• Ming-Chang Cheng
  • Pei-I ChouEmail author
  • Ya-Ting Wang
  • Chih-Ho Lin


This study investigates how the illustrations in a science textbook, with their design modified according to cognitive process principles, affected students’ learning performance. The quasi-experimental design recruited two Grade 5 groups (N = 58) as the research participants. The treatment group (n = 30) used the modified version of the textbook, and the comparison group (n = 28) used the standard textbook published in Taiwan. Scores from a researcher-developed performance assessment for the two groups were examined with a one-way ANCOVA, using the first unit examination as the covariate. Results showed that the modified textbook with a cognitive principles-driven design enhanced the participants’ learning performance in terms of conceptual knowledge, as well as transfer and retention, compared with that of the group using the standard textbook. However, such improvement did not occur in procedural knowledge. Thus, the learning benefits of cognitive principles-driven illustrations warrant further investigation.


academic achievement cognitive process principles illustration multimedia learning theory science textbook 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adesope, O. O. & Nesbit, T. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Canham, M. & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carney, R. & Levin, J. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chou, P.-I. (2010). Content analysis on illustrations in science and technology textbooks used in Taiwan's junior high schools. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. Taiwan: Hualien.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. C. & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F. & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. 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(6), 1073–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook, M. P. (2008). Students’ comprehension of science concepts depicted in textbook illustrations. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  9. DeLeeuw, K. E. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Florax, M. & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kester, L., Lehen, C., van Gerven, P. & Kirschner, P. (2006). Just-in-time, schematic supportive information presentation during cognitive skill acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, V. R. (2010). Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in US middle school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1099–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, J., Anglin, G. & Carney, R. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. Willows & H. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, volume 2: Instructional issues (pp. 51–85). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lynch, M. & Woolgar, S. (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G. & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustration to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pintó, R. & Ametller, J. (2002). Students’ difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pozzer, L. L. & Roth, W.-M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reber, A. S., Reber, E. & Allen, R. (2009). The Penguin dictionary of psychology (4th ed.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  24. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Stull, A. T. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  28. Tippett, C. D. (2011). Exploring middle school studentsrepresentational competence in science: Development and verification of a framework for learning with visual representations (PhD dissertation). University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from
  29. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yore, L. D., Anderson, J. O. & Chiu, M.-H. (2010). Moving PISA results into the policy arena: Perspectives on knowledge transfer for future considerations and preparations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L. & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ming-Chang Cheng
    • 1
  • Pei-I Chou
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ya-Ting Wang
    • 2
  • Chih-Ho Lin
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Vocational and Technological EducationNational Pingtung University of Science & TechnologyPingtungRepublic of China
  2. 2.Graduate Institute of EducationNational Sun Yat-Sen UniversityKaohsiungRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations