Abstract
Reading comprehension is a dynamic process that requires readers to construct meaning while they are decoding text. During the reading process readers do not normally retain verbatim text information but develop other, more flexible knowledge structures. Skilled readers do this by constructing a mental model incorporating both visual and verbal information in the form of a cohesive representation of the meaning. The construction of a mental model is formed by the integration of the reader’s prior knowledge with the text structure or story content. For example, good readers tend to make bridging inferences by incorporating their own relevant background knowledge to fill in the gaps when important information is not given in the text. When readers are taught to visualise story events they are able to make appropriate inferences because visualising enables them to draw on their own prior knowledge and life experiences. As readers visualise while reading they become more engaged with the text, enjoy what they are reading, and often imagine themselves in the story. Imagining story ideas during the reading process links information in working memory and makes the encoding and recall of information more efficient. This chapter discusses how visual imagery techniques such as drawing, manipulating objects, forming mental imagery, developing characterisations, and using story structure can improve reading comprehension performance.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2004). A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 85–106.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 417–423.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 485–493.
Bartlettt, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, N. (1986). Visualising and verbalising. Paso Robles, CA: Academy of Reading Publications.
Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorder of language comprehension in children. Hove, England: Psychological Press.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., & Ogle, D. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524–529.
Block, C. C., Paris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whiteley, C. S., & Cleveland, M. D. (2009). Instructional approaches that signify increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 262–281.
Bowyer-Crane, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2005). Assessing children’s inference generation: What do tests of reading comprehension measure? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 189–201.
Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 178–183.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.
Cole, J. E. (2002). What motivates students to read?: Four literacy personalities. The Reading Teacher, 56, 326–336.
Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 1–18.
Diehl, J. J., Bennetto, L., & Young, E. C. (2006). Story recall and narrative coherence of high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(1), 87–102.
Dinsmore, D., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 499–567.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ehren, B. (2009). Looking through an adolescent literacy lens at the narrow view of reading. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2), 192–195.
Emery, D. W. (1996). Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher, 49, 534–541.
Farah, M. J. (1995). Current issues in the neuropsychology of image generation. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1455–1471.
Gambrell, L. B., Kapinus, B. A., & Wilson, R. M. (1987). Using mental imagery and summarization to achieve independence in comprehension. Journal of Reading, 30, 638–642.
Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence-based best practice for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp. 11–29). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Gambrell, B., Mazzoni, S. A., & Almasi, J. F. (2000). Promoting collaboration, social interaction, and engagement. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp. 119–139). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C., & Adams, A. (2006). Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265–281.
Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 389–399.
Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129–151.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93–104.
Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating the struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H.,… Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.
Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 183–193.
Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Hibbing, A. N., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for the middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 56, 758–770.
Houghton, S., & Glynn, T. (1993). Peer tutoring of below average secondary school readers using pause, prompt and praise: A successive introduction to tutoring components. Behaviour Change, 10, 75–85.
Joffe, V. L., Cain, K., & Maric, N. (2007). Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment: Does mental imagery training help? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 42(6), 648–664.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychology Review, 99, 122–149.
Kelin, D. A. (2007). The perspective from within: Drama and children’s literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(3), 277–284.
Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & Van den Broek, P. (2009). Revising the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 353–370.
Kintsch, W. (1982). Memory for text. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 186–204). New York, NY: North-Holland Publication.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Kirby, J. R., & Savage, J. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42(2), 75–82.
Klinger, K. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning difficulties who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 275–293.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1976). Using imagery to retrieve semantic information: A developmental study. Child Development, 47, 434–444.
Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer spelling dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 47–77.
Krasney, K. A., Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Unwarranted re-turn: Response to McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavelek’s (2005) “ Schema Theory Revisited”. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 239–244.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, England: Routledge.
LaBerg, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Le Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, A. G. (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 37–58.
Leekam, S. (2007). Language comprehension difficulties in children with autism spectrum disorders. In C. Cain & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 104–127). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Long, S. A., Winograd, P. N., & Bridge, C. A. (1989). The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 353–372.
Marr, M. B., & Gormley, K. (1982). Children’s recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 89–104.
McKeon, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218–253.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85, 647–661.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: Report of the comprehension instruction subgroup to the national institute of child health and development. Washington, DC: NICD.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.
Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–570.
Overett, J., & Donald, D. (1998). Paired reading: Effects of a parent involvement program in a disadvantaged community in South Africa. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 347–356.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Paivio, A., & Sadoski, M. (2010). Lexicons, contexts, events, and images: Commentary on Elman (2009) from the perspective of dual coding theory. Cognitive Science, 35, 198–209.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Pearson, D. P., & Johnson, D. D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G. G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 101–144). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.
Pilonieta, P., & Medina. (2009). Reciprocal teaching for the primary grades: “We can do it too!”. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 120–129.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. International Reading Association Online Document, http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html
Pressley, M. G. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Gilford Press.
Rapp, D. N., Van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312.
Renz, K., Lorch, E. P., Milich, R., Lemberger, C., Bodner, A., & Welsh, R. (2003). On-line story representation in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(1), 93–105.
Romeo, L. (2002). At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In C. Collins Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction (pp. 385–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roser, N., Martinez, M., Fuhrken, C., & McDonnold, K. (2007). Characters as guides to meaning. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 548–559.
Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 85–95.
Sadoski, M., McTigue, E., & Paivio, A. (2012). A dual coding theoretical model of decoding in reading: Subsuming the Laberg and Samuels model. Reading Psychology, 33, 465–496.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 337–356.
Sadoski, M., & Quast, Z. (1990). Reader response and long-term re-call for journalistic text: The roles of imagery, affect, and importance. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 256–272.
Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 137–484.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465/
Stull, A., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organisers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.
Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252–269.
Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35.
Thompson, T. (2008). Adventures in graphica: Using comics and graphic novels to teach comprehension, 2–6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54.
Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 595–611.
Troegger, D. (2011). Teaching reading strategies by using a comprehension framework. Practically Primary, 16(1), 10–13.
Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory into Practice, 41(1), 40–46.
Van der Schoot, M., Vasbinder, A. L., Horsley, T. M., Reijntjes, A., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2009). Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 21–36.
Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 142–166.
Wade, S. E., Buxton, W. M., & Kelly, M. (1999). Using think-alouds to examine reader text interest. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 194–216.
Whaley, J. F. (1981). Readers’ expectation for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 90–114.
Whitehurst, G. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (1988). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.
Woolley, G. E. (2006a). Comprehension difficulties after year 4: Actioning appropriately. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 11(3), 125–130.
Woolley, G. E. (2006b). The development, documentation, and evaluation of a strategy-training program for primary school students with reading comprehension difficulties (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Woolley, G. E. (2007). A comprehension intervention for children with reading comprehension difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 12(1), 43–50.
Woolley, G. E., & Hay, I. (2004). Using imagery as a strategy to enhance students’ comprehension of read text. In B. A. Knight & W. Scott (Eds.), Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives (pp. 85–101). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, H., & Hoosain, R. (2001). The influence of narrative text characteristics on thematic inference during reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 173–186.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Woolley, G. (2014). Using Visualisation and Imagery to Enhance Reading Comprehension. In: Barton, G. (eds) Literacy in the Arts. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04846-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04846-8_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04845-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04846-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)