Do You Get the Picture? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Graphics on Reading Comprehension

Guo, Daibao; Zhang, Shuai; Wright, Katherine Landau; McTigue, Erin M.

doi:10.1177/2332858420901696

Cited by 51 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(138 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To put this multitasking effect in context, the effect size is similar to the overall negative effect of reading from screens compared with paper ( g = −0.25, Clinton, 2019; g = −0.21, Delgado et al, 2018; g = −0.21, Kong et al, 2018). Multitasking's effect is also smaller than the beneficial effect of graphics ( g = 0.39, Guo, Zhang, Wright, & McTigue, 2020). The comprehension performance of narrative texts has been found to be higher than that of expository in two meta‐analyses ( g = 0.36, Clinton et al, 2020; g = 0.55, Mar et al, 2021), and multitasking's effect is smaller than that of genre.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stop multitasking and just read: meta‐analyses of multitasking's effects on reading performance and reading time

Clinton

2021

Journal Research in Reading

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Multitasking while reading is a commonplace activity. Many studies have been conducted examining the effect of multitasking on reading comprehension and times. The purpose of this meta‐analysis is to consolidate the empirical findings on reading comprehension and times in order to understand the overall effect of multitasking on reading. Characteristics of the reading situation, comprehension assessment and the secondary task were examined to determine if they varied the effect of multitasking. Methods A systematic search of studies on multitasking and reading was conducted. Only studies that used random assignment and had participants reading independently were included. This screening yielded 22 independent studies (20 reports) that met inclusion criteria, with 20 studies on reading comprehension and 9 studies on reading times. Most of the studies involved adults reading expository texts. Results Based on robust variance estimation analyses, multitasking had a negative effect on reading comprehension (g = −0.28, p = .002). The effect was similar after outliers were removed (g = −0.26, p = .001). Based on moderator analyses, this negative effect may only occur when time was limited because the reading pace was controlled by the experimenter (g = −0.54, p < .001) as there was not a reliable effect when reading was self‐paced (g = −0.14, p = .10). Multitasking during reading lead to longer reading times (g = 0.52, p < .001). Conclusions Multitasking during reading is detrimental to reading comprehension when time is limited. When readers control their own pace of reading, multitasking lengthens the time for the reading task. Therefore, multitasking while reading is less efficient than focusing attention on the primary task of reading. Highlights What is already known about this topic Multitasking during reading is commonplace. Human cognitive resources are limited. Many studies exist on reading while multitasking. What this paper adds Overall effect for multitasking on reading comprehension is negative. Multitasking when reading time is limited is detrimental to comprehension. Multitasking has a greater negative effect when reading from paper than screens. Self‐paced reading times are longer when multitasking. Implications for theory, policy or practice Multitasking while reading is an inefficient practice. Students should be encouraged to focus on reading a text.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stop multitasking and just read: meta‐analyses of multitasking's effects on reading performance and reading time

Clinton

2021

Journal Research in Reading

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pictorial questions were more likely to be answered correctly by participants in the repeatability study with evidence suggesting surveys and written text designed with visual aids are completed in less time and with greater participant comprehension [ 69 , 70 ]. A significant difference was detected in change of score for CVD risk factors between the two test periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Med-NKQ: A Reliable Mediterranean Diet Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire for Cardiovascular Disease

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Mediterranean diet (MD) has significant benefits for cardiovascular disease (CVD), yet clinicians lack reliable tools to measure patient knowledge. This study aimed to develop a short tool to test knowledge of MD related to cardiac health. Themes included foods to reduce CVD risk factors, quantification of servings, and common MD dietary patterns; a maximum score of 42 was determined for correct responses. Content validity was assessed through expert consensus in a Delphi survey. A 70% level of agreement was set for each domain tested. Repeatability was assessed via a test-retest protocol in a sample with self-reported CVD, advertised through social media and administered online. Ten and six of twenty-five invited experts responded to round one and two of the Delphi survey respectively. All items achieved greater than 70% consensus. Twenty people completed the repeatability study. A paired t-test found no significant difference in mean scores between the two test periods (Test one, 28 (standard deviation (SD) 5.4). Test two 29.5, (SD 5.5), p = 0.174) and a Bland-Altman Plot indicated no bias between the two surveys. The Med-NKQ demonstrated good content validity and reliability in people with CVD, and is short and easy to administer, making it practical in clinical and research settings.

show abstract

“…Primarily quantitative, many aforementioned studies focus on students' reading outcomes after studying a visual, such as how a diagram facilitated comprehension. A recent meta-analytic study (Guo, Zhang, McTigue, & Wright, 2017) revealed that the inclusion of visuals has an overall medium positive effect on students' reading comprehension, with an overall effect size of .49.…”

Section: How Do Visuals Affect Learning?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Content Analysis of Visuals in Elementary School Textbooks

Guo¹,

Wright²,

McTigue³

2018

The Elementary School Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although visual complexity is increasing and graphics are essential to support readers' comprehension of disciplinary texts, visual literacy receives scant attention. Research suggests that effectively instructing students to interpret discipline-specific graphics would yield better comprehension. However, before this line of inquiry can be enacted, we must determine the characteristics of graphics in contemporary content textbooks. Therefore, this content analysis evaluated graphics within third-and fifth-grade science and social studies textbooks. We coded 3,844 graphics by type and function and compared findings between disciplines using chi-square and post hoc comparison tests. Overall, graphics were coded into 9 major types (photographs being most frequent) and 54 subtypes, indicating a diversity of graphics. When comparing disciplines, science textbooks contained more diagrams and photographs, and graphics more often functioned representationally. Social studies presented both a wider variety of graphics and more interpretationally challenging graphics. Implications for disciplinary literacy and instruction are discussed.

show abstract

Do You Get the Picture? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Graphics on Reading Comprehension

Cited by 51 publications

References 75 publications

Stop multitasking and just read: meta‐analyses of multitasking's effects on reading performance and reading time

Stop multitasking and just read: meta‐analyses of multitasking's effects on reading performance and reading time

The Med-NKQ: A Reliable Mediterranean Diet Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire for Cardiovascular Disease

A Content Analysis of Visuals in Elementary School Textbooks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About