Visualisation

Chapter

Abstract

Thinking processes not only involve the encoding of verbal information but they also use visual imaginable material as well. Visualisation is a powerful memory device that can also be used to improve reading comprehension. This chapter develops the notion that the technique of visualising story content while reading is a very powerful thinking tool that can, if used appropriately, economise on the limited capacity of working memory and free up valuable cognitive space to enable more efficient reading comprehension. When readers construct mental images during reading it enables them to form strong links with personal meanings and develop deeper levels of reading engagement. This is particularly effective in an environment that promotes student discussion because it also facilitates the linking of both visually and verbally encoded information. It follows that children will be more engaged in the reading process when they use visual imagery because it relies on prior experiences to construct mental pictures. As a result, reading comprehension will more likely to be motivating because it incorporates personal and emotional associations that are part of the individual’s unique world of experiences.

Keywords

Reading Comprehension Mental Image Mental Imagery Visual Imagery Mental Picture 
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.

References

  1. Allen, R.J., A.D. Baddeley, and G.J. Hitch. 2006. Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology 135(2): 298–313.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, N. 1991. Gestalt imagery: A critical factor in language comprehension. Annals of Dyslexia 41: 246–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Block, C.C. 2004. Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  4. Borkowski, J.G. and Muthukrishna, N. 1992. Moving metacognition into the classroom: Working models and effective strategy teaching. In Pressley, M., Harris, K.R. and Guthrie, J.T. Promoting Academic Competency in post secondary students with learning difficulties 477–501. NY: Accademic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borkowski, J.D., B.H. Schneider, and M. Pressley. 1989. The challenges of teaching good information processing to learning disabled students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 36: 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, A.L. 1982. Learning and development: the problems of compatibility, access and induction. Human Development 25: 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, D.L. 2002. Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice 41: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cartwright, K.B. 2006. Fostering flexibility and comprehension in elementary students. The reading Teacher 59(7): 628–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Center, Y., L. Freeman, G. Robertson, and L. Outhred. 1999. The effect of visual imagery training on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening comprehenders in year 2. Journal of Research in Reading 22(3): 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, H., and E. Clark. 1977. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics, 43–57. New York: Harcourt and Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, J.E. 2002. What motivates students to read? Four literacy personalities. The Reading Teacher 56: 326–336.Google Scholar
  12. Cooney, K., and I. Hay. 2002a. Using the technology of the internet to enhance the literacy development of secondary students with reading problems. In Learning in technology education: Challenges for the 21st century, ed. H. Middleton, M. Pavlova, and D. Roebuck, 1: 71–80. Brisbane: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deshler, D.D., and J.B. Schumaker. 1993. Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. The Elementary School Journal 94: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duke, N.K., and P.D. Pearson. 2002. Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed, ed. A.E. Farstrup and S.J. Samuels, 205–242. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  15. Emery, D.W. 1996. Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher 49: 534–541.Google Scholar
  16. Farah, M.J. 1995. Current issues in the neuropsychology of image generation. Neuropsychologia 33: 1455–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. L.B. 2004. Exploring the connection between oral language and early reading. The Reading Teacher 57: 490–492.Google Scholar
  18. Gambrell, L.B., and P.B. Jawitz. 1993. Mental imagery, text illustrations, and the children’s story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly 28: 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gambrell, L.B., B.A. Kapinus, and R.M. Wilson. 1987. Using mental imagery and summarization to achieve independence in comprehension. Journal of Reading 30(7): 638–642.Google Scholar
  20. Gambrell, B., S.A. Mazzoni, and J.F. Almasi. 2000. Promoting collaboration, social interaction, and engagement. In Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation, ed. L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, and J. T. Guthrie, 119–139. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gambrell, L.B., Malloy, J.A., and Mazzoni, S.A. 2007. Evidence-based best practice for comprehensive literacy instruction. In Best practices in literacy instruction, ed. L.B. Gambrell, L.M. Morrow, and M. Pressley. (3rd ed. 11–29). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gersten, R., L.S. Fuchs, J.P. Williams, and S. Baker. 2001. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research 71: 279–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glenberg, A.M., and W.E. Langston. 1992. Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glenberg, A.M., M. Brown, and J.R. Levin. 2007. Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32: 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glynn, T., and S. McNaughton. 2002. Trust your own observations: Assessment of reader and tutor behaviour in learning to read in English and Maori. International Journal of Disability 49: 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodman, Y.M. 1996. Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher 49: 600–609.Google Scholar
  27. Griffin, T.D., J. Wiley, and K.W. Thiede. 2008. Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition 36(1): 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guthrie, J.T., and M.H. Davis. 2003. Motivating the struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hareli, S., and B. Weiner. 2002. Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist 37: 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris, K.R., and M. Pressley. 1991. The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children 57: 392–404.Google Scholar
  31. Hibbing, A.N., and J.L. Rankin-Erickson. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Hidi, S. 1990. Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research 60: 549–571.Google Scholar
  33. Joffe, V.L., K. Cain, and N. Maric. 2007. Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment: Does mental imagery training help? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42(6): 648–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamhi, A., and H. Catts. 2002. The language basis of reading: Implications for classification and treatment of children with reading disabilities. In Speaking, reading, and writing in children with language learning disabilities: New paradigms in research and practice, ed. K.G. Butler and E. Silliman, 45–72. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Pub.Google Scholar
  35. Kendeou, P., R. Savage, and P. Van den Broek. 2009. Revising the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kintsch, W. 1994. Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist 49: 294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kosslyn, S.M. 1976. Using imagery to retrieve semantic information: A developmental study. Child Development 47: 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kosslyn, S.M. 1988. Imagery in learning. In Perspectives in memory research, ed. M.S. Gazzaniga, 245–273. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Langer, J.A. 1990. Understanding Literature. Language Arts 67: 812–816.Google Scholar
  40. Langer, J.A. 1995. Envisioning Literature: Literacy Understanding and Literature Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Linden, M., and M.C. Wittrock. 1981. The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly 17: 44–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Long, S.A., P.N. Winograd, and C.A. Bridge. 1989. The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly 24: 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marschark, M., and C. Cornoldi. 1991. Static versus dynamic imagery. In Imagery and cognition, ed. C. Cornoldi and M.A. Daniel, 133–163. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  44. Mastropieri, M.A., T.E. Scruggs, and J.E. Graetz. 2003. Reading comprehension instruction for the secondary students: challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly 26: 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKeon, M.G., I.L. Beck, and R.G.K. Blake. 2009. Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly 44(3): 218–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Montgomery, J.W., B.M. Magimairaj, and M.H. O’Malley. 2008. Role of working memory in typically developing children’s complex sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 37: 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morse, J.S., J. Oberer, J. Dobbins, and D. Mitchell. 1998. Understanding learning styles: Implications for staff development. Journal of Nursing Staff Development 14: 41–46.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Nesbit, J.C., and O.O. Adesope. 2006. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 76(3): 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Overett, J., and D. Donald. 1998. Paired reading: effects of a parent involvement program in a disadvantaged community in South Africa. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68: 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paivio, A. 1969. Mental Imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review 76(3): 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paivio, A. 1986. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  53. Paivio, A. 1991. Static versus dynamic imagery. In Imagery and cognition, ed. C. Cornoldi and M.A. Daniel, 221–246. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  54. Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1987. Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20: 66–75 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pearson, P.D., L.R. Roehler, J.A. Dole, and G.G. Duffy. 1992. Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, ed. S.J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrup, 101–144. Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  56. Perfetti, C. 2007. Reading ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 11(4): 357–383.Google Scholar
  57. Rapp, D.N., P. Van den Broek, K.L. McMaster, P. Kendeou, and C.A. Espin. 2007. Higher order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies in Reading 11(4): 289–312.Google Scholar
  58. Reid, K.D. 1988. Learning and learning to learn. In Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach, ed. K.D. Reid, 5–28. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  59. Romeo, L. 2002. At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Roser, N., M. Martinez, C. Fuhrken, and K. McDonnold. 2007. Characters as guides to meaning. The Reading Teacher 60(6): 548–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sadoski, M. 1983. An exploratory study of the relationship between reported imagery. Reading Research Quarterly 19: 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sadoski, M. 1999. Comprehending comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 34(4): 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sadoski, M., and Z. Quast. 1990. Reader response and long-term recall for journalistic text: The roles of imagery, affect, and importance. Reading Research Quarterly 25: 256–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and S. Kangiser. 1988. Imagination in story response; relationships between imagery, affect, and structural importance. Reading Research Quarterly 23: 320–336.Google Scholar
  65. Sadoski, M., and V.L. Willson. 2006. Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal 43: 137–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sadoski, M., A. Paivio, and E.T. Goetz. 1991. A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly 26: 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and E. Avila. 1995. Concreteness effects in text recall: dual coding or context availability? Reading Research Quarterly 30: 287–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schank, R.C., and R. Ableson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Schraw, G., R. Bruning, and C. Svoboda. 1995. Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behaviour 27: 1–14.Google Scholar
  70. Snow, C.E. 2002. Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: Rand Corp. Retrieved 12 Dec, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465/.
  71. Stetter, M.E., and M.T. Hughes. 2010. Using story grammar to assist students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education and Treatment of Children 33(1): 115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stull, A., and R.E. Mayer. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12: 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Taboada, A., and J.T. Guthrie. 2006. Contributions of student Questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research 38(1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van der Schoot, M., A.L. Vasbinder, T.M. Horsley, A. Reijntjes, and E.C.D.M. Van Lieshout. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Meter, P., M. Aleksic, A. Schwartz, and J. Garner. 2006. Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31: 142–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wade, S.E., W.M. Buxton, and M. Kelly. 1999. Using think-alouds to examine reader text interest. Reading Research Quarterly 34: 194–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whitehead, D. 2002. “The story means more to me now”: Teaching thinking through guided reading. Reading, Literacy and Language 36(1): 33–37 (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whitehurst, G.L., and C.J. Lonigan. 1988. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development 69: 848–872.Google Scholar
  80. Woolley, G. 2007. A comprehension intervention for children with reading comprehension difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 12(1): 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Woolley, G.E., and I. Hay. 2004. Using imagery as a strategy to enhance students’ comprehension of read text. In Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives, ed. B.A. Knight and W. Scott, 85–101. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.Google Scholar
  82. Kosslyn, S.M., M. Behrmann, and M. Jeannerod. 1995a. The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsycholigia 33: 1335–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and S. Kangiser. 1988. Imagination in story response; relationships between imagery, affect, and structural importance. Reading Research Quarterly 23:320336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pressley, M. 2002b. Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the Future. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  85. Pressley, M. 2002c. 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.
  86. Blachowicz, C.L.Z., P.J.L. Fisher, and D. Ogle. 2006a. Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly 41(4): 524–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walczyk, J.J., M. Wei, D.A. Griffith-Ross, S.E. Goubert, and A.L. Cooper. 2007. Development of the interplay between automatic process and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 867–887.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and Professional StudiesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations