Learning from Texts and Visual Aids: a Developmental Perspective

Abstract

The aims of this research were to investigate the ways in which students in primary and secondary schools process texts and accompanying visual aids and to ascertain any developmental patterns. Think-aloud protocols were gathered from 119 Grade 5, Grade 7 and Grade 9 students while they read and studied grade-appropriate History and Science materials which contained both text and visual aids (tables, diagrams). Analyses of the think-aloud protocols yielded over 50 different processes, subsumed under 10 major categories. While the History results showed no reliable grade differences in the 10 think-aloud categories, the Science results showed developmental differences. Older students demonstrated a more diverse array of strategies, and explicit linking of text and visual aid information was not as evident in the younger students. ANOVAs following cluster analyses showed weak relationships between cluster membership and outcomes. Implications for instruction are discussed. RE  SUME ÂApprendre avec des textes et des aides visuelles : perspective geÂneÂtique Le but de cette e tude e tait d'examiner, de facË on transversale, de quelles facË ons des e leÁ ves du premier et du second degre apprennent aÁ se servir de manuels scolaires courants contenant des aides visuelles telles que des diagrammes et des tableaux. En utilisant une technique de pense e aÁ haute voix (Ericsson et Simon, 1984), on a re uni des protocoles individuels d'e leÁ ves au-dessus de la moyenne ou au niveau de la moyenne en lecture. Il s'agissait d'e leÁ ves de 58 anne e (n=37), 78 anne e (n=40) et 98 anne e (n=42) en train d'apprendre un texte d'Histoire (avec re sume en tableau) et un texte de Sciences (avec un diagramme), l'ordre de pre sentation e tant contrebalance entre les e tudiants. ApreÁ s chaque texte les e leÁ ves ont effectue une taà che de remplissage avant que l'on proceÁ de aÁ deux mesures de re sultats aÁ l'aide de rappels libres (analyse s en termes de de tails, d'ide es principales, et de theÁ mes) et de questions aÁ choix multiple (de tails, ide es principales). ApreÁ s transcription des protocoles enregistre s, on a code en plus de 50 cate gories les pense es aÁ haute voix re unies en 10 cate gories principales : sans re fe rence au visuel : de tails du texte, ide es principales du texte, theÁ mes, strate gies ge ne rales, production d'un produit, utilisation d'un produit ; et, en re fe rence au visuel : de tails, ide es principales, theÁ mes, autres. La corre lation inter-juges a e te de 93%. Les ANOVA effectue es sur les protocoles d'Histoire pour les deux cate gories pre ce dentes n'ont pas montre de diffe rences significatives selon la classe, tandis que, pour les Sciences, on a trouve des diffe rences significatives pour les de tails du texte (meilleurs scores en 58 anne e), les ide es principales du texte (meilleurs scores en 78 anne e), et les theÁ mes du texte (meilleurs scores en 98 anne e). La strate gie dominante utilise e pour les de tails du texte et les ...

DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations

“…Nevertheless, there are likely to be developmental factors that affect integration of MERs. Moore and Scevak (1997) found developmental differences in children's use of text and accompanying visual aids with explicit linking of text and visual aid by older students that was not as evident in the younger students. A number of researchers have proposed that information-processing capacity such as shortterm memory span or processing speed increases with age (e.g., Case, 1985).…”

Text-Processing Differences in Adolescent Adequate and Poor Comprehenders Reading Accessible and Challenging Narrative and Informational Text

“…Previous studies using various methodologies have shown that good and poor comprehenders differ in the type, frequency, and accuracy of their inference making (Cain & Oakhill, ; Cain, Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, ; Laing & Kamhi, ; Magliano et al., ) and in the extent and nature of monitoring during reading (Garner & Taylor, ; Yuill & Oakhill, ). Several researchers have reported that better comprehenders generate more inferences than weaker comprehenders (Janssen, Braaksma, & Rijlaarsdam, ; Laing & Kamhi, ; Schellings, Aarnoutse, & van Leeuwe, ) and that less skilled readers may engage in more paraphrasing than more skilled readers do (Caldwell & Leslie, ; Janssen et al., ; Laing & Kamhi, ; Moore & Scevak, ). There is evidence that weak comprehenders are less likely to recognize textual inconsistencies (Garner & Taylor, ; Hacker, ; Yuill & Oakhill, ), whereas better readers have a stronger tendency to evaluate text ideas (Janssen et al., ) and are more adept at correctly identifying incoherent sections of text (Coté & Goldman, ).…”

“…Think‐aloud studies conducted with secondary school students have found that, in general, less proficient readers and younger students use a smaller array of strategies and apply them with less flexibility than do more proficient and older readers (Janssen et al., ; Langer, 1993/2001; Moore & Scevak, ). Prior research has also indicated that less skilled adolescent readers tend to derive primarily textbase models when reading expository texts, frequently paraphrasing text ideas in lieu of integrating text ideas and background knowledge (Caldwell & Leslie, ; Moore & Scevak, ; Yuill & Oakhill, ). A tendency to rely on paraphrasing was also noted among weak high school literature students reading narrative text (Janssen et al., ).…”

Differences in Reading Strategies Employed by Students Constructing Graphic Organizers and Students Producing Summaries in EFL Reading

“…The data collection methods used in this study was think-aloud protocol analysis. Although this think-aloud protocol technique is still controversial in that (a) it is difficult to measure what participants do automatically and thus are not aware of (Okouchi, 2001), and (b) this technique itself can influence the students' natural cognitive processes (Kaiho & Harada, 1993), I decided to employ it, since it has been used in a number of studies investigating reading strategies (e.g., Block, 1986;1992;Hartman, 1995;Kletzien, 1991;Narvaez, van den Broek, & Ruiz, 1999;Olshavsky, 1977;Philips, 1988;Stromso, Helge, & Braten, 2002;Yoshida, 1997) as well as in some studies examining students' use of GOs (e.g., Guthrie, Weber, & Kimmerly, 1993;Moore & Scevak, 1997;Schnotz, Picard, & Hron, 1993). This paragraph explained an experiment in which small children were instructed not to eat a marshmallow, although they could get it.…”