Visualizations and Reading

  • Linda M. PhillipsEmail author
  • Stephen P. Norris
  • John S. Macnab
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 5)


The research reviewed in this chapter supports the conclusion that there are few unqualified generalizations about the efficacy of visualization object s in reading . We begin with an examination of the important motivational role of visualization object s. Second, we examine the effect of visualizations on reading comprehension, taken to be the main aim of reading .


Line Drawing Modality Modality Poor Comprehenders Analogical Picture Pictorial Display 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Brookshire, J., Scharff, L. F. V., & Moses, L. E. (2002). The influence of illustrations on children’s book preferences and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jones, L. L., & Smith, S. G. (1992). Can multimedia instruction meet our expectations? EDUCOM Review, 27(1), 39–43.Google Scholar
  3. Kwinn, A. (1997). High fidelity images—how they affect learning. Journal of interactive instruction development, 10(2), 12–16.Google Scholar
  4. Levie, W. L., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 195–232.Google Scholar
  5. Mohler, J. L. (2000). Desktop for the enhancement of visualization skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(2), 151–165.Google Scholar
  6. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Reid, D. J., Briggs, N., & Beveridge, M. (1983). The effect of picture upon the readability of a school science topic. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Samuels, S. J., Biesbrock, E., & Terry, P. R. (1974). The effect of pictures on children’s attitudes toward presented stories. The Journal of Educational Research, 67(6), 243–246.Google Scholar
  9. Thomas, J. L. (1978). The influence of pictorial illustrations with written text and previous achievement on the comprehension of fourth grade science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(5), 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ruch, M. D., & Levin, J. R. (1979). Partial picture as imagery-retrieval cues in young children’s prose recall. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 268–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunham, T. C., & Levin, J. R. (1979). Imagery instructions and young children’s prose learning: No evidence of “support”. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haring, M. J., & Fry, M. A. (1979). Effect of pictures on children’s comprehension of written text. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 27(3), 185–190.Google Scholar
  13. Peeck, J. (1974). Retention of pictorial and verbal content of a text with illustrations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(6), 880–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Szabo, M., DeMelo, H. T., & Dwyer, F. M. (1981). Visual testing—Visual literacy’s second dimension. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(3), 177–187.Google Scholar
  15. Lin, H., & Chen, T. (2007). Reading authentic EFL text using visualization and advance organizers in a multimedia learning . Language Learning and Technology, 11(3), 83–106.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2007). Web-based comprehension instruction: Three studies of 3D-Readers. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Duchastel, P. C. (1981). Illustrations in text: A retentional role. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 18(1), 11–15.Google Scholar
  18. Alesandrini, K. L. (1984). Pictures and adult learning. Instructional Science, 13(1), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Waddill, P. J., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (1988). Illustrations as adjuncts to prose: A text-appropriate processing approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Presmeg, N. C. (1989). Visualization in multicultural classroom.Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 17–24.Google Scholar
  21. Chan, L. K. S., Cole, P. G., & Morris, J. N. (1990). Effects of instruction in the use of a visual-imagery strategy on the -comprehension competence of disabled and average readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Winn, W., Li, T., & Schill, D. (1991). Diagrams as aids to problem solving: Their role in facilitating search and .Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Aspinwall, L., Shaw, K. L., & Presmeg, N. C. (1997). Uncontrollable mental imagery: Graphical connections between a function and its derivative. Educational Study in Mathematics, 133(3), 301–318.Google Scholar
  24. Dechsri, P., Jones, L. L., & Heikkinen, H. W. (1997). Effect of a laboratory manual design incorporating visual information-processing aids on student learning and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 891–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sewell, E. H., Jr., & Moore, R. L. (1980). Cartoon embellishments in informative presentations.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28(1), 39–46.Google Scholar
  27. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Linn, M. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 727–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Baker, R. M., & Dwyer, F. M. (2005). Effect of instructional strategies and individual differences: A meta-analytic assessment.International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  30. Guttmann, J., Levin, J. R., & Pressley, M. (1977). Pictures, partial pictures, and young children’s oral prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(5), 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Readence, J. E., & Moore, D. W. (1981). A meta-analytic review of the effect of adjunct pictures on comprehension. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda M. Phillips
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephen P. Norris
    • 2
  • John S. Macnab
    • 3
  1. 1.Canadian Centre for Research on LiteracyUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Youth, Science Teaching and LearningUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.EdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations