Advertisement

Teaching Fourth-Grade Students of Different Reading Abilities to Read Biological Illustrations and Integrate In-Text Information: an Empirical Experiment

  • Yu-Cin Jian
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Scientific texts are often multimodal, consisting of both text and illustrations. However, previous research indicates that young readers are poor at using text-and-illustration integration strategies and at in-depth processing of scientific illustration information. This study used an experimental paradigm to teach strategies of illustration reading and text-and-illustration integration to fourth-grade students. The study manipulated reading ability (high vs. low level) and teaching strategy (presence vs. absence of reading strategies instruction) as between-subjects variables. Seventy-one participants completed a prior-knowledge test, read two illustrated biology texts, and answered comprehension questions. The results showed that the instructed groups outperformed the control groups on the overall reading test, and in the illustration memory and integration items. It was inspiring to discover that teaching fourth-grade students of both high and low reading ability levels to pay attention to scientific illustrations, process them in-depth, and consider the relationship between textual descriptions and detailed parts of illustrations benefited these young readers in reading comprehension and acquiring scientific knowledge.

Keywords

Scientific illustrations Reading strategies instruction Reading ability Text-and-illustration integration 

Notes

Funding Information

This research is supported by the grants MOST105-2628-H-003-002-MY3 and MOST107-2636-S-003-001 from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. W. (1999). Inscriptions and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 973–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. (1992). Is working memory working? The fifteenth Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 1–31.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. Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, B. C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  10. Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making Sense of Graphs: Critical Factors Influencing Comprehension and Instructional Implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, R., Boulton-Lewis, G., & Bruce, C. (1995). Children’s understanding of graphic representations of quantitative data. Learning and Instruction, 5(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (Second ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  13. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 1084–1102.Google Scholar
  15. Huang, H. B. (2013). Living science and technology textbook. Nani Company Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2000). Newspapers in the secondary science classroom: a survey of practice in Northern Ireland schools. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  17. Jewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: a social semiotic approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134–156). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Jian, Y. C. (2018). Reading instructions facilitate signaling effect on science text for young readers: an eye-movement study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (in press).Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jian, Y. C. & Ko, H. W. (2017). Influences of text difficulty and reading ability on learning illustrated science texts for children: An eye movement study. Computers and Education, 113, 263-279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ko, H. W. (2006). Reading comprehension screening test (in Chinese). Psychological Testing, 46, 1–11.Google Scholar
  23. Koć-Januchta, M., Höffler, T., Thoma, G., & Prechtl, H. (2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures—an eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: the grammar of the visual design. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Moore, P. J., & Scevak, J. J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: a developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (2014). Literacy for science: exploring the intersection of the next generation science standards and common core for ELA Standards, a workshop summary, H. Rhodes and M.A. Feder, Rapporteurs. Steering Committee on Exploring the Overlap between “Literacy in Science” and the Practice of Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, R. R. (2012). Reading the graphics: what is the relationship between graphical reading processes and student comprehension? Reading and Writing, 25, 739–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ødegaard, M., Haug, B., Mork, S. M., & Sørvik, G. O. (2014). Challenges and support when teaching science through an integrated inquiry and literacy approach. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 2997–3032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paivio, A. (1990). Dual coding theory. In A. Paivio (Ed.), Mental representations: a dual coding approach (pp. 53–83). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W. M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in highschool biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations