• Yueh-Nu HungEmail author


The main purpose of this research was to investigate how Taiwanese grade 6 readers selected and used information from different print (main text, headings, captions) and visual elements (decorational, representational, interpretational) to comprehend a science text through tracking their eye movement behaviors. Six grade 6 students read a double page of science text written in Chinese during which their eye movements were documented and analyzed using an EyeLink 1000 eye tracker. The results suggest that illustrations received less attention than print; however, readers who had more fixations on illustrations had better comprehension. While both headings and captions were in the print category, the headings received much less attention than did the captions. The article concludes with implications for teaching science reading and suggestions for future research beyond this exploratory case study.

Key words

eye movement multiple representations reading comprehension science text 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V. & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberts, B. (2010). Prioritizing science education. Science, 328, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carney, R. N. & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Donovan, C. A. & Smolkin, L. B. (2002). Considering genre, content, and visual features in the selection of trade books for science instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 502–520.Google Scholar
  6. Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the fab five: Helping students cope with the unique linguistic challenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(6), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodman, Y. M., Watson, D. J. & Burke, C. L. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction (2nd ed.). New York: Richard C. Owen.Google Scholar
  8. Graesser, A. C., León, J. A. & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. León & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, OR: Stenhouse.Google Scholar
  10. Hines, P. J., Wible, B. & McCartney, M. (2010). Learning to read, reading to learn. Science, 328, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kress, G. (1995). Writing the future: English and the making of a culture of innovation. Sheffield, UK: National Association for the Teaching of English.Google Scholar
  12. Lemke, J. (1998a). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 283–302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Lemke, J. (1998b). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Levie, W. H. & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 30, 195–232.Google Scholar
  15. Levin, J. R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKenna, M. C. & Robinson, R. D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and implications. Journal of Reading, 34(3), 184–186.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, T. (1998). Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  22. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paulson, E. J. & Freeman, A. E. (2003). Insight from the eyes: The science of effective reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  24. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B. & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rayner, K. (1997). Understanding eye movements in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(4), 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual research. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J. & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in middle school: A strategic approach to teaching reading that improves comprehension in reading and thinking. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.Google Scholar
  30. Samuels, S. J., Rasinski, T. V. & Hiebert, E. H. (2011). Eye movements and reading: What teachers need to know. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 25–50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.Google Scholar
  34. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tippett, C. D. (2011). Exploring middle school students’ representational competence in science: Development and verification of a framework for learning with visual representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Unsworth, L., Thomas, A. & Bush, R. (2004). The role of images and image-text relations in group ‘Basic Skills Tests’ of literacy for children in the primary school years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 27(1), 46–65.Google Scholar
  37. Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2002). Content area reading (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  38. Yore, L. D. & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—Empowering research and informing teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Taichung University of EducationTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations