Abstract
Generative learning strategies are intended to improve students’ learning by prompting them to actively make sense of the material to be learned. But are they effective for all students? This review provides an overview of six popular generative learning strategies: concept mapping, explaining, predicting, questioning, testing, and drawing. Its main purpose is to review for what ages the effectiveness of these strategies has been demonstrated and whether there are indications of age-related differences in their effectiveness. The description of each strategy covers (1) how it is supposed to work, (2) the evidence on its effectiveness in different age groups, and (3) if there are age-related differences in its effectiveness. It is found that while all six generative learning strategies reviewed have proven effective for university students, evidence is mixed for younger students. Whereas some strategies (practice testing, predicting) seem to be effective already in lower-elementary-school children, others (drawing, questioning) seem to be largely ineffective until secondary school. The review closes with a call for research on the cognitive and metacognitive prerequisites of generative learning that can explain these differences.
Highlights
Generative learning strategies are intended to improve students’ learning by prompting them to actively make sense of the material to be learned. Are they effective for all students? This review provides an overview of six popular generative learning strategies: concept mapping, explaining, predicting, questioning, testing, and drawing
It is found that while all six generative learning strategies reviewed have proven effective for university students, evidence is mixed for younger students
The emphasis on the production of meaningful content that goes beyond the provided information but that does not necessarily have to be invented by the learner implies that generating answers to test questions counts as a generative learning strategies (GLSs)
Summary
Generative learning strategies are intended to improve students’ learning by prompting them to actively make sense of the material to be learned. The current review is intended to shed light on the question of whether there are age-related differences in the effectiveness of a particular group of strategies—generative learning strategies (GLSs). Learners have to activate prior knowledge and link it to the provided information, which is assumed to foster integration of new information into existing knowledge structures This definition of GLSs is supposed to differentiative GLSs from other popular learning strategies that require activities by the learners but do not require the generation of additional content (e.g., highlighting, paraphrasing). The emphasis on the production of meaningful content that goes beyond the provided information but that does not necessarily have to be invented by the learner implies that generating answers to test questions (i.e., practice testing) counts as a GLS. Because of these classificatory difficulties and resultant problems in inferring and comparing underlying cognitive processes, these strategies are not considered for the current review
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
