Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 7, pp 1447–1472 | Cite as

Eye-movement patterns and reader characteristics of students with good and poor performance when reading scientific text with diagrams

  • Yu-Cin Jian
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study investigated the cognitive processes and reader characteristics of sixth graders who had good and poor performance when reading scientific text with diagrams. We first measured the reading ability and reading self-efficacy of sixth-grade participants, and then recorded their eye movements while they were reading an illustrated scientific text and scored their answers to content-related questions. Finally, the participants evaluated the difficulty of the article, the attractiveness of the content and diagram, and their learning performance. The participants were then classified into groups based on how many correct responses they gave to questions related to reading. The results showed that readers with good performance had better character recognition ability and reading self-efficacy, were more attracted to the diagrams, and had higher self-evaluated learning levels than the readers with poor performance did. Eye-movement data indicated that readers with good performance spent significantly more reading time on the whole article, the text section, and the diagram section than the readers with poor performance did. Interestingly, readers with good performance had significantly longer mean fixation duration on the diagrams than readers with poor performance did; further, readers with good performance made more saccades between the text and the diagrams. Additionally, sequential analysis of eye movements showed that readers with good performance preferred to observe the diagram rather than the text after reading the title, but this tendency was not present in readers with poor performance. In sum, using eye-tracking technology and several reading tests and questionnaires, we found that various cognitive aspects (reading strategy, diagram utilization) and affective aspects (reading self-efficacy, article likeness, diagram attraction, and self-evaluation of learning) affected sixth graders’ reading performance in this study.

Keywords

Science reading Cognitive process Eye movements Reader characteristics Sequential analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the Grants MOST103-2511-S-003-065-MY3 and MOST105-2628-H-003-002-MY3 from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2), 131–152. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, S., Miller, B., & Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1/2), 285–311. doi: 10.1080/09541440340000123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452–477. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073–1091. doi: 10.1002/sce.20164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, M., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. N. (2008a). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 239–261. doi: 10.1080/09500690601187168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008b). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848–867. doi: 10.1002/sce.20262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59–74. doi: 10.1080/104132001753149883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Leeuw, L., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Role of text and student characteristics in real-time reading processes across the primary grades. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4), 389–408. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans, J. B. T. (2007). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–287. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferk, V., Vrtacnik, M., Blejec, A., & Gril, A. (2003). Students’ understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1227–1245. doi: 10.1080/0950069022000038231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fienberg, S. E. (1970). An iterative procedure for estimation in contingency tables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 41(3), 907–917. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177696968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14(5), 462–466. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.02454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. 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. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1998.0987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harber, J. N. (1983). The effects of illustrations on the reading performance of learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(1), 55–60. doi: 10.2307/1510866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1084–1102. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717–742. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160. doi: 10.1007/BF00401799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang, H. S. (2001). Chinese character recognition test. Psychological Publishing Company (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  22. Jian, Y.-C. (2016). Fourth graders’ cognitive processes and learning strategies for reading illustrated biology texts: Eye movement measurements. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(1), 93–109. doi: 10.1002/rrq.125.Google Scholar
  23. Jian, Y. C., & Wu, C. J. (2015). Using eye tracking to investigate semantic and spatial representations of scientific diagrams during text-diagram integration. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 43–55. doi: 10.1007/s10956-014-9519-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jian, Y. C., Wu, C. J., & Su, J. H. (2014). Learners’ eye movements during construction of mechanical kinematic representations from static diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 32, 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178–191. doi: 10.1037/a0026923.Google Scholar
  26. Katzir, T., Lesaux, N., & Kim, Y. (2009). The role of reading self-concept and home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(3), 261–276. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirby, J. R., Ball, A., Geier, B. K., Parrila, R., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2011). The development of reading interest and its relation to reading ability. Research in Reading, 34(3), 263–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01439.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ko, H. W. (1999). Reading comprehension-screening test (in Chinese). Psychological Testing, 46, 1–11.Google Scholar
  29. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of the visual design. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Liebfreund, M. D. (2015). Success with informational text comprehension: An examination of underlying factors. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 387–392. doi: 10.1002/rrq.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, Y. C., Lee, C. S., Huang, N. T., Chang, Y. T., & Tsai, S. F. (2008). Living science and technology textbook. Kang Hsuan Company Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013a). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 356–384. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2012.727885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013b). Do fourth graders integrated text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers and Education, 60(1), 95–109. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2015). Integrative processing of verbal and graphical information during re-reading predicts learning from illustrated text: An eye-movement study. Reading and Writing, 28(6), 851–872. doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9552-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143–153. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McTigue, E. M., & Flowers, A. C. (2011). Science visual literacy: Learners’ perceptions and knowledge of diagrams. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 578–589. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.8.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller, B. W. (2015). Using reading times and eye-movements to measure cognitive engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 31–42. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1004068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore, P. J., & Scevak, J. J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20(3), 205–223. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.00033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Norman, R. R. (2012). Reading the graphics: What is the relationship between graphical reading processes and student comprehension? Reading and Writing, 25(3), 739–774. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9298-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children’s reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 47–72). New York, NY: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach (pp. 53–83). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reid, D. J., & Beveridge, M. (1986). Effects of text illustration on children’s learning of a school science topic. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(3), 294–303. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1986.tb03042.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rusted, J., & Coltheart, M. (1979). Facilitation of children’s prose recall by the presence of pictures. Memory and Cognition, 7(5), 354–359. doi: 10.3758/BF03196939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schroeder, S. (2011). What readers have and do Effects of students’ verbal ability and reading time components on comprehension with and without text availability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 877–896. doi: 10.1037/a0023731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects of children’s achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 93–105. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Segers, E., Verhoeven, L., & Hulstijn-Hendrikse, N. (2008). Cognitive processes in children's multimedia text learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slough, S., & McTigue, E. (2010). Introduction to the integration of verbal and visual information in science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 206–212. doi: 10.1080/02702710903241397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Small, M. Y., Lovett, S. B., & Scher, M. S. (1993). Pictures facilitate children’s recall of unillustrated expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 520–528. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sung, Y. T., Wu, M. D., Chen, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior and performance of fifth-graders: Evidence from eye-movement data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85–106. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Unrau, N. J., & Quirk, M. (2014). Reading motivation and reading engagement clarifying commingled conceptions. Reading Psychology, 35(3), 260–284. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2012.684426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van den Haak, M. J., De Jong, M. D. T., & Schellens, P. J. (2003). Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behavior and Information Technology, 22(5), 339–351. doi: 10.1080/0044929031000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van der Schoot, M., Reijntjes, A., & Van Lieshout, E. C. M. D. (2012). How do children deal with inconsistencies in text? An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in good and poor reading comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1665–1690. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9337-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McRae, A., et al. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432–445. doi: 10.1002/pits.20307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology and CounselingNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options