Abstract
Drawing on cognitive theories of graphic comprehension and on systemic functional semiotics, the intention of this study is twofold: first, to examine the effects of image design on reading comprehension of science texts; second, to investigate the process of meaning-making when reading image and verbal text. An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that image designs with salient tree structure can cue better reading comprehension about the concept of the biological classification system. A 5-phase interview was developed to investigate the reading comprehension in different textual conditions. 12 Taiwanese students from year 7 were assigned as the participants either in a control group to read the text with the textbook images or in a treatment group to read the same texts but with a salient tree structure image designed to be more coherent with the textual information. The participants are further identified in terms of low, medium, and high level of prior knowledge on the topic according to a pretest. The results support the hypothesis which shows the textbook image did not efficiently activate as many theme-related meanings as the tree-structure one. Moreover, there are many misunderstandings embedded in the design of the textbook image which might also be potential risks for the other readers. The influence of prior knowledge on the reading comprehension was negligible. Implications are drawn for the importance of image design in textbooks and biology pedagogy, and value of extended large-scale research in this area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155–166.
Catley, K. M., Novick, L. R., & Shade, C. K. (2010). Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 861–882.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
Chen, S.-H., Fang, C.-H., Yao, H., Hsu, K.-C., & Lee, T.-Y. (2010). Science and Technology 2. Taiwan: Han-Lin.
Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091.
Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2–3), 239–302.
Eilam, B. (2013). Possible constraints of visualization in biology: Challenges in learning with multiple representations. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 55–74). London: Springer.
Fleming, M. L. (1987). Designing pictorial/verbal instruction: Some speculative extensions from research to practice. In D. A. Houghton & E. M. Willows (Eds.), The psychology of illustration volume 2: Instructional issues (Vol. 2, pp. 136–157). New York: Springer.
Ge, Y. P., Chung, C. H., Wang, K. H., Chang, H. P., & Unsworth, L. (2014). Comparing the images in Taiwanese and Australian science textbooks by grammar of visual design: An example of biological classification. Chinese Journal of Science Education 22, 109–134.
Gentner, D., & Markmann, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (Ed.). (1998). Language and knowledge: The ‘unpacking’ of text. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Hurley, S. M., & Novick, L. R. (2010). Solving problems using matrix, network, and hierarchy diagrams: The consequences of violating construction conventions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 275–290.
Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 81–97.
Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Kuhn, T. S. (1972). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagmm is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Lee, V. R. (2010). How different variants of orbit diagrams influence student explanations of the seasons. Science Education, 94, 985–1007.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of educational psychology, 82(4), 715–726.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: the influence of a gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 197–223.
Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.
Palmer, S. E. (1992). Common region: A new principle of perceptual organization. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90014-S
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Making sense of photographs. Science Education, 89, 219–241.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227–237.
Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 55–76.
Unsworth, L., & Cléirigh, C. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodality and reading: The construction of meaning through image-text interaction. London: Routledge.
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., et al. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and gigure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172–1217.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Azing Chen, Hsunfei Yang, Laxic Hsiao, Wikimedia, and all the publishers for the permission of copyright in this book.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ge, YP., Unsworth, L., Wang, KH., Chang, HP. (2018). Image Design for Enhancing Science Learning: Helping Students Build Taxonomic Meanings with Salient Tree Structure Images. In: Tang, KS., Danielsson, K. (eds) Global Developments in Literacy Research for Science Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69197-8_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69196-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69197-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)