Print and Image Integration of Science Texts and Reading Comprehension: A Systemic Functional Linguistics Perspective

  • Pei-Ling HsuEmail author
  • Wen-Gin Yang


Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) was the foundation for this study that explored the effect of science text and image integration on grade 9 students’ reading comprehension. Two texts in Chinese on the moon phase with different print and image integration were compared—a traditional textbook (TT) used in Taiwanese junior high schools and a systemic functional linguistics text (SFLT) created by the authors for this study. These two texts contained similar concepts but had major differences in several features: technicality, representational structure, degree of modality, and interaction between print and image. A control-experimental design with pretest, posttest, and semi-structured interviews was used. In total, 132 junior high school students were randomly assigned to two groups: one group (n=69) read the TT and the other group (n=63) read the SFLT. Sixteen students with both high and low performances in the posttest were purposely selected as the subjects of the follow-up interviews. Major findings were: (a) students who read the SFLT demonstrated significantly better achievement than those who read the TT, and (b) students who read the TT generated more misconceptions about the moon phase and had greater difficulty in making sense of the images than the students who read the SFLT. Accordingly, SFL may serve as a useful theoretical framework and tool in the design of textbooks and may have a practical application in the science classroom.

Key words

print-image integration reading comprehension science texts systemic functional linguistics (SFL) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bazerman, C. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific discourse. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 3–14). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y. & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craig, M. T. & Yore, L. D. (1996). Middle school students’ awareness of strategies for resolving comprehension difficulties in science reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(4), 226–238.Google Scholar
  4. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistic perspective. Science Education, 89, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). The analysis of scientific texts in English and Chinese. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 124–132). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  6. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  7. Halliday, M. A. K. (1998). Things and relations—regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 185–235). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Hong, W. T. (1997). Reading comprehension of scientific articles. Science Education Monthly, 5, 14–25.Google Scholar
  9. Hu, Z. L. (1990). Language system and function. Bei-Jing, China: Bei-Jing University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hu, Z. L., Zhu, Y. S. & Chang, D. R. (1987). The outline of systemic functional linguistics. Hunan, China: Hunan Educational Publisher.Google Scholar
  11. Huang, G. W. (2001). The theory and practice of textual analysisthe advertising language research. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Publisher.Google Scholar
  12. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, M. M. (2002). A study of factors associated with the interpretation of diagrams in biology texts by eleventh graders. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  15. Lin, J. Z. (2003). Using systemic functional linguistics perspective to explore the reading comprehension of different scientific text structures — take “Heat and Temperature” for example. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, J. R. (1993). Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 221–267). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newton Publishing Group. (2002). Natural and living technology science textbook for middle schools. Taipei, Taiwan: Newton.Google Scholar
  19. Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N. J. (2004). Reading as a meaning-construction process: The reader, the text and the teacher. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1462–1521). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  20. Spence, D. J., Yore, L. D. & Williams, R. L. (1999). The effects of explicit science reading instruction on selected grade 7 students’ metacognition and comprehension of specific science text. Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sung, Y. T. (1999). The effect of prior knowledge, text structure, and multimedia presentations on text learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  22. Unsworth, L. (1997). Explaining explanations: Enhancing science learning and literacy development. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 43(1), 34–49.Google Scholar
  23. Unsworth, L. (2000). Investigating subject-specific literacies in school learning. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in schools and communities: SFL perspectives (pp. 245–274). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  24. Unsworth, L. (2001a). Evaluating the language of different types of explanations in junior high school science texts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(6), 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Unsworth, L. (2001b). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean-scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions: Social process in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  27. Veel, R. (1998). The greening of school science: Ecogenesis in secondary classrooms. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 114–151). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wignell, P., Martin, J. R. & Eggins, S. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle texts as technology. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 136–165). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  30. Yore, L. D. & Shymansky, J. A. (1991). Reading in science: Developing an operational conception to guide instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2(2), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T. & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive-constructive model, test verification, and grades 4–8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of EducationUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations