Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. W. (1999). Inscriptions and science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 973–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Is working memory working? The fifteenth Bartlett lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Collins, B. C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Gerber, R., Boulton-Lewis, G., & Bruce, C. (1995). Children’s understanding of graphic representations of quantitative data. Learning and Instruction, 5(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (Second ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Huang, H. B. (2013). Living science and technology textbook. Nani Company Press.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Ko, H. W. (2006). Reading comprehension screening test (in Chinese). Psychological Testing, 46, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: the grammar of the visual design. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. J., & Scevak, J. J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: a developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Norman, R. R. (2012). Reading the graphics: what is the relationship between graphical reading processes and student comprehension? Reading and Writing, 25, 739–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1990). Dual coding theory. In A. Paivio (Ed.), Mental representations: a dual coding approach (pp. 53–83). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Download references

Funding

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-Cin Jian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jian, YC. Teaching Fourth-Grade Students of Different Reading Abilities to Read Biological Illustrations and Integrate In-Text Information: an Empirical Experiment. Res Sci Educ 50, 2269–2282 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9778-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9778-8

Keywords

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