Abstract
Reading strategy instruction has been an important area in educational psychology for decades, however, research has primarily focused on its influence on learning outcomes rather than learning processes; reading pure texts rather than illustrated texts; and immediate effect rather than retention effect. This study used an eye-tracker to investigate the immediate and delayed effects of text–diagram reading instruction on reading comprehension and learning processes in illustrated text reading. Fourth-grade students with high (N = 66) and low reading ability (N = 66) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a text–diagram group who received text–diagram instruction which emphasized diagram decoding and integration of relevant textual and pictorial information, a placebo group who received instruction which emphasized comprehension monitoring, and a control group which received no reading instruction. All participants read four illustrated science texts for a baseline check, instructional example, immediate testing, and delayed testing. The results showed that the effect of text–diagram instruction was more evident in the immediate test than the delayed test. The eye-movement pattern showed that the students who received text–diagram reading instruction spent significantly more reading time on illustrations, made more integrative transitions between text and illustrations, and spent a higher proportion of total reading time on illustrations in immediate and delayed reading situations than the other groups. Overall, this study developed an effective text–diagram instruction method to promote reading comprehension, identified the reading processes underlying the effect of text–diagram strategy instruction, and depicted the changing appearances of reading instruction intervention over time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Arndt, J., Schüler, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Text–picture integration: How delayed testing moderates recognition of pictorial information in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3154.
Bartholomé, T., & Bromme, R. (2009). Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: What kind of support for whom? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014312.
Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z.
Brandstetter, M., Sandmann, A., & Florian, C. (2017). Understanding pictorial information in biology: Students’ cognitive activities and visual reading strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1218–1237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1320454.
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 174–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29, 850–859.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671.
Cheng, M. W., & Gilbert, J. K. (2014). Students’ visualization of diagrams representing the human circulatory system: The use of spatial isomorphism and representational conventions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 136–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.969359.
Clark, S. K., Schoepf, S., & Hatch, L. (2018). Exploring the use of personalized professional development to enhance teacher knowledge and reading instruction in the upper elementary grades. Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12130.
Coleman, J. M., McTigue, E. M., & Dantzler, J. A. (2018). What makes a diagram easy or hard? The impact of diagram design on fourth-grade students’ comprehension of science texts. The Elementary School Journal, 119(1), 122–151.
Eitel, A. (2016). How repeated studying and testing affects multimedia learning: Evidence for adaptation to task demands. Learning and Instruction, 41, 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.003.
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2012). The time course of information extraction from instructional diagrams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115, 677–701. https://doi.org/10.2466/22.23.PMS.115.6.677-701.
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2922.
Förster, N., Kawohl, E., & Souvignier, E. (2018). Short- and long-term effects of assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in general education on reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning & Instruction, 56, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.009.
Guo, D., Zhang, S., Wright, K. L., & McTigue, E. M. (2020). Do you get the picture? A meta-analysis of the effect of graphics on reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 627–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420901696.
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. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0987.
Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1036.
Jian, Y. C. (2018a). Teaching fourth-grade students to read biological illustrations and integrate to text information: An empirical experiment. Research in Science Education, 12, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9778-8.
Jian, Y. C. (2018b). Reading instructions influence cognitive processes of illustrated text reading not subject perception: An eye-tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2263. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02263.
Jian, Y. C. (2019). Reading instructions facilitate signaling effect on science text for young readers: an eye-movement study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9878-y.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.002.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9519-3.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026923.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354.
Kim, Y.-S. G., Vorstius, C., & Radach, R. (2018). Does online comprehension monitoring make a unique contribution to reading comprehension in beginning readers? Evidence from eye movements. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(5), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1457680.
Ko, H. W. (2006). 閱讀理解測驗 (Reading comprehension test). Psychological Testing, 46, 1–11.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X.
Kragten, M., Admiraal, W., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Students’ learning activities while studying biological process diagrams. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 1915–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1057775.
Lindner, M. A., Eitel, A., Strobel, B., & Köller, O. (2017). Identifying processes underlying the multimedia effect in testing: An eye-movement analysis. Learning & Instruction, 47, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.007.
Manoli, P., Papadopoulou, M., & Metallidou, P. (2016). Investigating the immediate and delayed effects of multiple-reading strategy instruction in primary EFL classrooms. System, 56, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.11.003.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013a). Effects of picture labeling on science text processing and learning: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.41.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013b). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678.
McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.
Reed, D. K., & Lynn, D. (2016). The effects of an inference-making strategy taught with and without goal setting. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715615557.
Reid, D. J., & Beveridge, M. (1986). Effects of text illustration on children’s learning of a school science topic. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1986.tb03042.x.
Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4.
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text–picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.003.
Roy, S., Inglis, M., & Alcock, L. (2017). Multimedia resources designed to support learning from written proofs: An eye-movement study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9754-7.
Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning and Instruction, 36, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.002.
Scheiter, K., Schubert, C., Gerjets, P., & Stalbovs, K. (2015). Does a strategy training foster students’ ability to learn from multimedia? Journal of Experimental Education, 83(2), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2013.876603.
Schlag, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2011). Supporting learning from illustrated texts: conceptualizing and evaluating a learning strategy. Instructional Science, 39, 921–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9160-3.
Schüler, A. (2017). Investigating gaze behavior during processing of inconsistent text–picture information: Evidence for text–picture integration. Learning & Instruction, 49, 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.001.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of learning disabilities, 34(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104.
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00411.x.
Van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 263–278). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Van Meter, P. N., Cameron, C., & Waters, J. R. (2017). Effects of response prompts and diagram comprehension ability on text and diagram learning in a college biology course. Learning & Instruction, 49, 188–198.
Young Newton. (2015). 海豚 (Dolphin). Young Newton, 133, 10–26.
Young Newton. (2016). 鬼蝠魟 (Manta ray). Young Newton, 141, 40–58.
Young Scientist. (2015). 革龜 (Turtle). Young Scientist, 7, 52–59.
Young Scientist. (2016). Mantis (螳螂). Young Scientist, 20, 50–57.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Grants MOST 108-2636-H-003-003- and 109-2636-H-003-003-from the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan., and “Higher Education Deep Cultivation Project” of National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: The four reading materials used in this study. Black lines indicated interests of areas (AOIs) of texts and diagrams used in analysis but not be seen by the participants
-
(1)
Manta ray (baseline article)
-
(2)
Turtle (intervention article)
-
(3)
Dolphin (immediate and delayed article)
-
(4)
Mantis (a new article 1 month later)
Appendix 2: English version of the reading materials (in Chinese)
Giant oceanic manta rays (the first article)
Body structure of giant oceanic manta rays
The giant oceanic manta ray (Manta birostris) is the largest ray recorded till date. They have flattened bodies that are shaped like a diamond with a long tail. The front of their head contains two protruding horn-shaped fins. The pectoral fins are triangular in shape and are well developed. When fully extended, the giant oceanic manta ray is even longer than a car. They propel themselves forward by waving the pectoral fin. In the past, people felt that these rays looked terrifying and called them “devil fishes”. In reality, they are gentle and friendly creatures.
Large-mouthed vacuum cleaners
In addition to their huge bodies, the large mouth located at the front of their head is also noticeable. Their lower jaw contains teeth that are so small that they cannot be used for mastication. Their mouth acts like a vacuum cleaner—the horn-shaped fins at both ends of their mouth move and close continuously so that the seawater enters the mouth. This causes small fishes, shrimps, and other zooplanktons to enter their mouth before seawater flows out of the gills and the planktons are filtered. This form of feeding is known as filter-feeding.
Feasting around in circles
Giant oceanic manta rays exhibit an interesting behavior when feeding: They repeatedly swim up and down and filter-feed in circles. In the tropical belt in the Indian Ocean, the effects of monsoon winds and oceanic currents in the period from summer to autumn cause large numbers of krill and other zooplanktons to migrate from the ocean depths to the surface. This attracts hundreds of giant oceanic manta rays who continuously swim in circles to enjoy a feast.
Agile jumpers
Normally, giant oceanic manta rays swim slowly on the sea surface in groups. However, during the breeding season, in spring and summer, they can sometimes be seen using their pectoral fins to hit the water surface and rapidly leap up and glide for some distance in the air. Some scientists believe that this may be a form of courtship behavior while other scientists speculate that this is a way of removing parasites on their body. Some people even believed that they do this for fun.
Leatherback sea turtles (the second article)
Body structure and swimming capabilities of leatherback sea turtles
Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are turtles that do not possess hard shells but possess a tough leather carapace with seven longitudinal ridges that extend from the back of the head to the caudal margin, making their body streamlined. The four limbs of the leatherback sea turtle are clawless and oar-shaped, and are known as flippers. The front flippers are powerful and enable these turtles to swim long distances. The subcutaneous tissues and muscles of the leatherback sea turtle contains a layer of fat, which insulates their body and enables them to dive to ocean depths.
Difficult reproduction
When a female leatherback sea turtle spawns, it uses its front flippers to push sand outwards to excavate a deep nest to fit its body. Following this, the rear flippers are used to dig a spawning hole for eggs to incubate. After confirming that there is no danger nearby, the female starts to spawn and leaves the nest after spawning. After a period of time, the eggs hatch and the hatchlings form groups that crawl towards the sea, guided by the moonlight.
Dolphins (the third article)
Dolphins look like fishes and have smooth and hairless skin throughout their body. However, like cetaceans, they are mammals, not fishes. The tongue of a dolphin calf is curled. When feeding, the tongue can tightly bind to the mammary slits in female dolphins and milk is sprayed into the mouth of the calf. Feeding is completed in several minutes to prevent calves from drinking seawater.
Body structure that is adapted to the ocean
The ancestors of dolphins are terrestrial animals that moved into the ocean. In order to adapt to living in water, they evolved a streamlined body, flippers as front limbs, a triangular dorsal fin at the back, horizontal caudal fins as rear limbs, and smooth body to reduce water resistance and move nimbly in the sea. Although their body structure has changed, they use lungs to breathe but do not have nostrils. Instead, they use blowholes on their heads for inhalation and exhalation. Therefore, dolphins need to swim to the surface for gaseous exchange every now and then.
What enables dolphins to swim very fast?
Dolphins have the fastest swimming speeds among mammals. In addition to high muscle endurance, their skin also possesses many unique characteristics. Dolphin skin is many times thicker than terrestrial animals and is divided into three layers, namely (from outer to inner), a waterproof stratum corneum, epidermis, and a dermis layer with protrusions. This structure enables dolphin skin to be elastic. When swimming at high speeds, the skin deforms with the flow of water so that seawater attaches to the skin surface to form a water film. The friction between the water film and seawater is lower, which enables dolphins to swim faster!
Echolocation and swimming formation of dolphins
It is not easy to find food in the vast expanse of seawater that has poor visibility. Hence, dolphins possess precise echolocation in which the forehead emits unique ultrasonic waves that are reflected from objects in front. These reflected waves are received by the brain to determine the distance, size, and shape of the object. This enables dolphins to avoid obstacles, perceive enemies, and search for prey.
When dolphins discover a school of fish, they show division of labor by encircling the school of fish before using their mouths to bite the prey and enjoy a sumptuous meal. In addition, dolphins often form neat Y-shaped swimming pods so that calves are protected in the center. In vast oceans, pods appear circular, square, or linear.
Praying mantises (the fourth article)
Omnidirectional vision
The connection between the head and thorax of the praying mantis is extremely flexible, enabling the head to make a 180-degree rotation. This enables it to monitor changes in its surroundings, which is very advantageous in a savage environment.
However, its eyes are different. A pair of compound eyes is found at both sides of the head. These are composed of many hexagonal ommatidia that cannot be moved in any direction. However, these compound eyes are abnormally large and there is partial overlap in their field of vision. Therefore, the praying mantis is one of very few insects with stereoscopic vision that can accurately calculate the position of the target. In addition, the praying mantis also possesses lenses that can change color—during daytime, the color of the compound eyes is usually close to that of the body; at night, the pigments in the eye will concentrate at the outermost layer of the eye and turn deep black. This enables them to fly, feed, and survive in the dark. In addition, praying mantises also have three simple eyes. Although they do not contribute to stereoscopic vision, they are extremely sensitive to light intensity and can react to shadows and brightness in the environment.
Prey and natural enemies of the praying mantis
Although praying mantises are shy by nature and rarely attack with fanfare, the pair of raptorial legs in the thorax and their track record of capturing prey makes it live up to its name of an insect ninja. This pair of raptorial legs is the most important weapon for capturing prey and is usually in front of the thorax. If a prey accidentally enters this region, the praying mantis requires only a very short time to rapidly spring out both legs and press down hard to capture the prey. Once the prey struggles and resists, the spikes on the legs respond akin to teeth occlusion so that the prey is unable to escape.
Generally, praying mantises feed on insects such as crickets, bees, and butterflies. However, small animals that can be handled such as geckos, frogs, or even small praying mantises are also fed on. Although praying mantises are professional assassins, they have many natural enemies, such as birds and lizards. When approached by these predators, they lift their raptorial legs and open their wings to scare the enemy off.
Appendix 3: The sample questions for the reading tests
Examples of the multiple choice questions
-
1.
Which of the following is not a physical characteristic that enables dolphins to move nimbly in the water?
-
(1)
Smooth body
-
(2)
Triangular dorsal fin
-
(3)
Short pectoral fin
-
(1)
-
2.
Which part of the dolphin emits sound waves?
-
(1)
Pectoral fin
-
(2)
Mouth
-
(3)
Forehead
-
(1)
-
3.
Why do praying mantises possess stereoscopic vision?
-
(1)
There is partial overlap in the visual field of both eyes
-
(2)
The eyes contain several hexagonal ommatidia
-
(3)
The eyes can move in any direction
-
(1)
-
4.
In the praying mantis, which body part has a large range of motion?
-
(1)
Head
-
(2)
Eyes
-
(3)
Head and eyes
-
(1)
Examples of the essay questions
-
1.
What enables dolphins to swim very fast? Please list three reasons
-
2.
What is the difference between the compound eye and simple eye in the praying mantis?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jian, YC. The immediate and delayed effects of text–diagram reading instruction on reading comprehension and learning processes: evidence from eye movements. Read Writ 34, 727–752 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10089-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10089-3