Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Visual Displays on Learning Across the Disciplines: A Systematic Review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current systematic review aimed to investigate in what ways the incorporation of visual display tasks benefits K-12 students’ content-area learning. After screening 1693 articles at abstract level and a systematic evaluation of methodological quality, we synthesized 44 articles for this review. The qualitative synthesis of the studies is organized by categories of interaction with visual displays (ViDis), instructional support, and types of knowledge and learning. Overall findings indicate the simple inclusion of visual displays does not guarantee a positive learning effect. More detailed findings distinguish three categories of ViDis: author-provided, student-filled-in, and student-created visual displays. Furthermore, we discuss each category’s effectiveness for students’ learning. Additionally, findings on retention and information comprehension are mixed when students are either provided with ViDis or complete ViDis themselves. However, the integration of ViDis in K-12 classrooms indicate highly promising results for enhancing students’ higher-level learning (i.e., analyzing, evaluating, applying, and creating). Finally, we provided practical implications for K-12 teachers and recommendations for future research.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

*Samples included in the present study

  • *Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (2006). “Then you can take half… almost”—elementary students learning bar graphs and pie charts in a computer-based context. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Acha, J. (2009). The effectiveness of multimedia programmes in children’s vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00800.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Arya, P., & Feathers, K. M. (2012). Reconsidering children’s readings: insights into the reading process. Reading Psychology, 33, 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.518881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bergey, B. W., Cromley, J. G., Kirchgessner, M. L., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Using diagrams versus text for spaced restudy: effects on learning in 10th grade biology classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergey, B. W., Cromley, J. G., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015b). Teaching high school biology students to coordinate text and diagrams: Relations with transfer, effort, and spatial skill. International Journal of Science Education, 37(15), 2476–2502.

  • *Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps (2nd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: the cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

  • *Boulineau, T., Fore Iii, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 105–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. L. (2001). Teaching advanced literacy skills for the world wide web. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), Learning and teaching on the world wide web (pp. 73–90). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brookshire, J., Scharff, L. F., & Moses, L. E. (2002). The influence of illustrations on children’s book preferences and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 23, 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/713775287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in instructional psychology, 5, 161–238.

  • *Cho, Y. H., & Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Learning by self-explaining causal diagrams in high-school biology. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9187-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ciullo, S., Falcomata, T. S., Pfannenstiel, K., & Billingsley, G. (2015a). Improving learning with science and social studies text using computer-based concept maps for students with disabilities. Behavior Modification, 39, 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514552890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ciullo, S., Falcomata, T., & Vaughn, S. (2015b). Teaching social studies to upper elementary students with learning disabilities: graphic organizers and explicit instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713516767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cohen, M. T., & Johnson, H. L. (2011). Improving the acquisition of novel vocabulary through the use of imagery interventions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(5), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0408-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cohen, M. T., & Johnson, H. L. (2012). Improving the acquisition and retention of science material by fifth grade students through the use of imagery interventions. Instructional Science, 40, 925–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9197-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. M., McTigue, E. M., & Dantzler, J. A. (2018). What makes a diagram easy or hard? The impact of diagram design on fourth-grade students’ comprehension of science texts. The elementary school journal, 119(1), 122–151.

  • Common Core State Standards. (2009). English language arts—literacy Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RI/4/.

  • Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cromley, J. G., Bergey, B. W., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N., Wills, T. W., Shipley, T. F., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013a). Effectiveness of student-constructed diagrams and self-explanation instruction. Learning and Instruction, 26, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cromley, J. G., Perez, T. C., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N. S., Wills, T. W., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013b). Improving students’ diagram comprehension with classroom instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cromley, J. G., Weisberg, S. M., Dai, T., Newcombe, N. S., Schunn, C. D., Massey, C., & Merlino, F. J. (2016). Improving middle school science learning using diagrammatic reasoning. Science Education, 100, 1184–1213. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N. K., & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2003). Reading and writing informational text in the primary grades: research based practices. New York: Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., & Demetriou, A. (2007). The effects of different modes of representation on the solution of one-step additive problems. Learning and Instruction, 17, 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 427–466. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fingeret, L. (2012). Visuals in children’s informational texts: a content analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

  • Gatto, J. A., Porter, A. W., & Selleck, J. (2011). Exploring visual design: the elements and principles (4th ed.). Worcester: Davis Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2009). Concept map structure, gender and teaching methods: an investigation of students’ science learning. Educational Research, 51, 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880903354758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, D., Wright, K. L., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). A content analysis of visuals in elementary school textbooks. The elementary school journal, 119(2), 244–269.

  • Guo, D., Zimmer, W., Matthews, S. D., & McTigue, E. M. (2019). Critical analysis of research on the impact of visual literacy for learning: strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for improvement. Journal of Visual Literacy, 38(3), 181–198.

  • Guo, D., Zhang, S., Wright, K. L., & McTigue, E. M. (2020). Do You Get the Picture? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Graphics on Reading Comprehension. AERA Open, 6(1), 2332858420901696.

  • Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low-and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, B., Crismore, A., & Pearson, P. D. (1997). Visual displays in basal readers and social studies textbooks. In H. A. Houghton & D. M. Willows (Eds.), The psychology of illustration (pp. 116–135). Harrisonburg: R. R. Donnelly & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jian, Y. C. (2017). Eye-movement patterns and reader characteristics of students with good and poor performance when reading scientific text with diagrams. Reading and Writing, 30(7), 1447–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9732-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Woodard, K. A., & Haygood, R. C. (1993). Comparing elaboration and dual coding theories: the case of maps and text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 106, 483–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., & Caterino, L. C. (1994). Reference maps as a framework for remembering text. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 153–162). New York: Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *Kwon, S. Y., & Cifuentes, L. (2009). The comparative effect of individually-constructed vs. collaboratively-constructed computer-based concept maps. Computers & Education, 52, 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lenzner, A., Schnotz, W., & Müller, A. (2013). The role of decorative pictures in learning. Instructional Science, 41(5), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9256-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Leopold, C., Doerner, M., Leutner, D., & Dutke, S. (2015). Effects of strategy instructions on learning from text and pictures. Instructional Science, 43(3), 345–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9336-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: a review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30, 195–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Marley, S. C., & Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving children’s listening comprehension with a manipulation strategy. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013a). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 356–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013b). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mason, L., Baldi, R., Di Ronco, S., Scrimin, S., Danielson, R. W., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). Textual and graphical refutations: effects on conceptual change learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of educational psychology, 81(2), 240–246.

  • Mayer, R. (2001). Multi-media learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2006). Ten research-based principles of multimedia learning. Web-based learning: Theory, research, and practice, 371–390.

  • Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380.

  • *McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTigue, E. M., & Flowers, A. C. (2011). Science visual literacy: Learners’ perceptions and knowledge of diagrams. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 578–589.

  • Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory into Practice, 47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992264.

  • *Miller, B. W., Cromley, J. G., & Newcombe, N. S. (2016). Improving diagrammatic reasoning in middle school science using conventions of diagrams instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Muthersbaugh, D., Kern, A. L., & Charvoz, R. (2014). Impact through images: exploring student understanding of environmental science through integrated place-based lessons in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28, 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Norman, R. R. (2012). Reading the graphics: what is the relationship between graphical reading processes and student comprehension? Reading and Writing, 25, 739–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pyke, C. L. (2003). The use of symbols, words, and diagrams as indicators of mathematical cognition: a causal model. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 406–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: how to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimrodt, S., Lightman, A., Roberts, L., Denckla, M. B., & Cutting, L. E. (2005). Are all tests of reading comprehension the same? Paper presented at the 33rd Annual International Neuropsychological Society Meeting.

  • Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 252–288. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. L., & Brugar, K. A. (2017). The view from here: emergence of graphical literacy. Reading Psychology, 38, 733–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1336661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Roberts, K. L., Norman, R. R., & Cocco, J. (2015). Relationship between graphical device comprehension and overall text comprehension for third-grade children. Reading Psychology, 36, 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.865693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. S. (1984). Learning to see: developing visual literacy through film. Top of the News, 40, 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., Stricker, A. G., & Burdenski, T. K. (2003). New findings for concreteness and imagery effects in written composition. Reading and Writing, 16, 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. E., McTigue, E. M., Miller, D. M., & Washburn, E. K. (2018). The what, when, and how of preservice teachers and literacy across the disciplines: a systematic literature review of nearly 50 years of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 1–13.

  • *Segers, E., Verhoeven, L., & Hulstijn-Hendrikse, N. (2008). Cognitive processes in children’s multimedia text learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slough, S. W., & McTigue, E. M. (2010). Introduction to the integration of verbal and visual information in science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 206–212.

  • *Sun, J. C. Y., & Chen, A. Y. Z. (2016). Effects of integrating dynamic concept maps with Interactive Response System on elementary school students’ motivation and learning outcome: the case of anti-phishing education. Computers & Education, 102, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sun, J. C. Y., & Lee, K. H. (2016). Which teaching strategy is better for enhancing anti-phishing learning motivation and achievement? The concept maps on tablet PCs or worksheets? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19, 87.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Swanson, H. L. (2015). Cognitive strategy interventions improve word problem solving and working memory in children with math disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Swanson, H. L., Lussier, C., & Orosco, M. (2013). Effects of cognitive strategy interventions and cognitive moderators on word problem solving in children at risk for problem solving difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Terwel, J., van Oers, B., van Dijk, I., & van den Eeden, P. (2009). Are representations to be provided or generated in primary mathematics education? Effects on transfer. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802481265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency. (2017). Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter112/

  • Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L., & Mraz, M. E. (2005). Content area reading: literacy and learning across the curriculum. England: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Van Garderen, D. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Van Garderen, D. (2007). Teaching students with LD to use diagrams to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 540–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinter, A., & Perruchet, P. (2000). Implicit learning in children is not related to age: evidence from drawing behavior. Child Development, 71(5), 1223–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, R. (1981). Understanding network diagrams. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981.

  • *Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Effects of a question prompt-based concept mapping approach on students’ learning achievements, attitudes and 5C competences in project-based computer course activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19, 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2010). Targeting content area literacy instruction to meet the needs of adolescent English language learners. Middle School Journal, 4, 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wileman, R. E. (1993). Visual communicating. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Zheng, R. Z., Yang, W., Garcia, D., & McCadden, E. P. (2008). Effects of multimedia and schema induced analogical reasoning on science learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00282.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Literacy, Language, & Culture, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Daibao Guo

  2. Norwegian National Centre for Reading and Reading Research, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

    Erin M. McTigue

  3. Department of Teaching, Learning, & Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Sharon D. Matthews & Wendi Zimmer

Authors
  1. Daibao Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin M. McTigue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon D. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wendi Zimmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daibao Guo.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 36 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, D., McTigue, E.M., Matthews, S.D. et al. The Impact of Visual Displays on Learning Across the Disciplines: A Systematic Review. Educ Psychol Rev 32, 627–656 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09523-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09523-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation