Does the Scribble Study Method Work? What the Research Actually Supports

The “scribble study method” is not a standardized learning intervention with a clear research base. We could not locate peer-reviewed studies that test a named Scribble Study Method.

Research does support some activities that people may mean by scribbling: drawing a concept, generating a visual explanation, or adding a simple cue while listening. But those activities are not interchangeable with aimless doodling, decorating notes, or copying information in different colors.

So the honest answer is: purposeful drawing can help with some memory tasks, but there is no good basis for claiming that any kind of scribbling will improve learning.

What do people mean by the scribble study method?

The term is used loosely. It can describe at least four different activities:

• drawing a picture that represents a fact or concept;
• sketching a diagram while explaining a process;
• making small, unrelated doodles while listening;
• turning notes into a colorful visual page.

These may feel similar because they all involve a pen. Cognitively, they ask different things of the learner. A sketch of blood flow through the heart requires you to select and organize relationships. A border of stars does not.

Before deciding whether the method “works,” define the actual action.

What does research say about drawing and memory?

Wammes, Meade, and Fernandes ran seven free-recall experiments in which participants drew or wrote to-be-remembered words. Their results supported a memory advantage for drawing in those tasks (Wammes et al., 2016).

That finding is real, but its boundary matters. Remembering individual words in a laboratory is not the same as understanding a lecture, retaining a chapter, or solving an exam problem. Later work has also shown that drawing can improve memory for item information while harming memory for sequence information (Jonker et al., 2019). A newer study reports that the size of the drawing benefit can depend on whether drawing and writing conditions are mixed within a list or separated into pure lists (Mykoniatis et al., 2024).

The evidence supports a qualified claim: generating a relevant drawing can be a useful encoding strategy for certain material and tests. It does not establish that drawing is always superior or that visually elaborate notes improve grades.

Is doodling the same thing?

No. Drawing a representation of the material and doodling something unrelated are different tasks.

Andrade's often-cited doodling experiment included 40 participants listening to a monotonous mock telephone message. Half shaded printed shapes while listening; the doodling group performed better on the monitoring task and recalled more names and places afterward (Andrade, 2009).

That is a narrow result. It does not show that free-form doodling improves comprehension in ordinary classes, that it works for every learner, or that doodled notes are better study materials. The paper itself discusses attention and arousal during a boring task, not a complete study method.

Activity	What the reviewed evidence supports
Drawing a relevant picture for a word or item	Memory benefit in several controlled free-recall experiments
Drawing a sequence	May preserve items while losing order; check the task
Shading simple shapes during a monotonous audio task	Benefit in one small, specific experiment
Decorating notes or making unrelated free-form doodles	No reliable general learning benefit established here
The named “Scribble Study Method”	No direct peer-reviewed efficacy evidence located

How can you use drawing without fooling yourself?

Use a sketch to make yourself think, then test what you can retrieve from it.

1. Pick a relationship, not a page

Choose something with spatial, causal, or structural relationships: a feedback loop, anatomical pathway, timeline, mechanism, or comparison. Do not redraw an entire textbook spread.

2. Draw from memory first

Study the source, hide it, and reconstruct the diagram. This turns the task into retrieval rather than copying.

Retrieval practice has a much broader evidence base than the named scribble method. Meta-analyses have found an advantage for practice testing over restudy across many experiments, with meaningful variation by design and context (Rowland, 2014; Adesope et al., 2017).

3. Label connections in words

Arrows alone are ambiguous. Add a short phrase that says what the relationship means: “inhibits,” “flows to,” “increases,” or “is converted into.”

4. Compare with a trusted source

Check labels, direction, sequence, scale, and missing steps. Keep the correction visible. For anatomy, pharmacology, or clinical content, use your assigned text, instructor material, or another current authoritative source.

5. Turn mistakes into prompts

Use your incorrect labels to make a short question set. The AI quiz generator can turn checked notes into questions, while the AI flashcard generator is useful for individual terms and relationships. Verify generated answers against the same trusted source.

6. Redraw after a delay

Spacing practice usually produces better long-term retention than massing it into one sitting, although the useful interval depends on the desired retention period (Cepeda et al., 2006). Redraw tomorrow or later in the week rather than polishing the same page for another hour.

A worked anatomy example

Suppose you are learning blood flow through the heart.

1. Read the assigned section and inspect the labelled diagram.
2. Close it.
3. Draw four chambers, the major vessels, and directional arrows from memory.
4. Label where blood is oxygen-poor and oxygen-rich.
5. Explain aloud what changes in the lungs.
6. Reopen the source and correct the route and labels.
7. Write three questions from your errors.
8. Redraw the pathway two days later without looking.

The sketch can be ugly. Accuracy and retrieval are the point. If visual polish takes longer than checking and retesting, the activity has drifted away from learning.

For a broader system, see the active recall guide and the guide to spaced repetition. You can also use the AI study guide maker to organize source material before deciding which relationships are worth drawing.

When is drawing a poor fit?

When order is the main thing being tested

Because drawing may strengthen item information without preserving sequence, explicitly number steps and test the order separately.

When the material requires performance

A diagram cannot substitute for solving calculations, writing an essay, interpreting unfamiliar data, or practising a clinical skill.

When the page becomes an art project

Color and visual organization may make notes easier to navigate. That is different from proving that decoration strengthens memory. Set a time limit and judge the page by whether it produces useful questions.

When you rely on “visual learner” labels

Preference is not proof that one presentation mode produces better learning. Choose a method that matches the content and the eventual task rather than assigning yourself a fixed learner type.

A simple evidence-aware template

Concept:
Trusted source:

Draw from memory:

Label each relationship:

After checking
- Wrong label:
- Missing relationship:
- Sequence error:
- Unsupported assumption:

Questions for later:
1.
2.
3.

Next redraw date:

The bottom line

Do not treat “scribbling” as a magic category. A relevant drawing can force you to select, organize, and retrieve information. An unrelated doodle may help attention in a narrow boring task. A beautiful page may simply be beautiful.

The named Scribble Study Method does not have direct efficacy evidence that justifies sweeping claims. Keep the useful parts: draw something meaningful, reconstruct it from memory, check it against a trustworthy source, and test it again later.

References

• Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306
• Andrade, J. (2009). What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1561
• Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
• Jonker, T. R., Wammes, J. D., & MacLeod, C. M. (2019). Drawing enhances item information but undermines sequence information in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(4), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000610
• Mykoniatis, S., Smith, K., & Drake, J. E. (2024). The drawing effect: Does drawing really enhance recall memory? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 43(2), 968–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374241303266
• Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
• Wammes, J. D., Meade, M. E., & Fernandes, M. A. (2016). The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1752–1776. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1094494