. Study 2 extended this basic idea to
the spontaneous use of spatial note-taking strategies that might
be afforded by different note-taking environments. Specifically,
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79 73

Table 2
Strategy use frequency across ten sections of the lesson in Study 1.

Strategy Frequency Skewness Kurtosis

M SD Statistic SE Statistic SE
No strategy 0.5 1.2 3.7 0.2 16.1 0.5
Words only 1.5 1.7 2.1 0.2 7.2 0.5
List 4.3 2.5 0.1 0.2
0.6 0.5
Outline 2.9 2.4 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.5
Maps 2.8 2.1 0.4 0.2
0.3 0.5
Drawings 1.1 1.9 2.0 0.2 3.8 0.5
Spatial strategiesa 4.0 3.0 0.8 0.2 <0.1 0.5
a
Total frequency of maps and diagrams.

Table 3
Correlations among spatial ability, strategy use, and learning outcomes for Study 1.
Variable Spatial ability Spatial strategy use
Spatial ability
Spatial strategy use .17y
Learning outcomes .33** .27**
**
p < 0.01.
y
p < 0.10.
taking notes by typing on a computer should lead students to use
more verbal strategies (such as words only), given that typing does
not easily afford the use of spatial strategies (such as creating maps
and drawings). In contrast, writing notes by hand (either on paper
or on a whiteboard) may more easily allow students to attempt to
represent material spatially. Although somewhat unconventional,
the whiteboard group was included because the availability of a
large open space on which to take notes might especially afford
the use of spatial strategies, compared to more conventional
hand-written notes on paper. Overall, Study 2 tested whether stu-
dents could be induced to use different strategies during learning,
and how such strategy differences related to spatial ability and
learning outcomes.
7.1. Method
7.1.1. Participants and design
Participants were 94 undergraduate students from a large west-
ern university. The mean age was 19.6 (SD = 1.6), and there were
41 men and 53 women. Thirty-one students served in the com-
puter group, 31 served in the whiteboard group, and 32 served in
the paper group. The groups did not differ in terms proportion of
women and men, spatial ability, or prior knowledge of the human
respiratory system. The groups did differ significantly in terms of
mean age, F(2, 93) = 5.23, p = 0.007, with Tukey post hoc tests indi-
cating that participants in the paper group were older than partic-
ipants in the whiteboard group. However, follow-up analyses
indicated that age was not a significant covariate of the primary
dependent measures and adding it as a covariate did not affect
the results of the analyses reported below.
7.1.2. Materials
The materials were mostly identical to Study 1, with the excep-
tion of how the human respiratory system lesson was presented to
students. Rather than presenting each of the ten parts of the lesson
on individual PowerPoint slides (as done in Study 1), each part of
the lesson was printed on individual 3-inch by 5-inch flashcards.
This allowed each of the experimental groups to use their respec-
tive medium solely for taking notes on the lesson – a whiteboard, a
laptop, or on paper by hand. The 10 flashcards were bound
together so that participants had to study and take notes on one
flashcard at a time. Participants were instructed not to return to
a previously studied part of the lesson.
7.1.3. Procedure
The procedure was mostly identical to Study 1, with the excep-
tion of how participants studied and took notes on the human res-
piratory system lesson. Participants were randomly assigned to a
treatment condition. Students in the computer group were asked
to take notes using a blank Word document on a laptop computer.
Students in the whiteboard group were asked to take notes on a
large whiteboard attached to the wall, and therefore had to stand
while they studied and took notes. Students in the paper group
were asked to takes notes on blank, unlined sheets of paper. Thus,
unlike in Study 1, students in Study 2 did not use note-taking
sheets that separated the ten parts of the lesson into separate
boxes, and instead used a blank Word document, whiteboard, or
sheet of paper. All other aspects of the procedure for Experiment
2 were the same as in Experiment 1.

Mediation Analysis of Spatial Ability, Spatial Strategy Use, and Learning Outcomes in Study 1

Spatial strategy
.19 use .18*

Learning
Spatial ability
outcomes
.28**

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001

Fig. 6. Mediation analysis of spatial ability, spatial strategy use, and learning outcomes in Study 1. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.001.
74 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
7.2. Results
The primary research questions for Study 2 concern the rela-
tionships among spatial ability, spatial strategy use, and learning
outcomes across note-taking environments, and the influence of
note-taking environment on strategy use and learning outcomes.
Due to a technical issue, we do not have data for one participant’s
notes from the computer group. This participant’s data is excluded
from the relevant analyses presented below.
7.2.1. Did the groups differ on learning strategy use?
Table 4 reports descriptive statistics of strategy use frequency
across the ten sections of the lesson for each of the three groups.
To compare strategy frequency across groups, one-way ANOVAs
were conducted, with group serving as the independent variable
and number of each strategy used serving as dependent variables.
When assumptions of homogeneity of variance were not met (as
indicated by Levene’s test), Welch’s test was used.
The analysis indicated significant differences across groups in
the use of words only, F(2, 56.20) = 4.89, p = 0.011, outlines, F
(2, 59.12) = 11.59, p < 0.001, maps, F(2, 90) = 4.87, p = 0.010,
g2 = 0.10, and total spatial strategies, F(2, 53.14) = 11.29,
p < 0.001. Post-hoc tests were then conducted to further explore
these effects. First, the computer group used the words only strat-
egy significantly more than the whiteboard group (p = 0.008;
d = 0.80). Second, the paper group used significantly more outlines
than the computer group (p = 0.004; d = 0.85) and the whiteboard
group (p < 0.001; d = 1.22). Third, the whiteboard group used sig-
nificantly more maps than the computer group (p = 0.008;
d = 0.88). Finally, consistent with predictions, the paper group
(p = 0.014, d = 1.07) and the whiteboard group (p < 0.001,
d = 0.74) both used significantly more spatial strategies overall
than the computer group. These data support the hypothesis that
taking notes by hand (either on a computer or a whiteboard) leads
students to use more spatial strategies than taking notes on a
computer.
We also analyzed the total number of words that appeared in
students’ notes and the total amount of time students spent study-
ing. Regarding the word count of students’ notes, Levene’s test
indicated heterogeneity of variance across conditions; thus,
Welch’s test was used. Welch’s test was statistically significant, F
(2, 57.92) = 8.76, p < 0.001. Games-Howell post hoc tests indicated
that students in the computer group (M = 215.7; SD = 134.3)
included significantly more words in their notes than the white-
board group (M = 98.5; SD = 87.4; p = 0.001, d = 1.03), but not sig-
nificantly more than the paper group (M = 159.0; SD = 95.1;
p = 0.147, d = 0.49). Students in the paper group also included sig-
nificantly more words in their notes than the whiteboard group
(p = 0.029; d = 0.66). Despite these differences in word count, an
ANOVA indicated no significant differences across groups in total
study time, F(2, 91) = 0.32, p = 0.728.
7.2.2. Did the groups differ on learning outcomes?
Table 5 reports the means and standard deviations of the learn-
ing outcome tests for each of the three groups. Levene’s test indi-
cated that the variance across groups was homogeneous. One-
way ANOVAs were conducted, with group serving as the indepen-
dent variable and performance on the retention, transfer, and
drawing tests, serving as the dependent measures. The analysis
indicated statistically significant differences across groups for the
retention test, F(2, 91) = 9.37, p < 0.001, g2 = 0.17, transfer test, F
(2, 91) = 11.89, p < 0.001, g2 = 0.21, and drawing test, F(2, 91)
= 4.48, p = 0.014, g2 = 0.09. Tukey post hoc tests indicated that
for the retention test, the computer group significantly outper-
formed the whiteboard group (p = 0.015, d = 0.69) and the paper
group (p < 0.001, d = 1.13). The whiteboard and paper groups did
not differ significantly from each other (p = 0.353, d = 0.35). For
the transfer test, the computer and whiteboard groups both out-
performed the paper group (p < 0.001, d = 1.49; and p = 0.011,
d = 0.74, respectively), but did not significantly differ from each
other (p = 0.162, d = 0.44). Finally, for the drawing test, the com-
puter group outperformed the whiteboard group (p = 0.010;
d = 0.81), but did not significantly differ from the paper group
(p = 0.231, d = 0.40), and the whiteboard group did not significantly
differ from the paper group (p = 0.363; d = 0.33).
We also compared the three groups in terms of overall learning
outcomes, based on the average of the z scores across the reten-
tion, transfer, and drawing items for each of the three groups.
The ANOVA was statistically significant, F(2, 91) = 11.19,
p < 0.001, g2 = 0.20, and Tukey post hoc tests indicated that the
computer group outperformed the paper group (p < 0.001;
d = 1.25) and the whiteboard group (p = 0.004; d = 0.81), but the
whiteboard and paper groups did not significantly differ from each
other (p = 0.442, d = 0.31).
Taken together, these data indicate somewhat surprising differ-
ences across the three groups on learning outcomes. Despite using
fewer spatial learning strategies, students who took notes using
the laptop generally outperformed students who took notes by
hand, either on a whiteboard or on paper. In short, different
note-taking environments led to differences in both strategy use
and learning outcomes.
7.2.3. How are spatial ability, strategy use, and learning outcomes
related for each of the groups?
To relate the findings to Study 1, we explored the patterns of
relationships among spatial ability, spatial strategy use, and learn-
ing outcomes for each of the three groups. It is important to note
that given the relatively low sample size for this type of analysis
(n  30 per group), the statistical power needed to detect signifi-
cant relationships was relatively low. Table 6 presents the correla-
tion coefficients among the three key variables of interest – spatial
ability, spatial strategy use, and learning outcomes – across each of
the three groups. As can be seen, notable patterns emerge across
the three groups. First, the positive correlation coefficients among
spatial ability, spatial strategy use, and learning outcomes for the
paper group presented in Table 6 are consistent with the pattern
of relationships found in Study 1 (presented in Table 3). In contrast,
the correlation coefficients for the computer group are either close
to zero or negative. Finally, for the whiteboard group, spatial ability
was significantly positively related to learning outcomes (r = 0.47,
p = 0.007), but the other relationships are non-significant (and neg-
ative). Although the present data do not warrant strong conclu-
sions, they do suggest that the relationships among spatial
ability, spatial strategy use, and learning outcomes might depend
on the medium with which students take notes.
8. Discussion
8.1. Empirical contributions
The present study provides insight into the relationships among
spatial ability, the spontaneous use of spatial learning strategies
during note taking and learning from a scientific text. Study 1
results indicated that both spatial ability and the spontaneous cre-
ation of maps and drawings during note taking independently pre-
dicted learning outcomes – providing support for the independent
paths hypothesis and against the mediator hypothesis. That is,
even after accounting for spatial ability, students who sponta-
neously used more spatial learning strategies while taking notes
on paper showed better learning outcomes.
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79 75

Table 4
Strategy use frequency across ten sections of the lesson for the three groups in Study 2.

Strategy Frequency Skewness Kurtosis

M SD Statistic SE Statistic SE
Computer group
No strategy 1.4 2.1 2.6 0.4 9.3 0.8
Words only 3.7 2.8 0.4 0.4
0.7 0.8
List 3.6 2.8 0.5 0.4
0.9 0.8
Outline 1.0 1.5 1.6 0.4 1.2 0.8
Maps 0.8 1.2 2.3 0.4 6.4 0.8
Drawings – – – – – –
Spatial strategiesa 0.8 1.2 2.3 0.4 6.4 0.8
Whiteboard group
No strategy 2.9 3.4 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.8
Words only 1.9 1.5 0.2 0.4
0.8 0.8
List 3.6 2.5 <0.1 0.4
0.9 0.8
Outline 0.4 1.4 4.9 0.4 25.4 0.8
Maps 2.2 1.9 0.5 0.4
0.7 0.8
Drawings 0.7 1.3 2.1 0.4 3.7 0.8
Spatial strategiesa 2.9 2.5 0.4 0.4
0.9 0.8
Paper group
No strategy 1.4 1.8 2.0 0.4 3.5 0.8
Words only 2.3 1.9 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.8
List 3.5 2.3 0.7 0.4
0.4 0.8
Outline 2.5 2.0 0.4 0.4
0.9 0.8
Maps 1.7 2.1 2.3 0.4 6.6 0.8
Drawings 0.8 1.9 4.2 0.4 20.3 0.8
Spatial strategiesa 2.5 3.0 1.9 0.4 3.3 0.8
a
Total frequency of maps and diagrams.

Table 5
Learning outcomes of three groups for Study 2.

Strategy Computer group Whiteboard group Paper group

M SD M SD M SD
Retention test 20.6 7.5 15.1 8.4 12.4 7.0
Transfer test 9.7 2.2 8.5 3.2 6.5 2.1
Drawing test 13.0 3.8 9.9 3.9 11.3 4.6

Table 6 2014) and others supporting computer-based notes (e.g., Bui

Correlations among key variables for three groups in Study 2. et al., 2013). One possibility is that the college students in the
present study were more experienced taking computer-based
Group Variable Spatial ability Spatial strategies
notes than taking hand-written notes and were able to use their
Computer group Spatial ability
own verbal strategies effectively with this medium. Also, in the
Spatial strategy use
0.05
Learning outcomes 0.03
0.19
paper group, using paper both to present information (as a book-
let of note cards) and for taking notes (on sheets of paper) may
Whiteboard group Spatial ability
Spatial strategy use
0.19
have caused interference unlike taking hand-written notes from
Learning outcomes 0.47**
0.13 a face-to-face lecture or computer-presented lesson. In short,
Paper group Spatial ability
Study 2 demonstrates how different note taking environments
Spatial strategy use 0.32 can shape the way in which students represent material from
Learning outcomes 0.27y 0.35y a scientific text, ultimately resulting in differential learning
y
p < 0.10.
outcomes.
**
p < 0.01. Study 2 also indicated that the relationships among spatial abil-
ity, spatial strategy use, and learning outcomes might depend on
the medium though which students take notes, although this find-
Study 2 indicated that spontaneous strategy use and learning ing warrants further research with more participants. The pattern
outcomes depended on the medium with which students took of relationships for the paper group were highly similar to those
notes. As expected, taking notes on a whiteboard or on paper found in Study 1, suggesting that spatial ability, spatial strategy
led students to use more spatial strategies (maps and drawings). use, and learning are generally positively associated with each
Given this finding, it was somewhat surprising that students in other. However, the whiteboard and computer groups did not
the computer group generally outperformed the other two groups appear to show this same pattern, with many of the relationships
on the learning outcome measures. However, it is important to either near zero or negative. This raises the possibility that the
note that previous research testing the relationship between affordances offered by different note taking environments might
note-taking medium and learning is mixed, with some studies moderate the role of spatial ability and spatial strategy use in pre-
supporting hand-written notes (e.g., Mueller & Oppenheimer, dicting learning.
76 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
8.2. Theoretical contributions
Findings from the present study are generally consistent with
predictions made by generative learning theory (Fiorella &
Mayer, 2015, 2016; Wittrock, 1990) and situated theories of cogni-
tion (Anderson et al., 1996; Greeno, 1998). In Study 1, when stu-
dents took notes on paper, the spontaneous use of spatial
learning strategies predicted learning outcomes even after control-
ling for spatial ability. This finding is consistent with generative
learning theory, which posits that effective learning occurs when
students select strategies that support organizing the material into
a coherent mental model based on the text’s underlying structure.
Creating knowledge maps and drawings support the construction
of learners’ mental representation of the structures and processes
involved in the human respiratory system. By comparison, text-
based strategies such as words only, listing, or outlining, did not
appear to support the construction of an appropriate mental model
during learning when students took notes on paper.
Study 1 also clarifies the relationship among spatial ability,
spatial strategy use, and learning outcomes for when students
take notes on paper. The results suggest that the use of spatial
strategies while taking notes on paper does not depend on the
student’s level of spatial ability; rather, spatial strategy appears
to predict learning independently of spatial ability – providing
support for the independent paths hypothesis. In other words,
regardless of one’s level of spatial ability, some students acquire
and use spatial strategies to help them represent the material to
support learning, whereas other students rely primarily on verbal
strategies.
Findings from Study 2 demonstrate how the affordances offered
by one’s note-taking environment can influence spontaneous strat-
egy use and learning outcomes. Regarding strategy use, the results
supported predictions that note-taking environments that afford
the use of space (taking notes on paper or on a whiteboard) led
to greater use of spatial strategies than a note-taking environment
that constrains the use of space (taking notes on a computer). This
suggests that strategy choice is influenced not only by students’
strategic knowledge but on the specific context in which that
knowledge is to be employed.
The use of different learning strategies by the three groups also
subsequently led to different learning outcomes, with the com-
puter group generally outperforming the other two groups. Analy-
sis of students’ study behaviors might help explain the computer
group’s superior performance in the present study. As mentioned
above, the students who took notes on a laptop generally took
more notes than the other two groups, and they also did so in
the same amount of time – the groups did not significantly differ
on total study time. Given that typing is generally faster than tak-
ing notes by hand, students in the paper and whiteboard groups
likely spent a greater proportion of their study time dealing with
the mechanics of writing compared to students in the computer
group. Further, past research indicates that using spatial strategies
might require more time and cognitive effort than using verbal
strategies (e.g., Leutner et al., 2009; Van Meter, 2001). This sug-
gests that students who took notes on a whiteboard or on paper
might have experienced greater extraneous cognitive processing
during learning compared to students who took notes on a
computer.
Another important consideration is that students were given
time to review their notes without access to the lesson before
being tested on the material. This review period might have con-
tributed to the benefits of taking notes on a computer. Since
students in the computer group generally took more notes, there
was more information for them to review, compared to the white-
board group and the paper group. Although the present study did
not focus on the effects of note taking review, it can be an
important contributor to the effects of note taking on learning
(Kiewra, 1989).
Findings from Study 2 also suggest potential boundary condi-
tions of the independent paths hypothesis, which was supported
in Study 1. Specifically, the role of spatial ability and spatial strat-
egy use in predicting learning appears to depend on whether stu-
dents take notes in situations that afford the use of spatial
strategies. For students who took notes on paper, a similar general
pattern of data was observed as in Study 1. For students who took
notes on a computer, neither spatial ability nor spatial strategy use
appeared to contribute to learning outcomes.
Finally, for the whiteboard group, spatial ability strongly pre-
dicted learning, but spatial strategy use did not. Closer analysis
of students’ note taking strategies might help explain this pattern.
Consistent with predictions, students in the whiteboard group gen-
erally used more spatial strategies than the computer group, yet
they took fewer notes overall – that is, students in the whiteboard
group showed more instances of not taking notes on a given sec-
tion of the lesson, and their notes contained far fewer words. It is
possible that students were not as comfortable or familiar with this
method of note taking including having to stand up while studying,
especially compared to taking notes on paper or on a laptop, which
is common among college students. Further, given that students
used a large whiteboard to display their notes, there might have
been an observer effect, such that students felt more as if the
experimenter was evaluating them, compared to students in the
other groups who could take more concealed notes. This might
have led participants to take fewer notes on the board and conse-
quently place a higher demand on processing the material
internally.
8.3. Practical contributions
The present study indicates that general spatial ability and
domain-specific strategy use serve somewhat independent roles
in learning from a scientific text. This distinction provides impor-
tant practical implications for instruction, as it suggests two differ-
ent routes – ability-based and strategy-based – to learning in STEM
disciplines. Given the link between spatial ability and STEM
achievement (Wai et al., 2009), much research has focused on
attempts to train generalizable spatial skills (Uttal et al., 2013).
However, this approach ultimately depends on achieving transfer
from performance on general psychometric tests of spatial ability
to improved understanding of STEM concepts in authentic settings.
A long history of research on transfer suggests that transfer tends
to be highly context-dependent.
Focusing on domain-specific strategy use provides a potentially
more malleable route to improved learning in STEM, which the
present study suggests does not depend on whether students have
low or high spatial ability. Indeed, there is a vast literature demon-
strating that teaching students to use specific strategies that
involve organizing the material into a coherent structure and inte-
grating it with existing knowledge can promote learning (Fiorella &
Mayer, 2015, 2016; Dunlosky et al., 2013). In short, if spatial strate-
gies can compensate for spatial ability in promoting STEM learning
and are more malleable, there is reason to focus on helping stu-
dents develop effective spatial learning strategies.
Study 2 suggests that the affordances of different note taking
situations can influence both the quality and the quantity of stu-
dents’ notes. Spatial strategies are more easily afforded from taking
notes on paper or on a whiteboard, whereas students are likely to
use primarily verbal strategies when taking notes on a computer. A
computer also affords taking more notes in the same amount of
time, providing students with more information to review after
viewing a lesson. In Study 2, the ability to take more notes and sub-
sequently review more material led to superior learning outcomes.
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
Of course, this does not necessarily mean that taking notes on a
computer is inherently more effective; nonetheless, it might mean
that students need different types of strategy instruction depend-
ing on the medium through which they take notes.
8.4. Limitations and future directions
One limitation of the present study is that students’ notes were
coded and analyzed based on the types of strategies they
attempted to use, not necessarily whether they used each strategy
effectively. For example, students received credit for a map if they
attempted to spatially arrange and build connections among text,
regardless of the number of connections the map contained or of
the relevance of the information represented in the map. Similarly,
using a words-only strategy might have consisted of verbatim
notes from the lesson or a more elaborated summary involving
the student’s own words. Past research suggests that students
might need explicit guidance or training to achieve the most ben-
efit from spatial strategies (e.g., Schwamborn et al., 2010; Van
Meter, Aleksic, Schwartz, & Garner, 2006). We also were unable
to distinguish between the influence of different spatial strategies
(maps and drawings), given the relatively low frequency of using
drawings. This is an important consideration for further research
because each type of spatial strategy might be differentially related
to spatial ability or might be useful for representing different types
of information. Nonetheless, the method used in the present study
was able to detect clear individual differences in the spontaneous
use of space to represent material from a scientific text and its rela-
tionship with learning outcomes, which was the primary purpose
of the study.
More generally, another limitation of using note-taking
behavior as a window into cognitive processing is that it is lim-
ited to what students choose to represent externally. There are
likely important individual differences in how students internally
represent the material that are not captured in students’ notes.
For example, some students might have a preference to verbalize
the material, whereas others might mentally visualize the
material (Mayer & Massa, 2003). A recent study by Leopold
and Mayer (2015) involving the same learning materials as the
present study found that prompting students to mentally image
the structures and processes of the respiratory system led to
better learning.
Further research should address additional factors that might
influence or covary with students’ strategy use and learning out-
comes, such as prior knowledge, motivation, beliefs about learning,
or self-regulation ability. Exploring these potential covariates is
especially important given that strategy use was spontaneous in
the present study, and thus does not allow causal inferences link-
ing strategy use and learning outcomes. The present study con-
sisted of students with relatively low prior knowledge about the
human respiratory system (as indicated by the self-report ques-
tionnaire). However, domain-specific knowledge likely influences
the quality of strategies that students use during learning, as indi-
cated by previous research on expertise (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser,
1981). Domain-specific knowledge can also override the impor-
tance of general spatial ability, in line with the circumvention-of-
limits hypothesis (Hambrick et al., 2012).
The beliefs students hold about the nature of learning and
knowledge can also influence the effort they invest and the types
of strategies they employ during learning (e.g., Blackwell,
Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). Some students possess unproduc-
tive beliefs about learning, such as that learning involves rote
memorization or that intelligence is a fixed trait, whereas other
students believe that learning involves making sense of the
77
material and that intelligence can be enhanced through effort.
These different beliefs can influence how students approach learn-
ing and whether they invest the effort to use effective strategies
that promote meaningful learning. Future research should account
for individual differences in students’ motivation and beliefs when
exploring spontaneous note taking strategy use.
Another limitation of the present study concerns the measures
of spatial ability and learning outcomes. First, although the two
measures of spatial ability (the Cube Comparison Test and the
Paper Folding Test; Ekstrom et al., 1976) theoretically load on the
spatial visualization sub-dimension of spatial ability (Carroll,
1993), they were only moderately correlated with each other in
the present study. Second, the measures might not have ade-
quately captured the same types of cognitive processing involved
in using spatial learning strategies such as mapping. That is, the
spatial ability measures involve mentally rotating and transform-
ing iconic representations, whereas mapping involves creating a
symbolic spatial representation. This might in part explain why
spatial ability was not more strongly associated with spatial strat-
egy use in the present study. Further work is needed to clarify dif-
ferences among measures of spatial ability and how these might
differentially be related to strategy use and STEM learning out-
comes. Regarding the learning outcome measures, the retention,
transfer, and drawing tests showed somewhat low reliability sep-
arately and thus were combined into a composite learning out-
come score. More reliable learning measures would have allowed
us to examine the relationships among strategy use and qualita-
tively different learning outcomes.
The present study focused on spontaneous strategy use while
students learned from a scientific text consisting of a cause-and-
effect structure. Additional research should explore the generaliz-
ability of these findings across different educational contexts, such
as learning from lectures, learning from multimedia lessons, and
learning within other STEM domains. In the present study, we used
a text-based lesson describing a highly spatial causal system so
that students needed to create their own spatial representation
of the material, such as in the form of maps or diagrams. Past
research suggests that students benefit when they are instructed
to use spatial strategies such as drawing (Leopold & Leutner,
2012) or imagining (Leopold & Mayer, 2015) when learning from
scientific texts describing spatial processes. However, it is possible
that students would be more likely to spontaneously use spatial
strategies if the lesson also provided students with a spatial repre-
sentation. Similarly, further work should consider the role of differ-
ent text structures (e.g., sequential, hierarchical, comparative) in
spontaneous strategy use. Research should also incorporate the
role of note taking review in the effects of spontaneous strategy
use, as well as how note taking strategies during learning interact
with other study strategies such as retrieval practice.
Finally, research is needed to better understand how strategy-
based instruction can be incorporated within authentic STEM set-
tings. The present study provides evidence of the types of strate-
gies used spontaneously under different note taking situations.
By closely analyzing the quality of strategy use among successful
students – including the extent to which they use space – instruc-
tion can target the use of specific strategies that are most appropri-
ate for representing the to-be-learned material.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by grant N000140810018 from the
Office of Naval Research. We thank Amanda Seaborne, Danielle
Ewart, Jason Burton, and Arie Koster for their assistance with data
collection and coding.
78 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
Appendix A. Lesson on the human respiratory system
1. Introduction
Respiration is the process that moves air in and out of the lungs.
Through respiration, oxygen is delivered to where it is needed in
the body and carbon dioxide is removed from the body. Respiration
involves three phases: Inhaling, exchanging, and exhaling. The res-
piratory process is controlled by the nervous system.
2. Structure of the nervous system
The respiratory center is located in the rear, bottom part of the
brain, near the back of the neck. The respiratory center of the brain
is connected to a pathway of nerves that leads down from the
spinal cord to connect with muscles controlling the diaphragm
and rib cage.
3. Steps in the nervous system to control breathing
When the brain detects the need for more oxygen in the blood-
stream, the respiratory center in the brain sends out a signal to
inhale. The signal moves along the pathway of nerves to muscles
controlling the diaphragm and rib cage. When the brain detects
the need for less carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, the respiratory
center in the brain terminates the signal to inhale. The signal to
inhale stops moving along the pathway of nerves to the muscles
controlling the diaphragm and rib cage.
4. Structure of the thoracic cavity
The thoracic cavity is the space in the chest that contains the
lungs. It is surrounded by the rib cage, which can move slightly
inward or outward, and has the diaphragm on the bottom, which
has a dome that can move downward. The main muscles involved
in respiration are the diaphragm and the rib muscles. The dia-
phragm is located underneath the lungs. It lines the lower part of
the thoracic cavity, sealing it off air-tight from the rest of the body.
The rib muscles are attached to the ribs, which in turn encircle the
lungs. When in the relaxed position, the ribs are slightly inward
and the diaphragm dome curves upward.
5. Structure of the airway system
From the nose and mouth, the windpipe leads to the bronchial
tubes, which branch off into the right and the left lung. There they
branch off into finer tubes.
6. Process of inhaling
During inhaling, a signal from the brain to inhale causes the
dome of the diaphragm to contract downward and the rib cage
to move slightly outward creating more space in the thoracic cav-
ity into which the lungs can expand. Air is drawn in through the
nose or mouth, moves down through the windpipe and bronchial
tubes to tiny air sacs in the lungs.
7. Structure of the exchange system
Tiny grape-like air sacs, called alveoli, are grouped together in
the lungs at the bronchial tubes. Each air sac is surrounded by tiny
blood vessels called capillaries. On one side of the air sac the sur-
rounding capillaries carry oxygen and on the other side they carry
carbon dioxide. Oxygen-carrying capillaries connect air sacs to lar-
ger blood vessels called arteries and are represented as red because
they contain an abundance of oxygen. Carbon-dioxide-carrying
capillaries connect larger blood vessels called veins to the air sacs
and are represented as blue because they contain an abundance of
carbon dioxide.
8. Structure of the circulatory system
Arteries (red blood vessels) run one-way from the lungs,
through the heart, which is somewhat below the lungs, to the cells
of the body. Arteries transport oxygen, which is used by the cells of
the body to make energy. Veins (blue blood vessels) run one-way
in the opposite direction from the cells of the body, through the
heart, to the lungs. Veins transport carbon dioxide, which is a
waste gas produced in the cells of the body. The heart is a pump
that keeps the blood flowing in the veins and arteries.
9. Process of exchanging
The exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide takes place in the
connection between air sacs and capillaries. Oxygen molecules in
the inhaled air move to the capillaries running nearby, and carbon
dioxide molecules move from the capillaries into the air sacs in the
lungs. The capillaries carry the oxygen to arteries, which transport
it, through the heart, to the cells of the body. At the same time, car-
bon dioxide travels in veins from the cells of the body, through the
heart, to capillaries running next to the air sacs.
10. Process of exhaling
The carbon-dioxide-rich air in the air sacs is drawn out of the
lungs by exhaling. When the brain turns off the signal to inhale,
the diaphragm and the rib muscles relax. The dome of the dia-
phragm moves upward again and the ribs move slightly inward.
As a result, the thoracic cavity becomes smaller creating less room
for the lungs. Air containing carbon dioxide is forced out of the
lungs through the bronchial tubes and windpipe to the nose and
mouth, where it leaves the body.
References
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333,
1096–1097.
Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in
science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 358–368.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education.
Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.
Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in
fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 30(1–2), 87–111.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of
intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal
study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 145–153.
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring
alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105
(2), 299–309.
Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading
educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 30–41.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-
explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve
problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of
physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448–456.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension
strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 229–247.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, 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.
 L. Fiorella, R.E. Mayer / Contemporary Educational Psychology 49 (2017) 66–79
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of
factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and
teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning
strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741.
Fowler, R. L., & Barker, A. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text
material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 358–364.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group.
(1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American
Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
Hambrick, D. Z., Libarkin, J. C., Petcovic, H. L., Baker, K. M., Elkins, J., Callahan, C. N., ...
LaDue, N. D. (2012). A test of the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis in
scientific problem solving: The case of geological bedrock mapping. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 397–403.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical analysis with a multicategorical
independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
67, 451–470.
Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (Eds.). (1984). Spatial learning strategies. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Holley, C. D., Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Garland, J. C., & Collins, K. W. (1979).
Evaluation of a hierarchical mapping technique as an aid to prose processing.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 227–237.
Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers:
An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 601–614.
Jarvenoja, H., Jarvela, S., & Malmberg, J. (2015). Understanding regulated learning
in situative and contextual frameworks. Educational Psychologist, 50(3),
204–219.
Kardash, C. A. M., & Amlund, J. T. (1991). Self-reported learning strategies and
learning from expository text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16,
117–138.
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in
student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own?
Memory, 17(4), 471–479.
Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and
beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147–172.
Kiewra, K. A., & Benton, S. L. (1988). The relationship between information-
processing ability and notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 33–44.
Kiewra, K. A., BuBois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley,
D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(2), 240–245.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lahtinen, V., Lonka, K., & Lindblom-Ylanne, S. (1997). Spontaneous study strategies
and the quality of knowledge construction. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 67, 13–24.
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea
selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22,
16–26.
Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific
text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 47–63.
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text
comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284–289.
Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The drawing principle in multimedia learning. In
R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 433–488).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.
Cambridge University Press: New York.
Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners:
Cognitive ability, cognitive style and learning preference. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95(4), 833–846.
79
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. H. Winne & P. A.
Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–303). New York:
Routledge.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard:
Advantages of longhand over laptop notetaking. Psychological Science, 1–10.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–418.
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science
lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34–38.
Ponce, H. R., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing
during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human
Behavior, 30, 121–130.
Pressley, M. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children’s
academic performance. Brookline Books.
Roberts, F. W., & Dansereau, D. F. (2008). Studying strategy effects on memory,
attitudes, and intentions. Reading Psychology, 29, 552–580.
Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are
superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 3, 455–467.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory
tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking
mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2),
113–142.
Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010).
Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872–879.
Sims, V. K., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: The case of
video game players. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 97–115.
Stieff, M., Dixon, B., Ryu, M., Kumi, B. C., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Strategy training
eliminates sex differences in spatial problem solving in a STEM domain? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 390–402.
Stieff, M., & Uttal, D. (2015). How much can spatial training improve STEM
achievement? Educational Psychology Review, 27, 605–615.
Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one
mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8
(4), 384–395.
Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why,
and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181.
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., &
Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of
training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402.
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.
Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated
drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31, 142–166.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated
drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17,
285–325.
Van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note-
taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86(3), 323–338.
Wade, S., & Trathen, W. (1989). Effect of self-selected study methods on learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 40–47.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability and STEM domains:
Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its
importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching and learning (3rd ed.,
pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational
Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.