Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Visualisation and Imagery to Enhance Reading Comprehension

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Literacy in the Arts

Abstract

Reading comprehension is a dynamic process that requires readers to construct meaning while they are decoding text. During the reading process readers do not normally retain verbatim text information but develop other, more flexible knowledge structures. Skilled readers do this by constructing a mental model incorporating both visual and verbal information in the form of a cohesive representation of the meaning. The construction of a mental model is formed by the integration of the reader’s prior knowledge with the text structure or story content. For example, good readers tend to make bridging inferences by incorporating their own relevant background knowledge to fill in the gaps when important information is not given in the text. When readers are taught to visualise story events they are able to make appropriate inferences because visualising enables them to draw on their own prior knowledge and life experiences. As readers visualise while reading they become more engaged with the text, enjoy what they are reading, and often imagine themselves in the story. Imagining story ideas during the reading process links information in working memory and makes the encoding and recall of information more efficient. This chapter discusses how visual imagery techniques such as drawing, manipulating objects, forming mental imagery, developing characterisations, and using story structure can improve reading comprehension performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2004). A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 417–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 485–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlettt, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, N. (1986). Visualising and verbalising. Paso Robles, CA: Academy of Reading Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorder of language comprehension in children. Hove, England: Psychological Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., & Ogle, D. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, C. C., Paris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whiteley, C. S., & Cleveland, M. D. (2009). Instructional approaches that signify increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 262–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 178–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. E. (2002). What motivates students to read?: Four literacy personalities. The Reading Teacher, 56, 326–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, J. J., Bennetto, L., & Young, E. C. (2006). Story recall and narrative coherence of high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, B. (2009). Looking through an adolescent literacy lens at the narrow view of reading. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 192–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, D. W. (1996). Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher, 49, 534–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M. J. (1995). Current issues in the neuropsychology of image generation. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1455–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L. B., Kapinus, B. A., & Wilson, R. M. (1987). Using mental imagery and summarization to achieve independence in comprehension. Journal of Reading, 30, 638–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence-based best practice for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 11–29). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, B., Mazzoni, S. A., & Almasi, J. F. (2000). Promoting collaboration, social interaction, and engagement. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp. 119–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2006). Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating the struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H.,… Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for the middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 56, 758–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, S., & Glynn, T. (1993). Peer tutoring of below average secondary school readers using pause, prompt and praise: A successive introduction to tutoring components. Behaviour Change, 10, 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, V. L., Cain, K., & Maric, N. (2007). Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment: Does mental imagery training help? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42(6), 648–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychology Review, 99, 122–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelin, D. A. (2007). The perspective from within: Drama and children’s literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(3), 277–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & Van den Broek, P. (2009). Revising the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1982). Memory for text. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 186–204). New York, NY: North-Holland Publication.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. R., & Savage, J. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42(2), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, K. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning difficulties who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (1976). Using imagery to retrieve semantic information: A developmental study. Child Development, 47, 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer spelling dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasney, K. A., Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Unwarranted re-turn: Response to McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavelek’s (2005) “ Schema Theory Revisited”. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LaBerg, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, A. G. (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leekam, S. (2007). Language comprehension difficulties in children with autism spectrum disorders. In C. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 104–127). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, S. A., Winograd, P. N., & Bridge, C. A. (1989). The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85, 647–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: Report of the comprehension instruction subgroup to the national institute of child health and development. Washington, DC: NICD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overett, J., & Donald, D. (1998). Paired reading: Effects of a parent involvement program in a disadvantaged community in South Africa. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A., & Sadoski, M. (2010). Lexicons, contexts, events, and images: Commentary on Elman (2009) from the perspective of dual coding theory. Cognitive Science, 35, 198–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, D. P., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 101–144). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilonieta, P., & Medina. (2009). Reciprocal teaching for the primary grades: “We can do it too!”. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. International Reading Association Online Document, http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html

  • Pressley, M. G. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Gilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D. N., Van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renz, K., Lorch, E. P., Milich, R., Lemberger, C., Bodner, A., & Welsh, R. (2003). On-line story representation in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(1), 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romeo, L. (2002). At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In C. Collins Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction (pp. 385–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roser, N., Martinez, M., Fuhrken, C., & McDonnold, K. (2007). Characters as guides to meaning. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 548–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., McTigue, E., & Paivio, A. (2012). A dual coding theoretical model of decoding in reading: Subsuming the Laberg and Samuels model. Reading Psychology, 33, 465–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., & Quast, Z. (1990). Reader response and long-term re-call for journalistic text: The roles of imagery, affect, and importance. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 256–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 137–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465/

  • Stull, A., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organisers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, T. (2008). Adventures in graphica: Using comics and graphic novels to teach comprehension, 2–6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troegger, D. (2011). Teaching reading strategies by using a comprehension framework. Practically Primary, 16(1), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsley, T. M., Reijntjes, A., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaley, J. F. (1981). Readers’ expectation for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 90–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehurst, G. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (1988). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G. E. (2006a). Comprehension difficulties after year 4: Actioning appropriately. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 11(3), 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G. E. (2006b). The development, documentation, and evaluation of a strategy-training program for primary school students with reading comprehension difficulties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G. E. (2007). A comprehension intervention for children with reading comprehension difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 12(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G. E., & Hay, I. (2004). Using imagery as a strategy to enhance students’ comprehension of read text. In B. A. Knight & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives (pp. 85–101). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., & Hoosain, R. (2001). The influence of narrative text characteristics on thematic inference during reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia

    Gary Woolley

Authors
  1. Gary Woolley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Woolley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education & Prof. Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Georgina Barton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woolley, G. (2014). Using Visualisation and Imagery to Enhance Reading Comprehension. In: Barton, G. (eds) Literacy in the Arts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04846-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation