 

.4. .

lEB'IS

/)

\‘KD

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

READING THE GRAPHICS: READING PROCESSES PROMPTED
BY THE GRAPHICS AS SECOND GRADERS READ
INFORMATIONAL TEXT

presented by
Rebecca R. Norman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Curriculum, Teaching, and
Educational Policy

76% 7% Lat/6L4

 

 

Major ProfessOr’s Signature
777m // It 020/0
/ J’

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer .

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KIProj/AccaiPresICIRC/DateDue.indd

READING THE GRAPHICS: READING PROCESSES PROMPTED BY THE
GRAPHICS AS SECOND GRADERS READ INFORMATIONAL TEXT

By

Rebecca R. Norman

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy

2010

ABSTRACT

READING THE GRAPHICS: READING PROCESSES PROMPTED BY THE
GRAPHICS AS SECOND GRADERS READ INFORMATIONAL TEXT

By
Rebecca R. Norman

This dissertation is comprised of two manuscripts that resulted from a single study
using verbal protocols to examine the reading processes prompted by the graphics as
second graders read informational text. Verbal protocols have provided researchers with
an understanding of the processes readers use as they read. Little is known, however,
about the processes that are prompted by the graphics in these texts. In this study, 30
second graders—designated as below-average, average, and above-average readers based
on their comprehension scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test —read two
informational texts, were prompted to share their thinking when they looked at a graphic,
and completed a free retelling and 8 researcher-designed comprehension questions. These
verbal protocols and comprehension scores were used to investigate the research
questions: (1) What reading processes are prompted by the graphics as second graders
read informational text? (2) In what ways does second graders’ reading achievement
relate to the processes prompted by graphics as they read informational text? and (3)
What is the relationship, if any, between children’s processes prompted by the graphics in
informational text and their overall comprehension of the same texts according to two
outcome-measures? The ﬁrst and second questions are addressed in manuscript one,
while the third is addressed in manuscript two.

With regard to research question one, open-coding of the 60 transcripts revealed

23 reading processes. The number of times any process was prompted by the graphics for

any one child across the two books ranged from 9 to 62 and the number of different
processes used by any one child ranged from 1 to 16 different processes.

With regard to research question two, ANOVAs indicated that: (1) there were no
statistically signiﬁcant differences in the sheer number of times any process was
prompted among the below-average, average, and above-average readers (2) above—
average readers used signiﬁcantly more different processes than average readers when
reading one text, but not the other; (3) the prompting of some individual processes
differed by achievement level.

With regard to the third research question, correlations between students’ scores
on the post-reading comprehension measures and reading processes suggested that: (1)
the number of times any process was prompted was signiﬁcantly correlated with scores
on the retelling measure for one book, but not for the other book or for the
comprehension question measure for either book; (2) there were no signiﬁcant
correlations between the number of different processes and students’ scores on any
comprehension measure; (3) a number of individual processes were positively correlated
with retelling and/or comprehension question scores.

In conclusion, the graphics in informational text prompted a number of reading
processes. Students’ reading achievement does appear to relate to the number and type of
processes prompted, but perhaps not to the same extent as it does for written text.
Furthermore, there is some correlation between processes and students’ comprehension
scores, but these differ by book and comprehension measure. Finally, some reading

processes appear to assist students’ comprehension while others do not.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have many people to whom I owe thanks for their help in completing this
dissertation and my doctoral studies. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor
and dissertation chair, Dr. Patricia A. Edwards, and my unofﬁcial advisor and dissertation
director, Dr. Nell K. Duke. It is because of their mentorship and support that I have
grown as a researcher and truly understand how to plan and execute a study from start to
ﬁnish. Of course, I do not think this dissertation would have been ﬁnished without the
help of Kate Roberts, Christy Bragg, Meagan Shedd, Laura Jimenez, Nicole Martin, Erin
Wibbens, Sarah Little, and Lauren Fingeret. Thank you for answering all questions and
learning with me (nothing like the blind leading the blind at times), reading draft after
draft, and providing “cheers” when I needed them most. I would also like to thank the
other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Douglas Hartman and Dr. Kimberly
Maier for thoughtful suggestions and feedback on the proposal and the dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for being my biggest cheerleaders and
supporters. I especially owe my husband for supporting me throughout my studies, for
listening to me talk endlessly about comprehension and graphics, for knowing what
graphics are included in Dino Dig and Weather Watching even better than I do, and for

making me laugh through it all.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ vii
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Contextualizing the Dissertation .......................................................... 2
Overview of Dissertation .................................................................. 3
Overview of Results .................................................................... 4
Signiﬁcance of the Study .............................................................. 6
References .................................................................................... 7

MANUSCRIPT 1: GRAPHICSAL READING PROCESSES AND READING

ACHIEVEMENT: IS THERE A CONNECTION? ............................................. 8
Theoretical Framework ........................................ ' .............................. 9
Review of the Literature .................................................................. 10

Comprehension and Written Text ................................................... 10
Comprehension and Graphics ........................................................ 11
Outcome versus Concurrent Measures ............................................. 13
Research Questions ......................................................................... 15
Methods ..................................................................................... 16
Design ................................................................................... 16
Participants ............................................................................. 16
Materials ................................................................................ 1 8
Data Collection Procedures .......................................................... 19
Data Analysis ........................................................................... 21
Results ....................................................................................... 25
What Reading Processes are Prompted by the Graphics as Second Graders
Read Informational Text? ................................................................................ 25
In What Ways Does Second Graders' Reading Achievement Relate to the
Processes Prompted by Graphics as They Read Informational Text? ............. 27
Discussion and Implications .............................................................. 3O
Graphical Reading is Active Reading ............................................... 30
Different Books, Different Processes ............................................... 31
Reading Achievement and Graphical Reading Processes ........................ 33
Limitations” ...35
Conclusions ................................................................................. 36
References ................................................................................... 54

MANUSCRIPT 2: GRAPHICAL READING PROCESSES AND COMPREHENSION:

IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP? .................................................................. 60
Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 60
Review of the Literature .................................................................. 62

Comprehension of Written Text ..................................................... 62
Comprehension of Graphics ......................................................... 63
Methods ..................................................................................... 69

Research Design ....................................................................... 69

Participants ............................................................................. 69
Materials ................................................................................ 70
Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................ 71
Results ....................................................................................... 79
The Reading Processes ............................................................... 79
Correlations between the Reading Processes and Retelling Scores ............. 80
Correlations between the Reading Processes and Researcher-Designed
Comprehension Question Scores .................................................... 82
Discussion ................................................................................... 83
Sheer Number of Processes May Not Always Help .............................. 83
The Curious Case of Prior Knowledge ............................................. 87
Limitations. 88
Implications and Conclusions ............................................................ 88
Appendix A: Retelling Checklist for Dino Dig ....................................... 108
Appendix B: Researcher-Designed Comprehension Questions for Weather
Watching .............................................................................. 1 13
References ................................................................................. 1 15

vi

Table 1.1

Table 1.2

Table 1.3

Table 1.4

Table 1.5

Table 1.6

Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4

Table 2.5

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

LIST OF TABLES
Functions of Graphics in Text ................................................... 38

Number of Instances of Each Graphic Type 1n Weather Watching and
DinoDig... 40

Deﬁnitions and Examples of A11 Processes Prompted by the Graphics. . .41

Total Number of Times and for How Many Students Each Process was
Prompted ........................................................................... 48

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Test Results for Number of Different
Processes Prompted and Number of Times Any Process was Prompted..51

Number of Times Each Process was Prompted by Reading
Achievement ....................................................................... 52

Nmnber of instances of each graphic type in Weather Watching and Dino
Dig .................................................................................. 90

Deﬁnitions and Examples of A11 Processes Prompted by the Graphics. . .91
Number of Times Each Process was Prompted ............................... 98

Descriptive Statistics for Number of Different Processes and Number of
Total Processes Prompted ...................................................... 100

Descriptive Statistics for the Comprehension Measures and Correlations
between Comprehension Measures and Number of Different Processes
and Number of Total Processes Prompted ................................... 101

Descriptive Statistics for Individual Processes and Correlations between
Comprehension Measures and Individual Processes for Dino Dig ....... 102

Descriptive Statistics for Individual Processes and Correlations between
Comprehension Measures and Individual Processes for Weather
Watching .......................................................................... 1 05

vii

"v.1”
H U

.....I

\DII

.gi-
MA

«fut
5m

Hub.

iii

Tit"

Introduction
This dissertation is written in an alternative format (Duke & Beck, 1999),
consisting of an introduction and two article manuscripts to be submitted to scholarly
journals. In this introduction, I will present some of the context and rationale for the
study, as well as provide an overview of the study.
Contextualizing the Dissertation
Although I began my doctoral studies with the assumption that I would be
studying comprehension and reading processes in a more traditional sense (i.e., of written
text), as I began to read more widely, I came across Gambrell’s and Jawitz’s (1993)
article, Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children’s story comprehension and recall,
and Camey’s and Levin’s (2002) article, Pictorial illustrations still improve students'
learning ﬁ'om text, and was intrigued as I began to think about my former students and
their use of graphics as they read both narrative and informational texts. I remembered
differences in their attention to and use of the graphics when reading in different genres.
For example, many of them would take a picture walk and make predictions about the
book when they read narrative picture books, but not when they read informational text.
Also, I recalled teaching them about graphics in narrative text, such as to study the
pictures for clues about characters’ feelings; in informational text I remembered teaching
them to read the captions and labels that accompanied the graphics, but did not remember
teaching them to really study the pictures themselves and to see what information they
could learn from them. I assumed that their ability to read the accompanying text would
lead them to understand the graphics as well, not recognizing the fact that students’

abilities to comprehend graphics could vary as much as their ability to comprehend

“T

I)”.

T4

‘v
all.

will

..
ft
Lil

written text. These realizations led me to question: (1) how are students using the
graphics as they read both narrative and informational text? and (2) how are these
processes helping them to understand the graphics?

With these questions in mind, I designed my practicum study, which laid the
groundwork for the current study, to investigate the processes prompted by the graphics
as second graders read informational text. For that initial study, I utilized a verbal
protocol design with 9 second graders (3 above-average readers, 3 average readers, and 3
below-average readers) as they read two modiﬁed informational texts (i.e., Animal Look-
Alikes [Grifﬁths & Clyne, 2005] and Recycling Adds Up [Zollman, 2008]). Open coding
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of the 18 transcripts from the study revealed 17 reading
processes (i.e., label; literal description; inferential description; prediction; infer the
author ’3 purpose; conﬁrm-disconﬁrm text; connection-to-self; irrelevant connection;
connection-to-prior knowledge; wonder; knowledge monitoring; aﬂective response;
compare-contrast graphics [renamed graphic-to-graphic connection]; evaluate; use of
running text; use of captions, labels, map key, etc. [renamed use of graphical devices];
and word identiﬁcation) that were prompted by the graphics. Further analysis of the data
suggested a number of trends, although the small sample size precluded more in depth
statistical analyses. One trend was that students of different reading achievement groups
seemed to be prompted to use different processes as they read. For example, only below-
average readers were prompted to use the graphics to help them identiﬁz words. This
difference led me to wonder whether students’ use of processes differed by achievement
group, as research in written-text has suggested (for a review of this research, see Oakhill

& Cain, 2004). Another trend noted was the fact that particular books appeared to

Q ‘~

5.1116?

1 E‘
.1",

LA“!

the

365

differentially inﬂuence the processes prompted by the graphics. For instance, Animal
Look-Alikes was written in a compare-contrast structure (Meyer, 1975) and Recycling
Adds Up was written in a problem-solution structure (Meyer, 1975). While reading
Animal Look—Alikes all nine students were prompted to compare-contrast graphics a total
of 63 times, but only four students were prompted to compare and contrast graphics a
total of 4 times while reading Recycling Adds Up. These differences may partly be
explained by the differences in text structure, which led me to wonder whether the use of
different books in the study would reveal new reading processes.

Finally, as I continued with my reading about research on reading processes and
the comprehension of written text, I noticed that such research has suggested that the use
of a greater number of processes is correlated with higher scores on comprehension
assessments (e.g., Dermitzaki, Andreou, & Paraskeva, 2008; Samuelstuen & Braten,
2005). In my practicum study, the students’ comprehension of the books was not
assessed, so I was unable to study whether a relationship existed between the processes
prompted by the graphics and students’ comprehension of the texts, but wondered
whether such a relationship existed. From these ﬁndings and questions, I developed my
dissertation study.

Overview of the Dissertation

When designing my dissertation study, I had three purposes in mind: (1) to add to
our understanding of the processes prompted by the graphics in informational text, (2) to
investigate in what ways second graders’ reading achievement relates to the processes
prompted by graphics as they read informational text, and (3) to investigate what

relationship, if any, exists between processes prompted by the graphics in informational

. n
(In

‘ 'ZJ

ca

'1“)

T1

text and children’s overall comprehension of those same texts. Therefore, I designed a
verbal protocol study in which 30 second graders (10 above-average readers, 10 average
readers, and 10 below-average readers) ﬁ'om 8 classrooms in 5 different schools in 5
different school districts read two informational texts (i.e., Dino Dig [Odgers, 2008] and
Weather Watching [Ryan, 2008]) aloud, were prompted to share their thinking whenever
they looked at a graphic, and completed two comprehension measures (i.e., free retelling
and research-designed comprehension questions) for each text.
Overview of Results

The ﬁrst manuscript addresses the questions, (1) What reading processes are
prompted by the graphics as second graders read informational text? and (2) In what
ways do second graders’ reading abilities relate to the processes prompted by graphics as
they read informational text? Open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of students’
transcripts revealed 25 codes—23 speciﬁc reading processes, no process, and
uninterpretable. While 17 of the 23 reading processes had been also coded during my
practicum research, six processes (i.e., create narrative, connection-intertextual [text-to-
text], connection-graphic-to-written text, name, repeat-paraphrase written text; and
reading process-other) were new. In order to investigate the relationship between reading
abilities and the processes prompted by the graphics, ANOVAs were run to determine
whether there were statistically signiﬁcant difference in the mean number of times any
process was prompted by the graphics, range of processes, and instances of individual
processes used for each book and across both books. The results indicated that there were
no statistically signiﬁcant differences in mean number of times any processes was

prompted, for range of processes for Weather Watching and both books combined, or for

t j

o
‘5

CT

'12.:

"r—‘J

individual processes for Weather Watching across the three achievement groups. For
Dino Dig, however, above-average readers were more likely to use a greater number of
processes that average readers, made graphic-to-graphic connections more often than
average readers and knowledge monitored more often than below-average readers. For
the two books combined, below-average readers created narratives more often than
above-average readers while above-average readers made more intertextual connections
than below-average readers.

The second manuscript focused the question: What is the relationship, if any,
between the reading processes prompted by the graphics and children’s overall
comprehension of the same texts? In order to address this question, correlations were run
to determine whether there were statistically signiﬁcant relationships between (1) the
range of processes used by an individual and that child’s scores on the book-speciﬁc
comprehension measures, (2) the number of times any process was prompted by and
graphic for an individual and his or her scores on the comprehension measures, and (3)
the number of times individual processes were used by a participant and his or her scores
on the retelling and the researcher-designed comprehension questions. The results
indicated that there were no signiﬁcant correlations between the range of processes
prompted by the graphics and students’ retelling or comprehension questions scores for
either book, and there was only a signiﬁcant positive correlation between the number of
times any process was prompted and students’ retelling scores on Dino Dig. Correlations
between individual processes and outcome measures indicated that there were statistically
signiﬁcant positive correlations for graphic-to-graphic connections, irrelevant

connection, connection-to-prior knowledge, connection-to-selﬂ intertextual connections,

label, and use of graphical devices. and retelling scores for both books; for compare-
contrast graphics and comprehension question scores for Dino Dig; and for predicting
and use of running text and retelling scores for Weather Watching.
Signiﬁcance of the Study

The results of this study have a number of implications for the ﬁeld of literacy,
but carry three particularly important implications for future research. First, this study
adds to our understanding of what reading processes are prompted by the graphics in
science informational text, including six new processes that were not revealed in previous
research. Just as understanding the reading processes prompted by written text has helped
to shape research in reading comprehension and reading instruction, understanding the
processes prompted by the graphics is essential to future research on reading graphics and
teaching students to better comprehend the graphics. Furthermore, it would appear that
the reading processes are not created equal; that is to say, some appear to assist students
in retelling and answering comprehension questions more than others do. Knowing which
processes prompted by the graphics assist students more in their overall comprehension
of the text can help us determine which processes are most important to teach students to
use. Finally, in this study the books themselves appeared to inﬂuence which processes
were prompted by the graphics, as well as the relationship between the processes and
reading achievement and between the processes and comprehension scores for that text.
This highlights the importance of considering the reader and the text as they relate to
comprehension of graphics in future research. More research is needed to develop our
understanding of reading processes and graphics, but a clearer picture is beginning to

appear.

References

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students'
learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.

Dermitzaki, 1., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading
comprehension achievers' strategic behavior and their relation to performance in a
reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471-492.

Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the
dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 3 1-3 6.

Gambrell, L., & J awitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children's
story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 265-276.

Grifﬁths, R., & Clyne, M. (2005). Animal look-alikes. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press.

Oakhill, J ., & Cain, K. (2004). The development of comprehension skills. In T. Nunes &
P. Byrant (Eds.), Handbook of children's literacy (pp. 155-180). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academy Publishers.

Odgers, S. (2008). Dino dig. Sydney, Australia: Weldon Owen Publishing.
Ryan, D. (2008). Weather watching. Syndey, Australia: Weldon Owen Publishing.

Samuelstuen, M. S., & Braten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in

comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-
1 17.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zollman, P. (2008). Recycling adds up. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press.

H

«a
mi

MANUSCRIPT ONE: GRAPHICAL READING PROCESSES AND READING
ACHIEVEMENT: IS THERE A CONNECTION?

Take a moment to consider well-known children’s authors and book titles, such as
Gail Gibbons’ (1995) The Reasons for the Seasons, Seymour Simon’s (2000)
Destination: Jupiter, Tomie dePaola’s (2001) 26 F airmount Avenue, and Kevin Henkes’
(1996) Lilly ’s Purple Plastic Purse. These texts are written about different topics, in
different genres, and for different reading levels. Yet, they all include a profusion of
important graphics, either draWn or photographed, that represent and extend the written
text. Visiting a classroom library or local bookstore and looking through the books in the
children’s section, one again notices the abundance of graphics in children’s books.

In some instances graphics—operationalized here as any photograph or
illustration in narrative or informational text including but not limited to diagrams, maps,
graphs, and tables—add little to the text beyond providing visual appeal to the page
(Levin, 1981; Levin, Anglin, & Carney, 1987). In others, the graphics provide additional
information, without which the reader could not understand the information provided or
the story told (Bishop & Hickman, 1992; Duke et a1., in preparation; Fang, 1996).
Research has identiﬁed six functions of graphics as common: decoration, representation,
organization, interpretation, transformation (Carney & Levin, 2002; Clark & Lyons,
2004; Levin, 1981; Levin et a1., 1987) and extension (Bishop & Hickman, 1992; Duke et
al., in preparation; Fang, 1996) (see Table 1.1). As Donovan and Smolkin (2002) note, it
is this latter type of graphics, extension, “these information-bearing units—of various
media, colors, and styles—[that] merit special consideration” (p. 510). Previous research

has found that the presence of these information-bearing graphics may motivate children

to read a book (Brookshire, Scharff, & Moses, 2002), are what children attend to as they
participate in an interactive read-alouds of expository text (Oyler, 1996) and may help
children with their comprehension of the text (Norman & Roberts, 2008). The graphics in
informational text are particularly important because students must decide to which
graphics they should pay attention (Hannus & Hyona, 1999; Moss, 2008), what is most
important in the graphic (Duke et a1., in preparation) and what information they should
learn from them (Duke et al., in preparation; Hannus & Hyona, 1999; Moss, 2008). Little,
however, is known about how students are using the graphics in informational text as
they read or the reading processes that are prompted by those graphics. In response to
these issues, in the study described in this article, I investigated children’s reading of two
informational texts and the reading processes prompted by the graphics in these two
books.
Theoretical Framework

As indicated above, graphics are prominent in books (e. g., Carney & Levin,
2002), and in informational texts in particular (e.g., F ingeret, in preparation; Purcell-
Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). They often convey important ideas and carry meaning
central to understanding the overall text, especially in informational texts (Duke &
Kayes, 1998; Moss, 2008). Therefore, this study is grounded in the belief that being
literate is not simply the ability to read and write words; it is the ability to think about,
create, and communicate meaning from spoken, written, and visual text (e.g., IRA/NCTE,
1996; The New London Group, 1996). When thinking about comprehension and
composition, we—as teachers and as researchers—need to think beyond the written word

and also consider the comprehension and composition of the graphical elements of text.

Comprehension of visual as well as spoken and written text can be understood
through semiotic theory (e.g., J ewitt & Oyama, 2001). It reﬂects the belief that many
graphics (e.g., photographs, diagrams, and pie charts) are meaningful signs that need to
be interpreted, just as the print on the page needs to be interpreted, in order to make
meaning from the texts (e.g., J ewitt & Oyama, 2001). This meaning is created though
interactions between the reader, the context, and the texts (RAND Reading Study Group,
2002). Thus in this study, I investigate students’ reading processes prompted by the
graphics in two informational texts in the context of one-on-one reading sessions.

Review of the Literature
Comprehension and Written Text

Much of what we know about successful comprehension comes from decades of
research on what skilled readers do as they read. We know that skilled readers construct
meaning using a wide variety of strategies (e.g., activating prior knowledge, questioning,
monitoring their comprehension) purposefully and ﬂexibly (e.g., Duke & Pearson, 2002;
Pressley & Afﬂerbach, 1995). Furthermore, they consider the genre and the reason for
reading the text (Duke, 2005; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002); thus, skilled readers
will read mystery books for pleasure much differently than they will read the instructions
on how to program their DVD players (Duke & Roberts, in press).

Poor readers, on the other hand, use fewer processes and are less skilled at using
these processes strategically (see Cain & Oakhill, 2004; Oakhill & Cain, 2007; Pressley
& Hilden, 2006). For instance, Cain and Oakhill (1999) found that poor comprehenders

made fewer inferences than skilled comprehenders, and Dermitzaki, Andreou, and

10

plOCt

IROb

proce
how 1
Price

(Om!

COmp;

Paraskeva (2008) reported that poor readers were less able to distinguish between
important and unimportant information and to monitor and repair errors.

Although less research has been conducted on what younger, less skilled readers
do as they comprehend, we do have a window into their mental processes as they read.
Verbal protocol or think-aloud research that has been conducted to date demonstrates that
even young readers can articulate what they do as they read (e. g., Alvermann, 1984;
Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Hilden, 2008; Norman, in press; Purcell-
Gates et a1., 2007 ; Wade, 1990). The research reveals that young children are using a
variety of strategies and processes as they read, and to varying degrees as they read
informational (e. g., Hilden, 2008; Norman, in press) or narrative texts (e.g., Alvermann,
1984; Brown, et a1., 1996).

Irnportantly, not only can young children report comprehension strategies and
processes, but teachers can affect these strategies and processes even in young children
(Roberts & Duke, 2009; Stahl, 2004). These strategies and processes include, but are not
limited to, predicting, activating prior knowledge, using text structure, questioning,
summarizing, identifying important ideas, and visualizing (see Roberts & Duke, 2009 and
Stahl, 2004 for reviews of strategy instruction research). Knowing more about the
processes young children use, or do not use, while reading written and graphical text and
how this varies by child and by reading achievement will help us to decide what
processes we need to teach, and to whom, to help all students be successful readers.
Comprehension and Graphics

While the research on comprehension of written text is abundant, the

comprehension of graphics has been less researched, and has usually been studied in the

11

context of how the graphics inﬂuence the overall comprehension of the text, rather than
whether and how the graphics themselves are comprehended. Moreover, the research that
does exist has produced inconsistent results, with some researchers ﬁnding that graphics
have no effect on overall comprehension (e.g., Brookshire et a1., 2002; Miller, 1938;
Rose & Robinson, 1984) and others ﬁnding that the graphics have either negative (e. g.,
Harber, 1983; Rose, 1986; Watkins, Miller, & Brubaker, 2004) or positive (e.g.,
Bromley, 2001; Hannus & Hyona, 1999; Small, Lovett, & Scher, 1993) inﬂuences on
comprehension (see Norman & Roberts, in preparation for a detailed discussion of
graphics and comprehension). For those who have found that the presence of graphics has
assisted students in comprehending the overall text, some researchers (e. g., Rusted &
Coltheart, 1979) report that it assists below-average readers more, perhaps because the
graphics provide them with support for the reader and allow them access to information
they could not glean from the written text. Other researchers (e.g., Hannus & Hyona,
1999) posit that graphics help the comprehension of above-average readers due to the fact
that students need to integrate information from the written text and graphics in order to
beneﬁt from the graphics, which only high-achievement readers appear to be capable of
doing. Speciﬁcally, Hannus and Hyona asserted that above-average readers recalled and
comprehended more from the illustrated texts because they were better able to understand
four key ideas: (1) when to examine the graphics while reading; (2) which graphics they
should examine; (3) what information they should obtain from the graphics; and, 4) how
to combine information in the written text and the graphics into one mental
representation. However, neither Rusted and Coltheart (1979) nor Hannus and Hyona

(1999) used verbal protocols, think-alouds, or retrospective interviews to study whether

12

:T
’7)

3:3“ -.
bikler:
herd

MID";
aia¥rD

'1‘"
t3
Ca-
(1‘

I32

Sit

'9'?

and how students of different reading achievement groups were using the graphics
differently, but rather derived their conclusions as logical and theoretical extensions of
their data. This study uses verbal protocols to speciﬁcally investigate whether there are
differences in the number and type of processes prompted by the graphics for second
graders of different achievement groups.

In summary, the research conducted with children thus far has investigated
whether graphics improve children’s comprehension of written text, but the results have
been inconsistent with some researchers ﬁnding them to have neutral effects, others
ﬁnding them to have negative effects, and still others ﬁnding that they have beneﬁcial
effects. Furthermore, even those researchers who agree that they are beneﬁcial to
students’ comprehension do not agree for whom or for what reasons.

Outcome versus Concurrent Measures

Most of the previous research on graphics and comprehension explored whether
the presence of graphics had beneﬁcial effects on participants’ overall comprehension.
The results were based on outcome measures, such as free (e. g., Gambrell & J awitz,
1993) or cued (e.g., Small et a1., 1993) recall and speciﬁc comprehension questions (e.g.,
Harber, 1983). Few studies (i.e., Norman, in press; Schnotz, Picard, & Hron, 1993) have
used verbal protocols or other concurrent reading measures (e.g., think alouds or
embedded questions) to study whether and how students used the graphics, or what
reading processes were prompted by the graphics as students read the text. Only one
study (i.e., Schnotz et a1., 1993) has attempted to investigate how participants used the

graphics to assist in their comprehension of informational text through the use of verbal

13

protocols, and one study (i.e., Norman, in press) examined the processes prompted by the
graphics in informational text.

Processes prompted by the graphics. Norman (in press) used verbal protocols to
study the processes prompted by the graphics as 9 second graders of varying reading
achievement groups (i.e., 3 above-average, 3 average, and 3 below-average readers) from
3 classes read two informational texts (i.e., Animal Look Alikes [Grifﬁths & Clyne, 2005]
and Recycling Adds Up [Zollman, 2008]). In this study, whenever students looked at the
graphics, they were asked what they were thinking and their responses were recorded and
transcribed. Using grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), their verbal protocols were
analyzed to reveal 17 reading processes that were prompted by the graphics as students
read these two texts (i.e., label; literal description; inferential description; prediction;
infer the author ’s purpose; conﬁrm-disconfirm text; connection-to-self; irrelevant
connection; connection-to-prior knowledge; wonder; knowledge monitoring; aﬂective
response; compare-contrast graphics; evaluate; use of running text; use of captions,
labels, map key, etc. ; and word identification).

Comparative analysis of the verbal protocols across texts also revealed that the
texts themselves appeared to inﬂuence what processes were prompted. For example,
Animal Look-Alikes (Grifﬁths & Clyne, 2005) is written using a compare/contrast text
structure (Meyer, 1975), in which the written text and graphics compare and contrast two
animals that could be confused, explicating their similarities and differences. Therefore, it
was not surprising that students made more comparisons between and amongst graphics
in this book than in Recycling Adds Up (Zollman, 2008) which is written in a problem

and solution text structure (Meyer, 1975) and in which the content and the graphics do

14

not lend themselves as readily to the comparisons. For example while reading Animal
Look-Alikes, one reader studied the crocodile and alligator and noted that “Well, (traces
around the picture of crocodile and alligator snouts as talking), ...I found out that the
crocodiles snout has more pointy (makes a pointy snout coming out of his face with his
hands) and then the alligator has a more (points at alligators snout and traces it) circular
snout.”

Finally, comparisons of students’ verbal protocols suggested that the child’s
reading achievement may be related to the processes prompted by the graphics in
informational text. On average, the graphics prompted twice as many processes for the
below-average reader as for the above-average reader. Because of the small number of
participants, however, inferential statistics could not be run, and further research is
needed to explore what, if any, differences exist in processes prompted by graphics from
different reading achievement groups.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to extend our understanding of the reading
processes prompted by the graphics in informational text. More speciﬁcally, I
investigated the reading processes prompted by the graphics as second graders of below-
average, average, and above-average reading achievement read two informational texts,
with a variety of graphics, at their grade level. In this way, I sought to address the
research question: What reading processes are prompted by the graphics as second
graders read informational text?

In addition, given the importance of graphics for reading comprehension and

results of previous research suggesting a relationship between reading achievement and

15

Daig:

gratin
116733
611555
Zilliéll
about

then

mm

the processes prompted graphics, I address the question: In what ways, if any, do second
graders’ reading achievement relate to the processes prompted by graphics as they read
informational text?
Methods

Design

To address the research questions, I conducted a study using verbal protocols
(Afﬂerbach, 2000; Pressley & Afllerbach, 1995; Pressley & Hilden, 2004) of second
graders reading two informational texts. First, the students were identiﬁed as below-
average, average, and above-average readers based on their comprehension scores on the
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT) (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, & Dreyer,
2000). Then, while reading two informational books, students were asked to think aloud
about the text whenever they were so inclined, and were also prompted to comment
whenever they looked at a graphic. These verbalizations were analyzed using modiﬁed
grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) (described in more detail below) in order to
identify the reading processes prompted by the graphics in informational text. Finally,
ANOVAs were run to determine whether there were differences in the reading processes
prompted by the graphics by reading achievement group.
Participants

The study was conducted with 30 second-grade students (17 males and 13
females) enrolled in 8 classrooms in 5 schools in 2 states in the Northeastern United
States. The 5 school districts ﬁ'om which schools were selected were purposively chosen
in order to provide a diverse sample of students based on socioeconomic status and

ethnicity. Within each school district, 1 school consented to participate in the study. Two

16

second-grade classrooms from each school were randomly selected ﬁ'om all consenting
classrooms. Subsequently, within each classroom, all consenting students were
administered the decoding sub-test (for which students must choose, from a list of similar
looking words, the one word that ﬁts a picture) and comprehension subtest (for which
students must read a narrative or informational passage and choose which picture
illustrates a segment of or answers a questions about that passage) of the GMRT, Form T
(MacGinitie et a1., 2000). Students were selected based on their comprehension scores so
that one reader from each class was randomly selected from between the lSt and 30th
percentile, one from between the 40‘h and 60th percentile, and one from between the 70th
and 100th percentile. Two classrooms had to be eliminated from the study because they
lacked a range of readers as indicated by the GMRT. In these two schools, all six students
were selected from the other classroom. Selecting only 3 to 6 children per classroom
reduced the likelihood that study ﬁndings would be affected by any one teacher’s reading
instruction. Students who received special education services or were English Language
Learners were eliminated from the study prior to selection of students in order to
eliminate any language and learning disability factors.

The participants were diverse in terms of socio-economic status, which was
measured using maternal education level (Entwisle & Astone, 1994) and ethnicity. For
the sample, 6% of mothers reported completing 8th grade but not high school, 23%
reported completing high school, 6% reported holding associates degrees, 30% reported a
bachelors or other four-year degree, 20% reported masters degrees, and 3% reported

doctorates; four declined to respond. In terms of ethnicity, per parent report, 6% of the

17

children were Asian-American, 10% African-American, 50% Caucasian, 20%
Hispanic/Latino, and 10% other; and the parents of two students did not respond.
Materials

Students read two informational texts, Dino Dig (Odgers, 2008) and Weather
Watching (Ryan, 2008). Both books are part of the Weldon Owen Publishings’ stage two
Top Readers series, which includes books that are designed with simple sentences,
specialized vocabulary, and graphics that provide support, and that contain a range of
graphics (Odgers, 2008, back cover; Ryan, 2008, back cover). Dino Dig describes how
dinosaurs become fossils and how scientists ﬁnd and use these fossils to learn about
dinosaurs. Weather Watching explains different types of weather and why they occur.
Both books are written at a reading level appropriate for second graders to read
independently in the second half of the school year (Chall, 1996).

The graphics included in the books are relevant to the text and provided additional
information not included in the text (Duke et al., in preparation; Nikolaj eva & Scott,
2000). For example, on pages 6 through 7 of Dino Dig (Odgers, 2008), a ﬂow chart
illustrates two dinosaurs’ bodies being covered by sand, layers of dirt building up on top
of the bodies, the bodies turning to stone, and scientists uncovering the fossils. This
graphic extends the accompanying written text, which reads “Dinosaur bodies lay under
the group for millions of years. As time passed, the bones were replaced by minerals and
turned to stone. They became fossils.” There were also representational graphics, such as
a drawing of a skeleton hanging in a museum (p. 20-21) which represents what is stated

in the text: “The fossil skeletons are put on display in a museum” (p. 20). Both texts

18

include photographs and drawings with captions and labels, diagrams, maps, and ﬂow
charts (see Table 1.2).

Because children this young should not be asked to think aloud for too long a
period of time, speciﬁc sections of the book were removed, with three sections and ﬁve
pages removed from each book. Any section removed met the following criteria: (1) the
exclusion of those pages would not diminish the range of graphics in the text, and (2) the
removal of those sections would not impact the comprehension of later sections. Within
sections that met these criteria, I gave priority to removing sections that (1) contained
vocabulary or concepts deemed difﬁcult or confusing for second grade students and (2)
that were not typical of informational text.

Finally, as in Norman (under review), to more easily track when students were
looking at the written text and when they are looking at the graphics, the books were
modiﬁed in a number of ways. Speciﬁcally, the original books, measuring 6 inch by 9
inch (15.24 cm by 22.86 cm), were cut apart and glued onto construction paper,
measuring 12 inches by 18 inches (30.48 cm by 45.72 cm), so that the distance between
the main text and the graphics was increased. The labels and titles of graphics were not
cut apart ﬁom the image and headings and connected text remained intact; relative
position of graphics and texts on the page was kept the same.

Data Collection Procedures

Sessions one and two. The ﬁrst two sessions occurred within the classroom as all

students with parental consent completed the decoding and comprehension subtests of the

GMRT, Form T, Level 2 (MacGinitie et a1., 2000). These sessions were also used to

19

introduce myself to the students and explain the study to them. All students who were not
participating in the study read quietly at their seats during this time.

Sessions three and four. The third and fourth session were held on a one-to-one
basis in a quiet place outside of the classroom. During these sessions, the students read
either Dino Dig (Odgers, 2008) or Weather Watching (Ryan, 2008). The order of
presentation was counterbalanced within achievement group and classroom.

Students read each book aloud. The readings were not corrected. When students
asked for help identifying a word they were encouraged to try their best. In a few
instances, when students refused to continue reading, they were supplied with a word. As
students read, they were asked to verbalize what they are thinking as described below.

Verbal protocols. To determine the processes prompted by the graphics, verbal
protocols (Pressley & Afﬂerbach, 1995; Pressley & Hilden, 2004) were used. As is
recommended in verbal protocol methodology books and chapters, the directions
provided to students for sharing their thinking were general:

Today, you are going to be reading a book for me. The book is going to look a

little funny (show students book), so don’t worry about that. As you read, I cannot

help you with any of the words. If you come to a word you don’t know, try your
best and keep reading. When you are done reading, I am going to ask you to retell
the book to me [retellings are not analyzed for this manuscript]. I am also going to
ask you some questions about the book. As you read, I want to know what you are
thinking. Sometimes, I am going to stop you to ask you to tell me what you are

thinking. If you have nothing to say, you can tell me that too. You can also talk

20

about the book at other times when I don’t ask if you want to. Is it okay to tell me

you have nothing to say? Is it okay to talk about the book whenever you want?

As students read, I watched continuously in order to determine where the
participants’ eyes were looking, the text or the graphics. When I noticed that they were
looking at a graphic, participants were prompted to share their thinking with, “What are
you thinking?” If students had not looked at any graphics after four pages, they were also
prompted.

Videotaping. All interactions with the students during the two reading sessions
were videotaped. Videotaping was used instead of audiotaping in order to capture when
students were pointing at different parts of the book as they were talking about what they
were thinking. In this way, I was able to determine to which graphic or block of written
text students were referring during their think-alouds.

Data Analysis

In order to address the two research questions, two forms of analysis were used.
Each form of analysis is described in detail in the following sections.

Discourse Analysis of Processes. In order to address research question 1: What
reading processes are prompted by the graphics as second graders read informational
text?, as well as to provide some of the data to address research question 2: In what ways,
if any, do second graders’ reading achievement relate to the processes prompted by
graphics as they read informational text?, students’ verbal protocols were transcribed
verbatim, including references to where the students were looking or pointing as they
thought aloud. The transcription of their readings and that of their thinking was done in

different colors in order to make it easier to distinguish the two sections

21

First, verbalizations were analyzed to determine whether the comment was about
the written text without reference to the graphic (e. g., “That’s a really hard word”), the
graphic without reference to the written text (e.g., “Deserts are right here, here, here, here
[keeps pointing to different parts of the map]” as the students studies a map of different
climate zones around the word), both the written text and the gaphic (e.g., while
studying a picture of clouds, “It’s sort of interesting the clouds are made of water,” an
idea stated in the text), or was an unrelated comment (e. g., “Her phone [a teacher] is
ringing and she’s outside”). Only comments that pertained in whole or in part to the
graphics were coded further.

Second, the verbalizations about the graphics were coded as prompted or
unprompted. Prompted comments were deﬁned as any verbalizations a participant made
after I asked the student what they were thinking, while unprompted comments were
those responses that the student made spontaneously.

Third, modiﬁed grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) was used to identify
the processes prompted by the graphics in informational text. I began by analyzing for the
18 codes developed during previous research (i.e., label; literal description; inferential
description; prediction; infer the author ’s purpose; conﬁrm-disconﬁrm text; connection-
to-self; irrelevant connection; connection-to-prior knowledge; wonder; knowledge
monitoring; affective response; compare-contrast graphics; evaluate; use of running
text; use of captions, labels, map key, etc. ,° word identiﬁcation; and no process), which
were in turn developed through grounded theory (Norman, in press). I created new codes
for any verbalizations that could not be coded using any of the 18 previous codes. Codes

were described with a short phrase that explained the process prompted by the graphic.

22

These phrases were compared continuously to ensure that none of them could be
collapsed. Seven new codes were developed (i.e., names, intertextual connection,
graphic-to-written text connection, create narrative, repeat-paraphrase written text,
reading process-other, and uninterpretable). All codes are discussed in more detail in the
Results section below.

Because the graphics occasionally prompted more than one process, the decision
was made that verbalizations could be coded as more than one process in order to
preserve the integrity of the data. For example, while reading Dino Dig (pp. 16-17), one
student studied a photograph of a head of a mummiﬁed dinosaur fossil found in Montana
and a drawn picture of the entire fossil and commented, “I think they are going to tell us
what they found. I think they’re going to tell us what this weird thing is (points to
photograph) and this (points to drawing.) Hey, I think, (looks back and forth between the
two graphics) it looks like they’re the same thing.” The ﬁrst and second sentences were
coded as prediction because the student verbalized a prediction about what the page
would talk about. The third sentence was coded as graphic-to-graphic connection
because the student is looking at both pictures and commenting that they are different
representations of the same fossil.

A graduate student familiar with reading processes of written text, but unfamiliar
with the verbal protocols collected for this study, was trained to code the verbal protocols
using six of the transcripts. She then coded a random sample of 16 of the transcripts,
stratiﬁed by text. Inter-rater reliability was 86.7% or 320 out of 369 codes. This inter-
rater reliability compares to the reliability in other verbal protocol studies (e. g., Brown et

a1., 1996).

23

Statistical analysis.

What reading processes are prompted by the graphics as second graders read
informational text? After all verbalizations were coded to determine what processes
were prompted by the graphics, descriptive statistics were calculated. First, the number of
times each process was prompted for each student and each achievement group was
calculated separately for each book (as processes might differ by book). Second, for each
process, the number of students for whom that process was prompted at least once was
calculated separately for each book.

In what ways do second graders ' reading achievement relate to the processes
prompted by graphics as they read informational text? To investigate the relationship
between students’ reading achievement and the processes prompted by graphics as they
read informational text, ANOVAs (ct=0.05) were run. First, an ANOVA was run to
determine whether there was a statistically signiﬁcant difference in the mean number of
total processes by achievement group. Second, an ANOVA was run to determine whether
there was a statistically signiﬁcant difference in the mean number of different processes
by achievement group. Finally, ANOVAs were run to determine whether there were
statistically signiﬁcant differences in the mean number of instances for individual
processes by achievement group. All ANOVAs were run for each book separately and for
the two books combined.

Because ANOVAs are fairly robust to violations of the normality and variance of
heterogeneity assumptions when the group sizes are equal (Donaldson, 1968; Field,
2009) and all achievement groups in this sample were equal, these assumptions were not

examined.

24

\Vh

Inf

«,3

Ll.’

{ll

Results
What Reading Processes are Prompted by the Graphics as Second Graders Read
Informational Text?

The modiﬁed open-coding of the transcripts resulted in 25 codes—23 reading
processes (i.e., aﬂective response; conﬁrm-disconfirm text; intertextual connection;
graphic-to-graphic connection; graphic-to-written text connection; irrelevant
connection; connection-to-prior knowledge; connection-to-self; evaluate; infer author ’s
purpose; inferential description; knowledge monitoring; label; literal description; name;
prediction; repeat-paraphrase written text; reading process-other; use of graphical
devices; use of running text; wonder; and word identification), no process, and
uninterpretable. See Table 1.3 for a complete description of each process as well as
student comments that exemplify each process.

Table 1.4 displays the number of total times each process was prompted and the
number of students for whom each process was prompted. Due to space considerations,
only three processes are discussed in more detail. The processes chosen include the
process prompted the fewest number of times (infer author 's purpose), the greatest
number of times (wonder), and for the greatest number of students (literal description).

As indicated in Table 1.4, infer author ’s purpose was only prompted by the
graphics once, for an above-average reader reading Weather Watching. After reading
about rain and snow (pp. 14-15), the student looked back and forth between the picture of
gray clouds and a picture of a snowman and explained that the author had put them on the
same page because “they’re the same sometimes. Sometimes the rain is bad weather and

sometimes snow is bad weather.”

25

On the other hand, wonder was prompted by the graphics a total of 125 times (53
for Weather Watching and 72 for Dino Dig) by 20 of the 30 students (12 for Weather
Watching and 16 for Dino Dig). The students wondered between 0 and 26 times across
the two books (M=4. l 7 and SD=7.419). These wonders included asking about what was
occurring in the picture (e.g., “I wonder what he’s doing to that animal” as a below-
average reader studied a picture of a man welding a dinosaur together [pp. 18-19]), as
well as critiquing the author (e. g., “Why do they [the author] tell us that it’s frozen in the
lake, but they don’t show the lake and my teacher said that you. . .shouldn’t write things
down in the book if it doesn’t go, if doesn’t have a picture of it” as a below-average
reader studied a winter scene to accompany the explanation of ice and frost [pp. 16-1 7]).

Literal description was used by the most students—27 of the 30 students (14 for
Weather Watching and 16 for Dino Dig) for a total of 79 times (28 for Weather Watching
and 51 for Dino Dig). When comments were coded as literal description, students
described what was explicitly depicted in the graphic (but not simply with a label or
name, in which case it would be coded label or name). The descriptions could be general
(e. g., when an above-average reader looked at the wind cycle [pp. 12-13] and
commented, “That looks like a cycle”) or could speciﬁcally describe what was occurring
in the graphic (e.g., while looking at the picture of scientists discovering a dinosaur fossil
in rock and sand [the fourth picture on pp. 6-7] an average reader stated the scientists
were “digging for a fossil”). It was prompted between 0 and 8 times across the two books

(M=2.63 and SD=2.092).

26

In 1‘

Pror

illft?

3113‘

In What Ways Does Second Graders' Reading Achievement Relate to the Processes
Prompted by Graphics as They Read Informational Text?

Number of times any process was prompted by the graphics. The number of
times any process was prompted by the graphics across the two books ranged from 9 (by
an average reader who repeated-paraphrased the written text eight times and knowledge
monitored once) to 62 (by an above-average reader who used 15 different processes and
often spoke about the graphics without being prompted) (M=12.045 for all 30 students)
(see Table 1.5). On average, the graphics in Weather Watching prompted an equal
number of processes for below-average and above-average readers (M=12.80), which was
greater than the number of times any process was prompted for average readers.
Additionally, when reading Dino Dig, the number of times any process was prompted by
the graphics was greatest for above-average readers (M=18.90) and least for average
readers (M=12.50) (the mean for below-average readers was 14.90). The ANOVA,
however, indicated that no statistically signiﬁcant difference in mean number of total
processes existed among the three achievement groups.

Number of different processes prompted by the graphics. The number of
different processes prompted by the graphics across both books ranged from 1 process
(an average reader who used only wondering) to 16 processes (two above average
readers, one of whom used aﬂective; connection-to-prior knowledge; connection-to-self;
graphic-to-graphic connection; graphical-to-written text connection; irrelevant
connection; inferential description; create narrative; knowledge monitoring; label;
literal description; names; reading process-other; prediction; repeat—paraphrase written

text; and use of graphical devices; and the other of whom used aﬂective; connection-to—

27

.‘litl

1LT

at?

P05

ital

[Edi

HUI.

for

lie

det

prior lmowledge; connection-to-self; intertextual connection; irrelevant connection; infer
author ’s purpose; inferential description; create narrative; knowledge monitoring; label;
literal description; reading process-other; prediction; repeat-paraphrase written text;
use of graphical devices and wonder) (see Table 1.5). There was no statistically
signiﬁcant difference in the mean number of different processes by achievement group
for Weather Watching (M=6.80 for below-average readers, M=3.629 for average readers,
and M=3.683 for above-average readers) There was a statistically signiﬁcant difference
for Dino Dig (F =4. 93 1, p=0. 015, r [of the contrast]=0. 52) and the difference in means
approached signiﬁcance for both books combined (F =2. 63 l , p=0.09, r=0. 40). Tukey’s
Post Hoc tests showed the difference to be between average readers and above-average
readers 02=0. 011 for Dino Dig and p=0. 075 for both books) with the above-average
readers (M=9.l for Dino Dig and M=1 1.9 for both books) more likely to use a greater
number of different processes than the average readers (M=5.2 for Dino Dig and M=7.8
for both books). The means for below-average readers was between above-average and
average readers for Dino Dig and both books (M=7.30 and M=10.10 respectively).
Number of instances of individual processes prompted. ANOVAs were run to
determine if there was a statistically signiﬁcant difference for the mean number of times
an individual process was prompted by the graphics among the three achievement groups
(see Table 1.6). No statistically signiﬁcant differences were found among achievement
groups at the book level for Weather Watching, though create narrative approached
signiﬁcance (F =3.277, p=0.053, r=0. 44), with a Tukey Post Hoc test (p=0.046) showing

that below-average readers (M =1 .00) were more likely to use the process create

28

"Till"
rd 5‘"

mm.” I.

often I
mtisii
lie m:
titer 1
term;
HS?
l.ll=0_
reader
raider

below

narrative than average readers (M=0.10) (above-average readers [M=0.40] created
narratives more often than average readers, but less often than below-average readers).

For Dino Dig, statistically signiﬁcant differences were found for graphic-to-
graphic connection (F =3.500, p=0.045, r=0.43) and knowledge monitoring (F =3.73 8,
p=0.03 7, r=0.46). A Tukey Post Hoc test indicated that the above-average readers were
prompted to make graphic-to-graphic connections more often than average readers (M =
0.50 and 0.00 respectively, p=0.023) and were prompted to knowledge monitor more
often than below-average readers (M =1 .30 and 0.30 respectively, p=0.03). Although not
statistically signiﬁcantly different from either above-average or below-average readers,
the mean number of times average readers knowledge monitored was in between the
other two achievement groups (M =0. 70). Three processes, connection-to-selﬁ create
narrative, and label, approached signiﬁcance (F=3.29l p=0.053, P: 2.930 p=0.071, and
F =2.854 p=0.075 respectively). Tukey Post Hoc tests showed that above-average readers
(M=0.8) made more connections to themselves than average (M=0.10) and below-average
readers (M=0.10) (p=0.085, r=0.39) and labeled the graphics more often than average
readers (M=l .5 and .3 respectively, p=0.084, r=0.39), but created fewer narratives than
below-average readers (M=0.8 and 2.5 respectively, p=0.06l, r=0.42).

When ANOVAs were run on the number of instances of individual processes
across the two books, statistically signiﬁcant differences were found for graphic-to-
graphic connection (F =3.5, p=0.045), create narrative (F =4.370, p=0. 023) and
intertextual connections (F =3.822, p=0.035). A Tukey Post Hoc test showed that
average readers (M=0.00) made graphic-to-graphic connections less often than above

average readers (M=0.50) (p=0.048, r=0.43), below-average readers (M = 3.5) created

29

narratives more often than above-average readers (M = 1 .20) (p=0.029, r=0.46), and
above-average readers (M =0.60) made intertextual connections more often than below-
average readers (M =0. 00) (p=0.04, r=0. 44).
Discussion and Implications

This study investigated the processes that were prompted by the graphics as
second graders read two informational texts and whether there were any differences in
these processes by reading achievement. To address these two questions, 60 verbal
protocols from 30 second-graders (10 above-average, 10 average, and 10 below-average
readers) reading two informational texts were collected and analyzed. The ﬁndings from
and implications of this study are discussed below.
Graphical Reading is Active Reading

The protocols revealed that 23 reading processes (i.e. affective response;
connection-to-prior knowledge; connection-to-self; graphic-to-written text connections;
graphic-to-graphic connections; intertextual connection; irrelevant connection; evaluate;
infer the author ’s purpose; inferential description; create narrative; knowledge
monitoring; label; literal description; name; prediction; use of graphical devices; use of
running text; confirm-disconfirm text; repeat-paraphrase written text; wonder; reading
process-other; and word identification) were prompted by the graphics in these two
informational texts. The number and diversity of processes suggest that, like the reading
of written text, the reading of graphics is an active endeavor. Students do not merely
glance at the graphics or view them as decorations on the page. Instead, they use the
graphics, for instance, to help them predict the topic of the book or the page, make

connections, and wonder about the topic. Students also integrate information from the

30

 

L‘lll

ls

inf

ea

graphics and the written text, such as when they use the running text to clarify the graphic
or use the graphic to conﬁrm or disconﬁrm information from the written text.

Not all students, however, are as active when reading the graphics as others. For
one average reader, only nine processes were prompted across the two books. That is less
than one process for every three graphics. He did look at most of the other graphics, but
when asked what he was thinking replied, “Nothing,” 21 times. Indeed, the results from
this study suggest that some students actively use the graphics while others do not.
Assuming that active processing of graphics improves comprehension of any given
informational text (Norman, in preperation), research is needed to determine how to help
all students become active and strategic processors of the graphics.

Different Books, Different Processes

As in previous research (i.e., Norman, in press), the books read by the students
appear to inﬂuence what processes are prompted by the graphics. Despite being similar—
each book was published by the same company for the same series, contained 10 sections
and 26 pages (after modiﬁcation), and contained similar styles of graphics— Weather
Watching prompted a total of 365 processes for all 30 students, while Dino Dig prompted
a total of 463. This difference could be due, in part, to a difference in interest. Research
on students’ use of strategies while reading informational text suggests that students use
more strategies as they read written text identiﬁed as highly interesting to them than
when they read written text of low interest to them (Jimenez, in preparation). In
retrospect, it appears that these second-graders may have been more interested in reading
about dinosaurs than in reading about weather; therefore, they were prompted to think

more actively about the graphics in a book about dinosaurs.

31

Some processes, however, were prompted more often for Weather Watching than
for Dino Dig. For example, students used the process connection-to-self more when
reading Weather Watching than Dino Dig (15 to 10 respectively). Many of these
connections referenced the rain, thunder, and lightning outside on the days they were
reading the Weather Watching book, an experience all of the students shared. With Dino
Dig some students connected to visits to dinosaur museums and dinosaur camps, but not
all of the children have attended these places, and, therefore, could not make personal
connections to the books. When reading a book about which they have more personal
experiences they are more likely to make connections-to-self

Additionally, while seventeen of the processes had also been found in previous
research (see Norman, in press), create narrative, graphic-to-written text connection,
name, repeat-paraphrase written text; intertextual connection, and reading process-
other were new processes revealed. These additional processes could be a product of the
increased number of students in the present study or the fact that two different books,
written about different topics, in a different graphical styles, and for a different series and
publisher, were used in that study. One notable difference between the books used in this
study and those used in Norman (under review) is the fact that most of the graphics in the
previous study—with the exception of a map in Animal Look-Alikes and a cross-sectional
diagram and pie chart in Recycling Adds Up—were photographs, while many of the
graphics in Dino Dig and Weather Watching were drawn illustrations. These drawn
illustrations appear to prompt students to create narratives more often than the
photographs in the same book which perhaps explains why create narrative was not

prompted by the largely photographic graphics in the previous study.

32

Further research is needed in order to investigate the inﬂuence of graphical style,
the book topic, and genre on the processes prompted by the graphics. Also, research is
needed to determine whether there is a relationship between interest and prior knowledge
and the processes prompted by the graphics.

Reading Achievement and Graphical Reading Processes

As discussed above, previous research on written text has indicated that skilled
readers use more strategies and use them more strategically than less-skilled readers
(Anastasiou & Giva, 2009; Cain & Oakhill, 2004; Oakhill & Cain, 2007; Pressley &
Hilden, 2006). In this study, however, no statistically signiﬁcant differences were found
for the number of times any process was prompted by the graphics by achievement
group. There were statistically signiﬁcant differences in the number of different processes
prompted between average readers and above-average readers only when reading Dino
Dig, with above-average readers using more different processes than average readers.
Although not signiﬁcant, below-average readers also used a greater number of different
processes when reading Dino Dig than average readers, although fewer than above-
average readers. The pattern of graphics prompting a greater number of different
processes for above-average and below-average readers than for average readers was also
seen in Weather Watching, though these differences were not statistically signiﬁcant.

Perhaps the disparity between below-average and above-average readers that has
been suggested by previous research on written-text does not exist to the same extent
with graphics because written text reading achievement, which was the primary basis on
which these students’ achievement was classiﬁed, does not inﬂuence students’ abilities to

comprehend and talk about graphics in the same way it would inﬂuence their

33

tr;

,1
111:

C0

(IQ

comprehension and discussion of written text. Instead their ability to gain information
from and to determine the main idea of the graphic might play a greater role in the
number and range of processes prompted by the graphics. Further investigation and
considerable assessment development work is needed to determine whether there are
below-average, average, and above-average graphical comprehenders, as there are for
written text.

Finally, statistically signiﬁcant achievement group differences were observed for
the mean number of times four speciﬁc processes (i.e., graphic-to-graphic connection,
intertextual connection, create narrative, and knowledge monitoring) were prompted by
the graphics. This difference in the use of speciﬁc processes by achievement groups is
consistent with previous research on written text (e. g, Braten & Stromso, 2003;
Samuelstuen & Braten, 2005). Three of the speciﬁc processes were used more often
among above-average readers. Their greater use of graphic-to-graphic connections may
be related to the fact that above-average readers are more likely to attend to text-structure
(Englert & Thomas, 1987), and the fact that they made more intertextual connections
could be attributed to the fact that above-average readers often read more (Cunningham
& Stanovich, 1998) and, thus, have a greater number of texts with which they can
connect. Above-average readers also knowledge monitored (Hilden, 2008, 2009) more
often than the below-average and average readers. When students engaged in knowledge
monitoring, they were determining whether or how new knowledge from the text or
graphics ﬁt with their existing knowledge, and, thus, is another type of monitoring of
comprehension and use of prior knowledge. This ﬁnding is consistent with research on

written—text that has found that below-average readers are less capable of self-regulating

34

and monitoring their understanding of the text than above-average readers (e.g.,
Anasatiou & Griva, 2009; Dnnitzaki, Andreou, & Paraskeva, 2009; and see Pressley,
2002) and that students who activate and use prior knowledge are better able to
comprehend written text (Hansen, 1981; Pressley et a1., 1994) Some research does exist
on students’ use of knowledge monitoring while reading informational text (see Hilden,
2008; 2009), but more research is needed that explores students’ knowledge monitoring
while reading graphics and how this relates to their overall graphical comprehension.

Finally, create narrative was prompted more often for below-average readers than
for above-average and average readers. These students ascribed actions and feelings to,
and at times even provided dialogue between, the animals and people in the graphics.
This process would appear to be genre-inappropriate and may not facilitate in
comprehending the graphic (Cervetti, Bravo, Hiebert, Pearson, & J aynes, 2009). Again
this difference could be due to the fact that above-average readers read more (Guthrie,
2004); therefore, they may have a greater exposure to and greater knowledge of
informational text (Duke & Kays, 1998), which discourages them from creating
narratives. More research is needed to investigate why this process is prompted and
whether it helps or hinders comprehension of graphics and the accompanying text.

Limitations

While precautions were taken to maintain the validity of this study, as in any
study, a few remain. First, verbal protocols rely on students’ self-reporting of their
thinking. Therefore, students’ verbal abilities may have impacted their reporting of their
thinking (Afﬂerbach & Johnston, 1984). Second, although students were allowed to talk

about their thinking at any time and were allowed to say that they were not thinking about

35

I61

rr
AL

ti

Lu

anything, the fact that students were prompted whenever they looked at a graphic may
have inﬂuenced the number of time students studied the graphics, possibly encouraging
some to look at the graphics more often and discouraging others from looking at the
graphics. Although students were not told that they would be asked to share their thinking
after looking at a graphic, some did ﬁgure out the pattern and began to report their
thinking as they looked at each graphic (one student even commented on it). Third,
students were classiﬁed as above-average, average, and below-average readers based on
one subtest of one reading assessment given on one day. Students may have been
classiﬁed differently if other assessments had been chosen, or even if they had been
tested on a different day or at a different time. Fourth, only 10 students from each
achievement group participated in this study. Perhaps a larger sample size would have
revealed different processes and other differences between the achievement groups.
Finally, because a large number of ANOVAs were run, there could be issues with Type 1
errors.

Conclusions
As with written text, the reading of the graphics is an active process for many students. Is
there a connection between the graphical reading processes and reading achievement, as
the title of this paper asks? These processes do not seem to differ as much by
achievement as they do for written text, but some differences do appear to exist. Perhaps
this is due, in part, to differences in the affordances and constraints of reading graphics,
or graphics and written text combined, instead of reading written text alone. Exploration

of students’ graphical comprehension and how written-text comprehension and graphical

36

comprehension relate may assist us in better understanding differences in written and

graphical text comprehension processes.

37

Table 1.1

Functions of Graphics in Text

 

Function of Graphic Deﬁnition

Example

 

a:
Decoration

:3:

Representation

4:
Organization

1|:
Interpretation

Transformation

at

appear as an ornament on the

page without adding to or relating

to the written text

support the plot and content of the
written text by portraying the
characters, setting, and events in
narrative text or depicting the

information presented in

informational text

supply a framework for

classifying information from the

written text

explain abstract ideas by

depicting them in a more concrete

fashion

Represent mnemonics to help
readers remember the written text

by making it more concrete and

meaningful

38

an acorn accompanying an

autumn poem

a photograph of a salmon
making a nest with its tail
accompanying the text,
“Female salmon make nests

with their tails.”

a timeline in a biography

an illustration of the
circulatory system as
plumbing (Levin, 1981)

the word bed with the b and

d as head and footboards

Table 1.1 (cont)

Extensiont provide extra details not directly

stated in the text

a labeled diagram of a mu
ﬂy’s eye to accompany the
text, “A ﬁ'uit ﬂy’s eye is very

complex.”

 

’1

Levin, Anglin, and Carney (198 7)

tBishop and Hickman (1992), Duke et al. (in preparation) and Fang (1996)

39

Table 1.2

Number of instances of each graphic type in Weather Watching and Dino Dig

 

 

Type of Graphic Number of instances in Number of instances in
Weather Watching Dino Dig
Total number of photographs 5 5
Labeled photograph l 0
Total number of drawn illustrations 9 12
Labeled drawn illustration (not 1 6

cross-sectional diagram or ﬂow

chart)

Cross-sectional diagram 1 1
Graphic with key 3 0
Map l 0
Flow chart 1 l

 

Note: Some graphics are counted more than once. For example, the map in Weather

Watching is counted as both a map and a graphic with key.

40

Table 1.3

Definitions and Examples of All Processes Prompted by the Graphics

 

Affective

response

Connection —
graphic-to-

written text

Connection-
graphic-to-

graphic

Connection-

intertextual

Student expresses an emotion

based on the graphic.

Student makes a connection
between a graphic and the
written text in another part of

the same book.

Student compares different
graphics in order to better
understand both graphics
and/or to gain new
information/ meaning.
Graphic prompts student to
make a connection to another
text (e. g., book, movie, TV

show, etc)

Example 1: I like rainbow (traces
rainbow).

Example 2: That it’s cool to ﬂy
kites in the sky (affective), but they
need to know, like, what the
weather is like (evaluate).
Example 3: That’s weird.
Example: It shows like it said
before in the book that if you ﬁnd
one fossil you probably ﬁnd more
cause it looks like more than one
dinosaur.

Example 1: Hey, I think (looks
back and forth between the two
graphics), it looks like they’re the

same thing.

Example: In a show I saw they
called them carnivores, the

dinosaurs.

 

41

Table 1.3 (cont)

 

Connection-
to- prior

knowledge

Connection-

to -self

Connection-

Irrelevant

Create

narrative

Student references prior
knowledge related to the
graphic. Prior knowledge may

be inaccurate.

Graphic prompts student to
make a connection to the

student’s own life.

The connection made is
topically connected, but is not

relevant to the author’s intent.

The graphic prompts student to
create a narrative. Student
ascribes feelings, thoughts, and

actions to the people or

Example: Our teacher did tell us
that you can memorize the colors
(pointing to list of colors in
rainbow) by Roy G. Biv. R, O, Y,
G, B, I, V, as in a name.

Example: (Looking at picture of
storm clouds and umbrellas) I’m
thinking about right now because
look outside (it is raining). . .it was
like before it was only like poom,
poom, poom.

Example: (looking at a rainbow)
I’m thinking of sunlight and
happiness and rainbows and
dandelions and pots of gold on the
other side of the rainbow. I don’t
really think there is another side of
a rainbow. Hmmm. . .Bet there isn’t.
Example 1: He’s like (points to
larger dinosaur, in a low voice)
“Where are you?” (then in a really

high voice) “Let’s play hide and

 

42

Table 1.3 (cont.)

 

Evaluate

Knowledge

monitoring

animals in the pictures. The
actions are not present in the
graphic and/or not reasonably
inferred ﬁom the graphic and
the words.

Student judges or forms an
opinion based on the
information presented in the
graphic and/or his or her
background knowledge.
Student recognizes absence of
prior knowledge or recognizes
that the text or graphic

conﬁrms previous thinking

seek. Ahhhhh!” (Runs ﬁngers

across the page.)

Example: I don’t think it’s really
good because lightning can like

shock you for electricity.

Example 1: I know lightning can go
up (points to picture) or lightning
can come down. And then there is
another thing that lightning can go
like it can either go up out of
nowhere and just form. It can go up
out of nowhere and just form. And
it can come from clouds. And that’s
how it forms. That’s what my mom
told me.

Example 2: I never knew that.

 

43

lable l

L‘IDCI

.\ am

Table 1.3 (cont)

 

Label Student labels something in the Example: snow (points to snow)
picture while pointing to the
objects being labeled. Labels
may or may not be correct.

Names Student names or lists items Example: I’m thinking like
found in the picture without lightning (looking at picture, but
pointing to the objects in the not pointing).
picture. Names may or may
not be correct.

Literal The graphics prompt student to Example 1: I'm thinking, for this

description describe (not simply name or picture (points to picture of

label) what is explicitly lightning hitting tree), I think that it
depicted in the graphic. really I'm thinking about how when
Student may be gaining lightning comes it kind of affects,

information, or may be stating um, buildings and trees.

what they see in the graphic. Example 2: Mmm. . .their bones like

Information may or may not be all squiggly (points to bottom part

correct. of the bones on the tail), like, like
all. . .the bones like this side is all
sticking out, like pointy (points to
bottom parts) and this side (points

to top parts) is not.

 

44

Table I.

/

hitter

desert

hie

pur

Table 1.3 (cont)

 

Inferential

description

Infer author’s

purpose

Prediction

Use of

graphical

The graphic prompts student to
infer information. The
information is implied in the
graphic or by combining
information from the graphic
and the words, but is not
explicitly depicted.
lnforrnation may or may not be
correct.

Student infers the author’s
purpose for including a
graphic, what the author
wanted you to learn ﬁom the
graphic, or why author placed
a graphic in a speciﬁc spot.
Student uses the graphic to
predict what will be on the

page/in the book.

Student uses graphical text

features (e.g., labels, captions,

Example: I'm thinking that these
are guys who throw a (sic) airplane

up in the sky when the wind blows.

Example: It's kind of like rain and
snow are on the same page because
they’re the same sometimes.
Sometimes the rain is bad weather
and sometimes snow is bad
weather.

Example: Um, I think this is

goin. . .this page is going to tell us
about like about like what’s on the
land like where deserts are and
where like tropical rainforests are.
Example 1:... I did notice that these

(points to map key) match there

 

45

Table 1.3 (cont)

 

devices

Use of

running text

Repeat-
paraphrase

text

Conﬁrm-
disconﬁrrn

text

map keys, arrows in ﬂow
chart, graphics’ titles) to
understand graphic. Student is
not just restating or rephrasing
the caption or label.

Student uses the text to better
understand and gain
information from the graphic.
Student is not just restating or
rephrasing the running text.
While looking at the graphic,
student repeats or attempts to
repeat text verbatim or
paraphrases or attempts to
paraphrase text using own
words. The text can be the
running text, captions, or

labels (if the label is a phrase).

Student uses the graphic to
conﬁrm/disconﬁrm what was

stated in the text.

(pointing to map) so that would be
a desert, that would be a tropical
piece. The colors match.
(Continues pointing to map key and
matching areas on map.)

Example: (After reading running
text) Oh. . .I just learned that’s

(points to graphic) a kite.

Example 1: Text: Bolts of lightning
ﬂash when the electricity builds up.
Student: That lightning can build
up...

Example 2: Label: Clouds move
with the wind.

Student: That, like, clouds can like,
like the wind can move the
clouds...

Example: Text: They then add
muscle tissue and skin to the

skeleton. This makes the dinosaur

 

46

Table 1.3 (cont)

Wonder

Word

identiﬁcation

Reading
Process-

Other

Student uses the graphics to
question or wonder about
topic. The wonders can be said
as statements or questions.
They may include words such
as if or wonder but do not have
to.

Student uses the graphic to
decode word or comprehend

meaning of word.

Comment does not ﬁt into any

of the other processes listed.

look like it did when it was alive.
Student: That does not look like it
did when it was alive (point to
dino). Only the skin (points to skin)
would be there (circles around
dinosaur).

Example: Are there tons of the
polars or not? Or if there’s, like
most deserts in most states or
places? And, and how how (sic) are
the temperature in like Afr, in like
Australia, Aﬁica, Europe, and
South America?

Example: I'm trying to see if the
picture will help me ﬁgure out the
word (mutters to self, repeats
sentence).

Example: Have you ever seen a
wooly mammoth or a saber tooth
statue in museums, hm? (Student is

asking the researcher a question)

 

47

Table 1.4

Total Number of Times and for How Many Students Each Process was Prompted

 

 

 

 

Weather Watching Dino Dig Both Books
Process No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of
times students times students times students
prompted (% of prompted (% of prompted (% of
(% of students) (% of students) (% of students)
total total total
processes) processes) processes)
A jfective 1 9 9 23 9 42 1 2
response (5.21) (30.00) (4.97) (30.00) (5.07) (40.00)
Confirm- 5 4 5 5 10 7
disconﬁrm (1.37) (13.33) (1.08) (16.67) (1.21) (23.33)
text
Create 15 10 47 17 62 20
narrative (4.11) (33.33) (10.15) (56.67) (7.49) (66.67)
Intertextual 4 3 3 2 7 5
connection (1.10) (10.00) (0.65) (6.67) (0.85) (16.67)
Graphic-to- O 0 6 5 6 5
graphic (0.00) (0.00) (1.30) (16.67) (0.72) (16.67)
connection

48

Table 1.4 (cont)
Graphic-to-
written text
connection
Irrelevant

connection

Connection-
to-prior
knowledge
Connection-

to-self

Evaluate

Infer the

author ’s

purpose
Inferential

description

Knowledge

monitoring

Label

Literal

description

0

(0.00)

(1.92)

33

(9.04)

15

(4.11)

(1.37)

(0.27)

27

(7.40)

24

(6.58)

19
(5.21)
28

(7.67)

(0.00)

5

(16.67)

15

(50.00)

10

(33.33)

3
(10.00)
1

(3.33)

14

(46.67)

12

(40.00)

11
(36.67)
14

(46.67)

(1.08)

12

(2.59)

23

(4.97)

10

(2.16)

(0.43)

(0.00)

47

(10.15)

23

(4.97)

23
(4.97)
51

(11.02)

49

3

(10.00)

8

(26.67)

14

(46.67)

6

(20.00)

2

(6.67)

(0.00)

22

(73.33)

15

(50.00)

13
(43.33)
16

(53.33)

(0.60)

19

(2.29)

56

(6.76)

25

(3.02)

(0.85)

(0.12)

74

(8.94)

47

(5.68)

42
(5.07)
79

(9.54)

3

(10.00)

11

(36.67)

20

(66.67)

13

(43.33)

5
(16.67)
1

(3.33)

24

(80.00)

20

(66.67)

18
(60.00)
27

(90.00)

Table 1.4 (cont)

Name

Prediction

Repeat-
paraphrase
written text

Use of
graphical
devices

Use of

running text

Wonder

Word

identification

Reading
process-

other

15
(4.11)
15
(4.11)
35

(9.59)

28

(7.67)

4

(1.10)

53

(14.52)

6

(1.64)

7

(1.92)

6
(20.00)
6
(20.00)
17

(56.67)

18

(60.00)

4

(13.33)

12
(40.00)
5

(16.67)

6

(20.00)

17
(3.67)
19
(4.10)
46

(9.94)

(0.86)

(0.43)

72
(15.55)
9

(1.94)

14

(3.02)

11
(36.67)
5
(16.67)
18

(60.00)

3

(10.00)

2

(6.67)

16
(53.33)

6

(20.00)

9

(30.00)

32
(3.86)
34
(4.11)
81

(9.78)

32

(3.86)

6

(0.72)

125

(15.10)

15

(1.81)

21

(2.54)

14
(46.67)
9
(30.00)
22

(73.33)

18

(60.00)

5

(16.67)

20
(66.67)
7

(23.33)

12

(40.00)

 

50

nova a Eugene...

 

 

 

hm 8.00m
.N Sued OTm 09.: m; ows 2-x. 0:: 3; mod Eom
5N mommooem
.N ..meé 2% Ed a; omd :-m ms 2; NH MNQ oEQ “cocobMD
hm “5.53:3:
mo H3832
.N owed m7~ ems :4 owe on we m T“ omd $5de
5N mxoom
.N vow; No-3 on. D m end ovdm omA: oﬁnm Nod ooﬁm 50m
mm 8805
.N Elﬁn emé cow— wTo oﬁn— mmé oil 36 9.2 Ma 62.5 beat 38E.
mm mﬁaouoxx
mo 538:2
.N 3N. wmé ow.~_ 31m ood— mmé ow.~_ wmé :12 xmﬁemxx
to ”— owgm E owned 2 owamm E owned 2
owﬂozw manned Eocmom
-o>on< omSo>< omﬁo>f320m 038mm ESP

 

ENQEEQ was» 3.8de EV 35R

\o me532 ES» ESQESR 8.3.86.5 utmxocmwsto .4353? 3533.82 3mg VS 0% has Shanda. 6332.6me

w; 2an

51

Table 1.6

Number of Times Each Process was Prompted by Reading Achievement

 

Weather Watching Dino Dig Both Books

 

 

 

BAR AR AAR BAR AR AAR BAR AR AAR

 

Affective 5 6 8 l 8 14 6 14 22
response

Conﬁrm- 3 l l l l 3 4 2 4
disconﬁrm
text

Connect- 1 2 4 2 2 8 3 4 1 2
irrelevant

Connection- 0 l 3 0 0 3 0 1 6
intertextual

Connection- 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 0 3
graphic-to-
written text

Connection— 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 5
graphic—to-
graphic

Connection- 14 1 l 8 8 5 10 22 16 l 8
to-prior
knowledge

Connection- 2 7 6 1 1 8 3 8 14
to—self

Create 10 1 4 25 14 8 35 15 12
narrative

Evaluate 0 3 2 1 l 0 l 4 2

Infer the 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
author’s

purpose

Inferential 12 6 9 21 9 1 7 3 3 1 5 26
description

Knowledge 1 l 5 8 3 7 l3 14 12 21
monitoring

52

Table 1.6 (cont)

Label 8 3 8 5
Literal 13 3 12 18
description
Name 3 7 5 3
Prediction 2 0 13 3
Repeat- 9 l7 9 15
paraphrase
written text
Reading 1 2 4 4
process-
other
Use of 1 1 6 l 1 1
graphical
devices
Use of l 0 3 0
running text
Wonder 19 25 9 27
Word 3 3 0 7
identiﬁcation

13

20

31

15
20

10
15
ll

l4

13
31

24

12

46
10

16

ll

37

56

23
32

15
28
20

l2

14

23

 

BAR=Below-average Reader
AR: Average Reader
AAR= Above Average Reader

53

References

Afﬂerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
III, pp. 163-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Afﬂerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology: On the use of verbal
reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1 6, 307-322.

Alvermann, D. E. (1984). Second graders' strategic reading preferences whil reading
basal stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 184-189.

Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading
comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online,
8(2), 283-297.

Bishop, R. S., & Hickman, J. (1992). Four to fourteen or forty: Picture books are for
everyone. In S. Benedict & L. Carlisle (Eds), Beyond words: Picture books for
older readers and writers (pp. 1-10). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Braten, 1., & Stromso, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous
strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 195-218.

Bromley, H. (2001). A question of talk: Young children reading pictures. Reading
Literacy and Language, 35, 62-66.

Brookshire, J ., Scharff, L. F. V., & Moses, L. E. (2002). The inﬂuence of illustrations on
children's book preferences and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 23, 323-
339.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental
validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.

Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. V. (1999) Inference making and its relation to comprehension
failure. Reading and Writing, 11, 489-503.

Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. V. (2004). Reading comprehension difficulties. In T. Nunes & P.
E. Bryant (Eds), Handbook of children 's literacy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students'
learning ﬁ'om text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.

Chall, J. S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text diﬂiculty: Practical guide for teachers
and writers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2004).

54

Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning, designing, and evaluation
visuals in training materials. San Francisco: Pfeiffer

Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. A. (2009).
Text genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader
preference. Reading Psychology, 30, 487-511.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind.
American Educator, 22, 1-8.

dePaola, T. (2001) 26 F airmount Avenue. Logan, IA: Perfection Learning.

Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading
comprehension achievers' strategic behavior and their relation to performance in a
reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471-492.

Donaldson, T. S. (1968). Robustness of the F-test to errors of both kinds and the
correlation between the numerator and denominator of the F -rate. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 63, 660-676.

Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2002). Considering genre, content, and visual features
in the selection of trade books for science instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55,
502-520.

Duke, N. K. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as a nonunitary
construct. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds), Children's reading comprehension
and assessment (pp. 93-104). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998) “Can I say ‘Once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten children
developing knowledge of informational book language. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 295-318.

Duke, N. K., Norman, R. R., Roberts, K. L., Martin, N. M., Knight, J. A., Morsink, P. M.,
et al. (in preparation). Expanding Concepts of Print to include Concepts of
Pictures.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds), What research has to
say about reading instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Duke, N. K., & Roberts, K. (in press). The genre—speciﬁc nature of reading
comprehension and the case of informational text. In J. Hofﬁnan (Ed.), The
International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching, Routledge:
New York. V

55

Englert, C. S. & Thomas, C. C. (1987) Sensitivity to text structure in reading and writing:
A comparison between learning disabled and non-learning disabled students.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(2), 93-105.

Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring
youth's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 1521-
1 540.

Fang, Z. (1996). Illustrations, text, and the child reader: What are pictures in children's
storybooks for? Reading Horizons, 3 7, 137-142.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics ussing SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.

Fingeret, L. (in preparation). Graphics in children 's informational texts: Establishing a
representative typology of images in informational textbooks, little books, and
trade books.

Gambrell, L., & J awitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children's
story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 265-276.

Gibbons, G. (1995). The reasons for the seasons. New York: Holiday House.

Grifﬁths, R., & Clyne, M. (2005). Animal look-alikes. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press.

Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teacher for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36,
l -29.

Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science
textbook passages among low- and high- ability children. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.

Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children’s
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 391-417.

Harber, J. R. (1983). The Effects of Illustrations on the Reading Performance of Learning
Disabled and Normal Children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(1), 55-60.

Henkes, K. (1996). Lilly ’s purple plastic purse. New York: Greenwillow Books.

Hilden, K. (2008). Connections between SpongeBob SquarePants and zooplankton: The
informational reading comprehension processes of second graders. Paper
presented at the National Reading Conference.

Hilden, K. (2009). Profiles for informational text comprehension in second grade. Paper
presented at the National Reading Conference.

56

IRA/NCTE. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. . United States of America:
International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of
English.

J ewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: a social semiotic approach. . In T. van
Leeuwen & C. J ewitt (Eds), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134-156). London:
Sage.

Jimenez, L. (in preparation). Strategies used by fourth graders while reading multiple
texts of interest and non-interest.

Levin, J. R. (1981). On the functions of pictures in prose. In M. C. Wittrock & F. J.
Pirozzolo (Eds), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp.
203-228). New York: Academic Press.

Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J ., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating funtions of
pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds), The psychology of
illustration (Vol. I, pp. 51-85). New York: Springer-Verlag.

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-
MacGinitie Reading Tests: Level 2 Form T (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing.

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). Identiﬁcation of the structure of prose and its implications for the
study of reading and memory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7, 7-47.

Miller, W. A. (193 8). Reading with or without pictures. The Elementary School Journal,
38, 676-682.

Moss, B. (2008). Getting the picture: Visual dimensions of informational texts. In J.
Flood, S. B. Heath & D. Lapp (Eds), Handbook of research on teaching literacy
through the sommunicative and visual arts (V 01. II, pp. 393-398). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Nikolajeva, M., & Scott, C. (2000). The dynamics of picturebook communication.
Children's Literature in Education, 31, 225-239.

Norman, R. R. (in press). Picture this: Reading processes prompted by the graphics in
informational text. Literacy Teaching and Learning.

Norman, R. R., & Roberts, K. L. (2008, December). Painting a picture of research:
Children ’5 use of graphics in text. Paper presented at the National Reading
Conference, Orlando, FL.

Norman, R. R. & Roberts, K. L. (in preparation). Painting a picture of research:
Children’s use of graphics in text.

57

Oakhill, J ., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children's reading comprehension. In
D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories,
interventions, and technologies (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Odgers, S. (2008). Dino dig. Sydney, Australia: Weldon Owen Publishing.

Oyler, C. (1996). Sharing authority: Student initiations during teacher-led read-alouds of
information books. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12, 149—160.

Pressley, M., & Afﬂerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pressley, M., Almasi, J ., Schuder, T., Bergman, J ., Hite, S., El-Dinary, P. B., et al.
(1994). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery
County, Maryland, SAIL program. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
learning difficulties, 10, 5-19.

Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In N. K. Duke & M. H.
Mallette (Eds), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 308-321). New York: The
Guilford Press.

Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2006). Cognitive strategies. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner
(Eds-in-Chief) & D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Vol. Eds), Handbook of Child

Psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 511—556).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-speciﬁc text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 8-45.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards and R&D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.

Roberts, K. L., & Duke, N. K. (2009). Comprehension in the primary grades: The review
of the research. In K. Ganske & D. Fisher (Eds), A comprehensive look at
comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.

Rose, T. L. (1986). Effects of illustrations on reading comprehension of learning disabled
students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 542-544.

Rose, T. L., & Robinson, H. H. (1984). Effects of illustrations on learning disabled
students’ reading performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 165-171.

Rusted, J., & Coltheart, V. (1979). The effect of pictures on the retention of novel words
and prose passages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 516-524

Ryan, D. (2008). Weather watching. Syndey, Australia: Weldon Owen Publishing.

58

Samuelstuen, M. S., & Braten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in
comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-
1 17.

Schnotz, W., Picard, E., & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners
use text and graphics. Learning and Instruction, 3, 181-199.

Simon, S. (2000). Destination: Jupiter. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Small, M. Y., Lovett, S. B., & Scher, M. S. (1993). Pictures facilitate children's recall of
unillustrated expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 520-528.

Stahl, K. A. D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction
in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 5 7, 598-609.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.

Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher,
43, 442-451.

Watkins, J. K., Miller, E., & Brubaker, D. (2004). The role of visual image: What are
students really learning from pictorial representations? Journal of Visual Literacy,
24(1), 23-40.

Zollman, P. (2008). Recycling adds up. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press.

59

MANUSCRIPT TWO: GRAPHICAL READING PROCESSES AND
COMPREHENSION: IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP?

“A picture is worth a thousand words,” but only if one can comprehend it.
Otherwise, it is just a page decoration at best and a waste of space at worst. Considering
how many graphics are found in textbooks and other non-ﬁction texts for children and
adults and the amount of information they contain, it is important to understand what
readers are doing when they see these graphics, how they are processing them, how they
are understanding them, and whether these graphics are contributing to their overall
comprehension of the text. This study begins to address some of these questions by
investigating: What is the relationship, if any, between children’s processes prompted by
the graphics in informational text and their overall comprehension of those texts?

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in semiotic (e.g., J ewitt & Oyama, 2001) and multiple
literacies (The New London Group, 1996) theories and in recognition of previous
research on the importance of informational text and graphics in today’s society. In the
twenty-ﬁrst century, reading and writing printed words is not enough—one must be able
to read and communicate meaning with spoken, written, and visual text (e.g., IRA/NCTE,
1996; The New London Group, 1996). Therefore, the graphics in text, which I deﬁne as
any photograph or illustration in narrative or informational text including but not limited
to diagrams, maps, graphs, and tables, are meaningful signs that need to be understood in
order to make meaning (e.g., J ewitt & Oyama, 2001).

These graphics are particularly important in informational text, where they can
help to organize ideas (e.g., a ﬂow chart explaining how fossils are made), make abstract

ideas more concrete (e.g., an illustration of the circulatory system as plumbing [Levin,

60

1981]), and provide extra information not included in the written text (e.g., photographs

of ﬁsh fossils, plant fossils, and insect fossils to accompany the written text, “There are

many types of fossils”). Research has identiﬁed 6 common functions of graphics in

informational text (Carney & Levin, 2002; Clark & Lyons, 2004; Duke et al., in

preparation; Levin, 1981; Levin, Anglin, & Carney, 1987):

decoration, which appear as an ornament on the page without adding to or relating
to the written text;

representation, which depict the information presented in informational text;
organization, which supply a framework for classifying information from the
written text;

interpretation, which explain abstract ideas by depicting them in a more concrete
fashion;

transformation, which represent mnemonics to help readers remember the written
text by making it more concrete and meaningful; and

extension, which provide extra details not directly stated in the text.

Younger students particularly need to learn to read and understand these graphics because

their informational texts contain many graphics (Duke & Kays, 1998; Fingeret, in

preparation) and because children often have difﬁculty reading informational texts

(Langer, 1983; Park, 2008). Perhaps if children better understood how to gain

information from the graphics in informational text, these texts would be less of a

struggle (Moss, 2008).

61

Review of the Literature
Comprehension of Written Text

Research over the past half century has provided us with a well-developed picture
of what skilled readers are doing and thinking as they read narrative and informational
text. Skilled readers use many and varied reading processes (e.g., prediction, inferring,
summarizing, visualizing, comprehension monitoring) strategically and ﬂexibly (e. g.,
Duke & Pearson, 2002; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
2000; Pressley & Afﬂerbach, 1995). Furthermore, they utilize their prior knowledge of
the topic and of the genre and consider their purpose for reading the text to assist them in
their comprehension (e. g., Duke, 2005; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002).

Not only has it been found that skilled readers use more strategies than less
proﬁcient readers, but utilization of these strategies has been found to be correlated with
better comprehension (e.g., Braten & Stromso, 2003; Dermitzaki, Andreou, & Paraskeva,
2008; Samuelstuen & Braten, 2005). For example, Dermitzaki and colleagues (2008)
found that third graders’ use of strategies such as planning and monitoring of learning
processes were highly correlated with their performance on a comprehension assessment
related to the same text. Moreover, Samuelstuen and Braten (2005) found that 10th
graders who were poor decoders but used many strategies while reading two expository
texts scored better on a comprehension assessment about the text than good decoders who
did not use many strategies. While these ﬁndings speak to the importance of strategy use
to comprehension of written text, the question remains: does this correlation between

strategy use and comprehension carry over to the reading of graphics?

62

Comprehension of Graphics

Although research on comprehension of graphics does exist (and will be
discussed next), it is not as robust as the research on comprehension of written text.
Furthermore, the ﬁndings have been inconsistent, with some researchers ﬁnding that the
inclusion of graphics has no effect on participants’ comprehension, others ﬁnding
detrimental effects, and still others ﬁnding beneﬁcial effects. Representative studies are
discussed below.

Graphics have no effect on comprehension of written text. A number of
studies (e.g., Brookshire, Scharff, & Moses, 2002; Miller, 1938; Rose & Robinson, 1984)
conducted with children found that the presence of graphics had no effect on the
participants’ comprehension. For example, Brookshire and colleagues (2002) randomly
assigned ﬁrst and third grade students to one of three conditions for reading a narrative
text designed speciﬁcally for the experiment: text-only, text plus illustrations, and
illustrations-only (for which the students were told the names of the characters and
instructed to make up a story). After reading (in third grade) or hearing (in ﬁrst grade) the
text, students were asked 15 comprehension questions. Five of the questions’ answers
could be found in the written text, ﬁve could be found in the graphics, and ﬁve could be
found in both the written text and the graphics. They found that the presence of graphics
did not signiﬁcantly increase students’ comprehension scores on the questions whose
answers could be found in the written text only (which was not surprising) or in the text
and the graphics, and slightly decreased their comprehension scores of illustration-only

questions.

63

Graphics have negative effects on comprehension of written text. Other
studies on graphics and comprehension of connected text, however, have concluded that
graphics negatively impact the reading process (Harber, 1983; Rose, 1986; Watkins,
Miller, & Brubaker, 2004). For instance, Rose (1986) researched the effects of
illustrations on the comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Thirty-two
learning disabled elementary students (age 9 years, 3 months to 12 years, 8 months) read
passages, at their reading level, in both illustrated and unillustrated conditions. Within-
subject analyses indicated that the students’ comprehension of unillustrated passages was
signiﬁcantly higher than their comprehension of the illustrated passages.

Graphics have beneﬁcial effects on comprehension of written text. Other
researchers (e.g., Hannus & Hyona, 1999; Rusted & Coltheart, 1979; Small, Lovett, &
Scher, 1993) have concluded from their research that graphics actually aid in students’
comprehension. Yet these researchers do not agree for whom or in what ways.

Graphics beneﬁt ALL readers. For example, in one study, Small and colleagues
(1993) studied 33 ﬁrst and 33 third graders of varying reading abilities learning about
three unfamiliar animals. Students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions:
description-only (listened to passages), picture-only (examined graphics), and
description-plus-picture condition (listened to passage and examined graphics). After
listening to each passage and/or examining each graphic, the students answered 12
comprehension questions about the animal--four of the answers could be found in the
description, four in the graphic, and four in both. Students were encouraged to guess or
make up answers if they were unsure. Students in the description-plus-picture condition

recalled more information presented only in the text and more information presented in

64

the text and the graphics than those students in the description-only condition. Thus, the
results of the study suggested that the presence of graphics facilitated recall of
information, even if the information had not been presented in the graphics, for all
students in the study.

Graphics beneﬁt GOOD readers more. In contrast to the ﬁndings above, based
on their study of fourth graders’ comprehension of biology textbook passages, Hannus
and Hyona (1999) concluded that the graphics assisted good readers more than others.
The participants in this study, 108 fourth graders from two urban elementary schools in
Finland, were exposed to three illustrated passages and three unillustrated passages. After
reading, they answered ten or eleven comprehension questions for each passage. The
questions assessed the students’ recall of speciﬁc details as well as their comprehension
of biological principles. The results indicated that graphics led to better recall of detail
information for all students, but only better comprehension of biological principles for
the stronger readers. They asserted that this difference was due to the fact that students
needed to integrate information ﬁ'om the written text and graphics in order to beneﬁt
from the graphics, which only hi gh-ability readers appeared to be capable of doing.
Furthermore, they hypothesized that better readers recalled and comprehended more from
the illustrated texts because they were better able to understand four key ideas: (1) when
to examine the graphics while reading; (2) which graphics they should examine; (3) what
information they should obtain from the graphics; and, 4) how to combine information in
the written text and the graphics into one mental representation.

Graphics benefit POOR readers more. Still other studies have found that, while

graphics may help all students, they especially improve the reading comprehension of

65

poor readers and readers from disadvantaged populations. For instance, Rusted and
Coltheart (1979) found that graphics improved the comprehension of poor readers more
than that of good readers. In this study, thirty-six 9- and lO-year olds (half good and half
poor readers) were randomly assigned two sets of six informational passages about
unusual animals, with one set of passages containing graphics of the animals and the
other not containing any graphics. The passages included information about the physical
characteristics of the animals, as well as their living and eating habits. Before reading,
students were told to remember what they read and to pay attention to graphics if they
were present. The students then read each passage aloud two times. Immediately after the
second reading of each passage, students told the researcher everything they remembered
about the passage. The results of the study suggested that the presence of graphics
improved the general recall of all students, but poor readers actually recalled more
illustrated features than good readers, thus improving their comprehension as a whole.
Furthermore, the researchers reported that the poor readers appeared to study the graphics
more often and use them more intentionally than the good readers.

Conclusion. In summary, the research conducted with children thus far has
investigated whether graphics improve children’s comprehension of written text, but the
results have been inconsistent, with some researchers ﬁnding them to have neutral
effects, others ﬁnding them to have negative effects, and still others ﬁnding that they
have beneﬁcial effects. Even those researchers who agree that they are beneﬁcial to
students’ comprehension do not agree for whom or for what reasons.

Outcome versus concurrent measures. Most of the previous research on

graphics and comprehension explored whether the mere presence of graphics had effects

66

on participants’ overall comprehension of the texts presented to them. Few studies used
think alouds (e.g., Norman, in press; Schnotz, Picard, & Hron, 1993) to examine what
they were doing with those graphics, and what relationship that had to participants’
comprehension of the text. In fact, only one study (i.e., Norman, in press) has research
the speciﬁc reading processes that were prompted by the graphics and only one study
(i.e., Schnotz et al., 1993) has attempted to investigate how participants used the graphics
to assist in their comprehension of informational text through the use of verbal protocols.

Reading processes prompted by the graphics in informational text. In Norman’s
(in press) study, 9 second graders read two informational texts and were prompted to
think aloud whenever they studied a graphic. These think-alouds revealed that 17 reading
processes (i.e., label; literal description; inferential description; prediction; infer the
author ’s purpose; conﬁrm/disconfirm text; connection-to-self; irrelevant connection;
connection-to-prior knowledge; wonder; knowledge monitoring; affective response;
compare-contrast graphics; evaluate; use of running text; use of captions, labels, map
key, etc. ; and word identification) were prompted by the graphics in these two texts. This
study did not utilize any outcome measures, however, so it was not possible to determine
whether or not a relationship existed between the reading processes prompted by the
graphics and students’ comprehension of those same texts.

Use of graphics in informational text. Schnotz and colleagues (1993) studied 26
college students as they read a passage, accompanied by a map of the time zones, about
time and date changes as one passes through the different time zones in order to
determine whether there were differences in how successful and unsuccessful learners

used the graphics (i.e., the map). After reading, the students ﬁrst described what

67

information they could extract from the map; then thought aloud as they answered 11
questions using a map; and ﬁnally took a 25 question test for which they had to apply the
information in the written text and the map to ﬁgure out times in different areas of the
world. Schnotz and colleagues compared how often successful and unsuccessful
leamers—as determined by the 25 question test about the material—referred to the map
dining the think-alouds, ﬁnding that successful learners referred to the map signiﬁcantly
more often than their less successful counterparts (i.e., an average of 21 .3 times and 12.5
times respectively). Moreover, successful learners interpreted more sections of the map
during their think-alouds and used the map to determine more spatial and temporal
differences as indicated by their think-alouds. Schnotz and colleagues hypothesized that
the successful learners were using the graphics to develop mental models, and used the
written text to add to these mental models.

In sum, Norman’s (in press) study provides us with an understanding of what
processes are prompted by the graphics as children reading informational texts, but no
outcome measure was used so it is unknown how well students comprehended the texts
or whether the use of reading processes as they studied the graphics improved or hindered
the students’ comprehension of the overall text. Schnotz and colleagues’ (1993) study
indicated that successful learners—those students who comprehended the text more—
used the graphic more often, but did not investigate the speciﬁc reading processes that
were prompted by the graphic. Therefore more research is needed in order to investigate
speciﬁcally the relationship between the reading processes prompted by the graphics and

students’ comprehension of the same texts.

68

Methods

Research Design

I conducted a study using verbal protocols (Afﬂerbach, 2000; Pressley &
Afﬂerbach, 1995; Pressley & Hilden, 2004). As the students read, they were prompted to
think aloud whenever they studied a graphic; students were also encouraged to share their
thinking at any other time during the reading. After each reading, the students retold the
book and answered eight researcher-designed comprehension questions. I then analyzed
the verbal protocol transcripts using modiﬁed open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and
scored the retellings and researcher-designed comprehension questions. Finally,
correlations were run between students’ scores on the retelling and research-designed
comprehension questions and the number of times any process was prompted, the number
of different processes, and the number of instances of individual processes to answer the
question: What is the relationship, if any, between children’s processes prompted by the
graphics in informational text and their comprehension of the same texts?
Participants

The study was conducted with 30 second-grade students (17 males and 13
females) from 8 classrooms in 5 schools in 5 school districts in 2 Northeastern states. In
order to provide a diverse sample of students based on ethnicity and socioeconomic
status, the school districts were selected purposively. Within each school district, 1
school agreed to participate; within each of these schools, 2 classrooms were randomly
selected from all consenting classrooms. Two of the selected classrooms (l in each of
two schools) had to be eliminated from the study because they lacked a range of readers

as indicated by the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT) (MacGinitie, MacGinitie,

69

Maria, & Dreyer, 2000) comprehension subtest. In these 2 schools, all 6 students were
randomly selected from one classroom. Including only 2 classrooms from each school
and 3 to 6 students from each classroom help to decrease the likelihood that the results of
the study would be inﬂuenced by any one school or teacher placing a greater emphasis on
the graphics in text.

The decoding and comprehension sections of the GMRT, Form T, Level 2 were
administered to all consenting students from each classroom, and students were identiﬁed
as below-average readers (i.e., they scored between the 1St and 30th percentile), average
readers (i.e., they scored between the 40th and 60th percentile), and above-average readers
(i.e., they scored between the 70th and 100'h percentile). Those students who did not score
between these percentile ranges were eliminated from the study. Additionally, in order to
better control for any language or learning disability factors, students who received
special education services or were English Language Learners were eliminate from the
possible participant pool prior to selection (i.e., below-average, average, and above-
average). Once all students had been identiﬁed or eliminated, randomized cluster
sampling was used to select one reader from each class in each achievement group so that
one was a below-average reader, one was an average reader, and one was an above
average reader.

The participants were diverse in terms of ethnicity and socio-economic status,
which was measured using maternal education level (Entwisle & Astone, 1994). For the
sample, per parent report, 6% of the children were Asian-American, 10% Aﬁican-
American, 50% Caucasian, 20% Hispanic/Latino, and 10% other; and the parents of two

students did not respond. In terms of socio-economic status, 6% of mothers reported

70

completing 8th grade but not high school, 23% reported completing high school, 6% held
associates degrees, 30% reported holding a bachelors or other four-year degree, 20%
reported holding a masters degree, and 3% reported holding a doctorate; four declined to
respond.
Materials

Students read Dino Dig (Odgers, 2008) and Weather Watching (Ryan, 2008), two
informational texts that are part of Weldon Owen Publishings’ stage two Top Readers
series, a series of books that are designed with simple sentences, specialized vocabulary,
and graphics that provide support (Odgers, 2008, back cover; Ryan, 2008, back cover)
and contain a range of graphics. Dino Dig explains the process by which dinosaurs
become fossils and how scientists discover and use these fossils to learn about dinosaurs.
Weather Watching describes different types of weather and how scientists study weather.
Both of the books are written for second graders to read independently in the second half
of the school year according to Chall’s (1996) Qualitative Assessment of Text Difficulty.

The graphics in both books represent many of the prototypical graphics found in
informational texts, such as photographs and realistic drawings with captions and labels,
maps, ﬂow charts, and cross-sectional diagrams (F ingeret, in preparation; Purcell-Gates,
Duke, & Martineau, 2007). (See Table 2.1 for number of instances of each graphic type.)
Also, these graphics represent many of the communicative properties of graphics (e.g.,
representation, organization, and extension) identiﬁed by Levin and colleagues (Carney
& Levin, 2002; Levin, 1981; Levin et al., 1987), Clark and Lyons (Clark & Lyons, 2004),

and Duke and colleagues (in preparation).

71

Because the length of the books was a concern, three sections (ﬁve pages) were
removed from each book. All sections removed met the following criteria: (1) the
exclusion of those pages would not diminish the range of graphics in the text, and (2) the
removal of those sections would not impact the comprehension of later sections. Within
sections that met these criteria, I gave priority to removing sections that (1) contained
vocabulary or concepts deemed difﬁcult or confusing for second grade students and (2)
that were not authentic to informational text.

Finally, in order to more easily track where the students were looking as they read
(i.e., the running text, the captions, or the graphics), the books were modiﬁed (as in
Norman, in press). The original books, which measured 6 inches by 9 inches (15.24 cm
by 22.86 cm), were cut apart and glued onto construction paper, which measured 12
inches by 18 inches (3 0.48 cm by 45.72 cm), so that the distance between the main text
and the graphics was increased. The labels and titles of graphics were not cut apart from
the image, and headings and the accompanying running text remained intact; the relative
position of graphics, written text, and captions on the page was kept the same.

Data Collection and Analysis

Sessions one and two. During the ﬁrst two sessions, which occurred within the
classroom, I introduced myself to the students and explained the study to them. Then, all
students with parental consent completed the decoding and comprehension subtests of the
GMRT, Form T, Level 2 (MacGinitie et al., 2000).

Sessions three and four. During the third and fourth sessions, which were held
on a one-to-one basis in a quiet place outside of the classroom, the students read aloud

either Dino Dig (Odgers, 2008) or Weather Watching (Ryan, 2008). As the students read,

72

they were not corrected and were provided with little assistance in the decoding of words.
When students asked for help, they were encouraged to try their best. In a few instances,
students were supplied with words because they reﬁised to continue reading. As students
read, they were asked to verbalize what they were thinking (procedures for this are
described below). The order of presentation of the two books was counterbalanced within
ability group and classroom.

Verbal protocols. Verbal protocols were used to determine the readings processes
prompted by the graphics. As students read, they were prompted to think aloud about the
text when they looked at a graphic. As is recommended in methodological pieces on
verbal protocols (i.e., Pressley & Afﬂerbach, 1995; Pressley & Hilden, 2004) the
directions to students for sharing their thinking were general:

Today, you are going to be reading a book for me. The book is going to look a

little funny (show students book), so don’t worry about that. As you read, I cannot

help you with any of the words. If you come to a word you don’t know, try your
best and keep reading. When you are done reading, I am going to ask you to retell
the book to me. I am also going to ask you some questions about the book. As you
read, I want to know what you are thinking. Sometimes, I am going to stop you to
ask you to tell me what you are thinking. If you have nothing to say, you can tell
me that too. You can also talk about the book at other times when I don’t ask if
you want to. Is it okay to tell me you have nothing to say? Is it okay to talk about
the book whenever you want?

As students read, I watched continuously in order to determine where their eyes

were looking, the text or the graphics. When I noticed that they were looking at a graphic,

73

I prompted them to share their thinking with, “What are you thinking?” If students had
not looked at any graphics after four pages, they were also prompted with “What are you
thinking?”

In order to identify the processes prompted by the graphics, students’ verbal
protocols were transcribed verbatim. The transcription of their readings and that of their
thinking was done in different colors in order to make it easier to distinguish the two
kinds of verbalization.

First, verbalizations were analyzed to determine to what the student was referring:
the written text without reference to the graphic (e. g., “D-I-G [underlines word as spells it
out]”); the graphic (e. g., “Oh, I see a bones [sic] [student points to bones in picture]”); the
graphic and the written text (e.g., “So in here they would have to put a replica [points to
spot on the skeleton where a piece is missing)” after reading that scientists make replicas
to ﬁll in missing piece of a fossil); or an unrelated comment (e.g., “I need to go to the
bathroom”). Only those comments that pertained to the graphics, either because they
directly related to the graphic or because the student was looking at the graphic as they
spoke, were coded further. Second, modiﬁed grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
was used to reveal the reading processes prompted by the graphics in each of the texts.
Because previous research (i.e., Norman, in press) using grounded theory had already
identiﬁed 18 codes, I began by analyzing for these processes (i.e., label; literal
description; inferential description; prediction; infer the author ’s purpose;
confirm/disconﬁrm text; connection-to-self; irrelevant connection; connection-to-prior
knowledge; wonder; knowledge monitoring; affective response; compare-contrast

graphics; evaluate; use of running text; use of captions, labels, map key, etc. ; word

74

identification) and no process. Any verbalizations that did not ﬁt one of the 18 previous
codes were then described with a short phrase that explained the process prompted by the
graphic. These phrases were compared continuously to ensure that none of them could be
collapsed. In this way, six new codes were developed (i.e., names, graphic-to-written text
connection, intertextual [across texts] connection, creates narrative, repeat-paraphrase
written text, and other). (Please see results section below for further discussion of these
codes.)

In some instances, the graphic prompted more than one reading process;
therefore, the verbalizations could be coded using multiple processes. For example, while
reading Dino Dig (pp. 22-23) and studying a cross-sectional diagram of a dinosaur, one
student commented, “That looks gross (points to dinosaur)! I think maybe they’re going
to tell us, like (points to muscle), the layers of a dinosaur, maybe.” The ﬁrst sentence in
this verbalization was coded as an aﬂective response because the student was reacting to
the graphic; the second sentence was coded a prediction because the student explained
what he thought the page would discuss.

A literacy expert familiar with reading processes of written text was trained to
code the verbal protocols using six of the transcripts. She then coded a random sample of
the transcripts (n=16 or more than 25%), stratiﬁed by book. Inter-rater agreement was
86.7% or 320 out of 369 codes, which is comparable to inter-rater agreement in other
verbal protocol studies (e. g., Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996).

Retellings. When students had ﬁnished reading the book, they were asked to retell

the text. For this study, directions for retelling were adapted from previous research on

75

younger children’s retellings of expository text (e. g., Romero et al., 2005), but were
modiﬁed to utilize the fact that the session was videotaped.

Another second grader hasn’t read this book and wants to know about it. She (He)

will watch the video to hear the retelling. Can you retell the book using your

words and the words in the book as you remember them? Try to include as many
details as you can.

Retellings have been used in previous research on the inﬂuence of graphics on
students’ comprehension of the written text (e. g., Gambrell & Jawitz, 1993). They have
also been successfully used to assess young children’s comprehension of narrative (e.g.,
Baumann & Bergeron, 1993; Morrow, 1985; Roberts, in preparation) and expository text
(e.g., Moss, 1997; Romero, Paris, & Brem, 2005).

Retellings were scored based on protocols developed for each book. The protocol
scoring procedure is based on that used by Meyer, Brandt, and Bluth (1980) in their study
of the use of top-level text structures and by Taylor (1980) in her study of children’s
memory for expository text. To develop retelling protocols, an expert in designing
retelling protocols and I analyzed each book independently, identifying superordinate and
subordinate ideas from the running text and captions and developing a checklist to be
used in scoring the retellings. Next, we compared checklists and found three
discrepancies—two for Dino Dig and one for Weather Watching. These disagreements
were resolved through discussion and consultation with another literacy expert.

Finally, we assigned points to each idea. Superordinate ideas received two points,
and subordinate ideas received one point. Students could also receive half a point for

retelling the topic of a superordinate idea (e. g., it talked about rainbows) or for retelling

76

part of a subordinate idea (e. g., the sun makes rain). At times a superordinate idea for one
page was discussed as a subordinate idea on another page. In these instances, students
received two points (see Appendix A for retelling protocol for Dino Dig). Finally, in
order to equate the two retellings, the students’ scores on the retelling were divided by the
total possible points (i.e., 45 for Weather Watching and 49 for Dino Dig) and multiplied
by 100 to determine their scores on the retelling.

A literacy expert familiar with scoring retellings was trained to score the retellings
using 2 transcripts and then scored 10 transcripts for Weather Watching and 10
transcripts for Dino Dig. First, I looked at whether or not a student mentioned a main idea
or supporting detail; interrater agreement was 96.2%, or 885 ideas out of 920. Then, I
compared our ﬁnal retelling scores for each protocol to see if they were within 1 point;
80%, or 16 out of 20, were within 1 point.

Book-specific comprehension questions. Finally, students were asked 8 book-
speciﬁc comprehension questions about the text. All questions were open-ended and
students were asked to respond verbally. Students’ answers were recorded and later
transcribed.

Researcher-designed comprehension questions have also been used as
comprehension assessments in the study of graphics (e.g., Harber, 1983), as well as in
assessing children’s comprehension of narrative (e. g., Paris & Paris, 2003) and
expository text (e.g., Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). To construct the
questions, I developed a concept map of the written text to illustrate the macro- and
microstructures (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). I then wrote open-ended questions that

tapped both concepts at the macro- and micro-level of the text. These questions were

77

designed to assess the three levels of comprehension recommended by the 2009 National
Reading Framework (National Assessment Governing Board, 2008): locate/recall (for
which students must identify information explicitly stated in the text), integrate/interpret
(for which students must make inferences within and across texts), and critique/evaluate
(for which students must assess the quality of the text, decide what is most important in
the text, or judge the plausibility of an argument). Eight experts in the ﬁeld of literacy
reviewed and suggested revisions for the questions. After questions were reﬁned, the
experts identiﬁed whether each question assessed a macro- or micro-level idea, and
whether it assessed literal, inferential, or critical comprehension skills to ensure this
distribution was met. Based on their expert review, it was. (See Appendix B for questions
ﬁ'om Weather Watching.)

On the comprehension questions, students could receive up to two points for each
correct answer. To develop a scoring protocol, an expert in literacy and I answered each
question with what we thought would be considered two-point and one-point answers for
second grade students. These answers were compared to each other and to a random
sample of six transcripts. From these transcripts, sample O-point, l-point, and 2-point
answers were selected to include in the scoring protocol. Once all answers were scored,
students’ comprehension question scores for each book were divided by the number of
points scored by the total number of points possible (i.e., 16, though for two students, one
question was missed so their possible points were out of 14 instead of 16) and multiplied
by 100.

A literacy expert familiar with scoring comprehension questions was trained to

score the comprehension questions using 2 transcripts. She then scored 10 transcripts for

78

Weather Watching and 10 transcripts for Dino Dig. Interrater agreement was 87.5%, or
140 out of 160 questions.

Videotaping. The 2 one-on-one reading sessions were videotaped in order to
record where students were looking and pointing (e.g., running text, caption, label,
graphic) as they discussed their thinking. The transcriptions included references to where
the students were looking or pointing as they read and verbalized.

Statistical analysis. After all verbalizations pertaining to the graphics, retellings,
and comprehension questions were analyzed, a number of statistical analyses were run.
First, the number of times each process was prompted for each student was calculated
separately for each book. Second, the number of different processes prompted for each
student was calculated separately for each book. Third, correlations were run to
determine whether and if so, to what degree, there was a statistically signiﬁcant
relationship between (a) retelling scores and (b) comprehension question scores and (1)
the range of processes used by children (2) the number of times any process was used by
children, and (3) the number of times each individual process was used by children.

Results
The Reading Processes

The modiﬁed open-coding of the transcripts resulted in 25 codes—23 reading
processes (i.e., aﬂective response; conﬁrm-disconfirm text; intertextual connection;
graphic-to-graphic connection; graphic-to-written text connection; irrelevant
connection; connection-to-prior knowledge; connection-to-self? create narrative;
evaluate; infer the author ’s purpose; inferential description; knowledge monitoring;

label; literal description; name; prediction; repeat-paraphrase written text; reading

79

process-other; use of graphical devices; use of running text; wonder; and word
identification), no process, and uninterpretable. Table 2.2 provides complete descriptions
of and student comments that exemplify each process.

The total number of processes prompted by the graphics across the two books
ranged from 9 to 62 (M=28, SD=12.625). The number of different processes prompted by
the graphics across both books ranged from 1 to 16 (M=9.93, SD=4.226). Table 2.3
provides descriptive statistics for the total number of times each process was prompted
for each book, and Table 2.4 provides descriptive statistics for the number of times any
process was prompted and number of different processes prompted by the graphics for
each book. For further discussion of these processes see Manuscript 1.

Correlations between the Reading Processes and Retelling Scores

Out of a score of 100, students’ scores on the retellings ranged from 1.02 to 22.45
(M=9.03, SD=5.65) for Dino Dig and from 1.11 to 26.67 (M=8.00, SD=5.72) for
Weather Watching. The correlation between retelling and number of times any process
was prompted by the graphics was statistically signiﬁcant for Dino Dig (r=0.403,
p=0.027), but not for Weather Watching. This statistically signiﬁcant correlation
indicates that, for Dino Dig, a greater use of any process prompted by the graphics was
associated with higher retelling scores. In fact, about 16.25% of the variation in students’
retelling scores for Dino Dig can be explained by the number of times any process was
prompted. Neither for Weather Watching nor for Dino Dig was the correlation between
the number of different processes and retelling scores statistically signiﬁcant. See Table

2.5 for means, standard deviations, and ranges of scores on the retellings for the two

80

books, correlations between retelling scores and total number of processes, and
correlations between retellings and number of different processes.

Several individual reading processes were also associated with higher retelling
scores for each book, For Dino Dig, seven processes (i.e., connection-to-prior knowledge
[r=0.417, p=0.022], connection-to-self[r=0.395, p=0.031], intertextual connection
[r=0.363, p=0.049], label [r=0.517, p=0.003], graphic-to-graphic connection [r=0.436,
p=0.016], irrelevant connection [r=0.3 82, p=0.03 7] and use of graphical devices
[r=0.439, p=0.015]) were significantly correlated with retelling scores and one processes
(i.e., names [r=0.310, p=0.095]) approached signiﬁcance. The effect sizes for these
processes were all moderate to strong, ranging from 0.096 (names) to .267 (label). See
Table 2.6 for means, standard deviations, and correlations between retelling scores and
individual processes.

For Weather Watching, students’ scores on the retelling were signiﬁcantly
correlated with predicting (r=0.702, p<0.001) and use of running text (r=0.382, p=0.03 7).
Finally, the correlation with connection-to-prior knowledge approached signiﬁcance (r=-
0.3 57, p=0.053). Interestingly, this correlation was negative, indicating that more
connections-to-prior knowledge were associated with lower retelling scores for Weather

Watching. The effect sizes for connection-to-prior knowledge and use of running text

were moderate (r2=0.127 and 0.146 respectively), while the effect size for predicting was

very strong (r2=0.493). (Please see Table 2.7.)

81

Correlations between the Reading Processes and Researcher-Designed
Comprehension Question Scores

Students’ scores on the researcher-designed comprehension questions ranged
from 15.63 to 81.25 (M=47.43, SD=16.83) out of a score of 100 for Dino Dig and from
3.13 to 62.5 (M=—41.38, SD= 18.09) out of a score of 100 for Weather Watching. No
correlations between these scores and number of times any process was prompted or
number of different processes used were statistically signiﬁcant, although the correlation
between number of different processes prompted while reading Weather Watching and
the score on comprehension questions did approach signiﬁcance (r=0.309, p=0.097),
indicating that the number of different processes accounted for about 9.5% of the
variation in students’ scores on the comprehension questions. Again, see Table 2.5 for
means, standard deviations, and ranges of scores on the comprehension questions for the
two books, correlations between comprehension scores and the number of times any
process was prompted, and correlations between comprehension scores and the number
of different processes.

Correlations run between the ntunber of times individual reading processes were
prompted by the graphics and students’ scores on the comprehension questions indicated
that only graphic-to-graphic connection was signiﬁcantly correlated with comprehension
scores (r=0.528, p=0.003) for Dino Dig. The prompting of intertextual connections also

approached signiﬁcance (r=0.326, p=0.079) for Dino Dig. The effect sizes of these

0 I o 2
processes on therr comprehensron question score were moderate (r =0.106 for

. 2 . . .
intertextual connections) to strong (r =0.279 for graphic-to-graphtc connection) There

were no signiﬁcant correlations between any speciﬁc reading processes and the

82

comprehension questions for Weather Watching. See Table 2.6 and 2.7 for means,
standard deviations, and correlations.
Discussion

This study investigated what relationship, if any, existed between the processes
prompted by the graphics as second graders read informational text and their scores on
two comprehension measures for that text: retelling and researcher-designed
comprehension questions. A discussion of these ﬁndings follows.

Sheer Number of Processes May Not Always Help

As discussed above, research on reading processes and the comprehension of
written text has shown that students who employ a greater number of total processes
score higher on comprehension assessments (e.g., Braten & Stromso, 2003; Dermitzaki et
al., 2008; Samuelstuen & Braten, 2005). In this study, the number of times students used
any process while studying the graphics in Dino Dig—but not Weather Watching—was
signiﬁcantly correlated with the retelling measure. Previous research has also found that
good readers use a greater range of processes with written text (e.g., Dermitzaki et a1.,
2008). With respect to the visual elements of text that were the focus of this study, there
were no signiﬁcant correlations between range of different processes used and scores on
either of the comprehension measures for either of the books.

Why do these differences exist between the relationship of how students process
written text and graphical text and subsequent comprehension? I propose three possible
reasons: (1) the designs of the studies differed, (2) it is possible that not all processes are
created equal—that is to say that the use of some are associated with improved

comprehension, while the use of others are not, and (3) students are being taught to

83

strategically use processes when reading written text, but not when reading graphics (if
they are taught to read graphics, at all).

The studies’ designs. The design of this study differed from the designs of the
studies investigating reading processes prompted by written text and comprehension. In
this study, students’ reading processes were revealed through verbal protocols and
modiﬁed open-coding. Students were not asked to identify speciﬁc processes, but instead
shared their thinking about the graphics in general. In Samuelstuen & Braten (2005),
students were asked to indicate how often they had used speciﬁc processes by selecting
(1) not at all to (10) very often on a Likert-type scale. Perhaps some students over- or
under-represented their use of these processes. Additionally, previous research on the
relationship between reading processes and comprehension have not included as many
different reading processes as were included in this study. For example, Samuelstuen and
Braten’s (2005) investigated the use of only three types of reading processes—
elaboration, organization, and monitoring. They did not include many of the reading
processes included in this study, such as word identification, predicting, or irrelevant
connections. However, this does not necessarily mean that fewer processes were present,
but could mean that the level of analysis was less reﬁned than in the present study, with
several micro-processes mapping onto one macro-process. Limiting the number and type
of reading processes investigated in this study or consolidating processes may have lead
to different results.

Not all processes are created equal. When looking at the correlations between
reading processes and comprehension scores, it appears that not all reading processes

contribute to a readers’ overall comprehension equally. For example, students who used

84

the graphics to assist them in word identification did not necessarily score better or worse
on the comprehension measures—it helped them to decode the text, but was not
necessarily related to better recall.

Students’ use of graphical devices (positively statistically signiﬁcantly correlated
with retellings about Dino Dig) and use of the running text (positively statistically
correlated with retellings about for Weather Watching), on the other hand, appear be
associated with better retelling scores (for Dino Dig and Weather Watching respectively).
Perhaps this is partially due to the fact that the graphical devices and the running text
helped them to comprehend the graphic better. For example, Weather Watching discusses
the fact that, long ago, scientists used kites to study the weather. When ﬁrst looking at the
accompanying graphic, 3 number of students thought it was a picture of the Wright
brothers and their airplane. Only after reading the running text did some of them
comment, “I just learned that that's a kite.” Understanding that the graphic showed
scientists ﬂying a kite may have cleared up misconceptions and helped students to
remember how scientists studied weather long ago so that they could correctly include
this in their retellings. Qualitative analysis of students’ answers to the question “How did
people study weather long ago?” indicates that students who used the running text to
revise their understanding of this graphic were more likely to respond correctly than
those students who did not use the running text to revise their thinking. These latter
students were more likely to reply that they used airplanes.

Greater use of labeling a graphic was also associated with higher retelling scores,
but not with higher comprehension question scores. This could be due in part because

labeling the pictures made them more memorable to the children, and thus made them

85

 

more likely to mention them in their retellings. Just restating items did not necessarily
assist them in answering comprehension questions, however, because many of the
comprehension questions asked them to go beyond simply recalling speciﬁc items
included in the text. One exception was a question about Dino Dig which asked students
to “Tell me as many things as you can from this book that were turned into fossils.”
Qualitative analysis of this question suggests that students who labeled the photographs
and illustrations of the different types of fossils were able to include more different types
of fossils.

Reading instruction. Currently, many students (likely including those in this
study) have been taught to predict, summarize, make inferences, make connections, and
use other processes strategically as they read written text. In fact, this strategy instruction
is emphasized in research-based programs, such as those based on transactional strategy
instruction (Brown et al., 1996) and reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1994), as
well as popular books written for teachers, such as Strategies that Work (Harvey &
Goudvis, 2007) and Mosaic of Thought (Keene & Zimmermann, 2007). Importantly, this
instruction does focuses on the quality of the use of these processes. That is to say,
teachers spend time teaching the difference between a helpful and an unhelpful prediction
or connection. By comparison, less emphasis appears to be placed on the reading and
processing of graphics as no research exists whether or not teachers are teaching students
to read and process graphics or to suggest effective ways in which to teach students how
to read and process these graphics. Therefore, students are not learning how to effectively
use these reading processes when studying graphics and it would appear that quality,

strategic use of processes while reading written-text may not transfer to quality, strategic

86

use of processes while reading the graphics.
The Curious Case of Prior Knowledge

In looking at speciﬁc processes, previous research has found that prior knowledge
of a subject assists in students’ comprehension of the topic (e.g., McNamara & Kintsch,
1996). In this study, the graphics prompted 20 students to make connections-to-prior
knowledge for a total of 56 times (33 for Weather Watching and 23 for Dino Dig).
Interestingly, these connections-to-prior knowledge were positively correlated to retelling
scores for Dino Dig, but negatively correlated to retelling scores for Weather Watching,
though the latter only approached statistical signiﬁcance. In some cases, it seems that
children’s connections relating prior knowledge to Dino Dig were of greater quality or
were more accurate, thus assisting them in their comprehension of the text. For example,
one above-average reader was prompted to make connections-to-prior knowledge while
reading Dino Dig and Weather Watching. For Dino Dig, one of his connections-to-prior
knowledge was about mummies while studying a photograph of Leonardo, a dinosaur
fossil that was a mummy. In his retelling, he discussed Leonardo and received three out
of the four possible points he could have received for that page, which was almost half of
his Dino Dig retelling points. While reading Weather Watching, his connection-to-prior
knowledge was incorrect—while studying a photograph of lightning, he stated that
lightning could come from the sky or the ground. In his retelling, he did not mention
lightning at all. Accurate and relevant prior knowledge likely assists students in their

comprehension more than inaccurate or less relevant prior knowledge.

87

Limitations

Precautions were taken to maximize the validity of this study, but a few
limitations remain. First, because verbal protocols rely on participants self-reporting of
their thinking and the comprehension measures were dependent upon students verbalizing
their answers, students’ verbal abilities may have impacted their reporting of their
thinking (Afﬂerbach & Johnston, 1984) and their ability to retell or answer the
comprehension questions. Second, the fact that students were prompted to share their
thinking whenever they looked a graphic may have affected how often students studied
the graphics. Some students may have been studied them more often because of this
prompting, while others may have looked at them less often in order to avoid prompting.
In fact, although never speciﬁcally told that they would be asked to share their thinking
when they looked at a graphic, some students appeared to ﬁgure out the pattern and
began to report their thinking as they looked at each graphic.

Implications and Conclusions

Previous research on comprehension and graphics has been inconsistent with
regard to whether or not the presence of graphics is beneﬁcial to students’ overall
comprehension of the text. None of these previous studies investigated how students were
processing these graphics. The present study indicates that the use of certain processes
when reading graphics in informational text are associated with a better overall
understanding of that same text. Some possible reasons are discussed above, but more
research is needed to investigate how and why these processes are contributing to the
students’ comprehension. Additionally, neither the quality of students’ processes nor the

relationship between the quality and students’ comprehension scores were analyzed in

88

this study. Future research should study whether such a relationship exists. Furthermore,
research indicates that students are being taught to use processes as they read written text,
but no research exists to indicate they are being taught to use these processes as they read
graphical text; survey and observational studies are needed to investigate whether and
how teachers are instructing students to use processes as they read the graphics in text.
Finally, because this research suggests that the use of speciﬁc processes is associated
with better comprehension, intervention studies that teach students how to strategically
use these processes and comprehend graphics are needed. We are developing our
understanding of the use and comprehension of the graphics in informational text, but we

have a long road before we have a complete picture.

89

Table 2.1

Number of instances of each graphic type in Weather Watching and Dino Dig

 

Type of Graphic Number of Number of instances
instances in in Dino Dig

Weather Watching

 

Total number of Photographs 5 5
Labeled photograph 1 0
Total number of drawn illustrations 9 12
Labeled drawn illustration (not 1 6

 

cross-sectional diagram or ﬂow

chart)

Cross-sectional diagram 1 1
Graphic with key 3 0
Map 1 0
Flow chart 1 1

 

Note: Some graphics are counted more than once. For example, the map in Weather

counted as both a map and a graphic with key.

90

Table 2.2

Deﬁnitions and Examples of All Processes Prompted by the Graphics

 

Affective

response

Connection —
graphic-to-

written text

Connection-
graphic-to-

graphic

Connection-

intertextual

Student expresses an emotion

based on the graphic.

Student makes a connection
between a graphic and the
written text in another part of

the same book.

Student compares different
graphics in order to better
understand both graphics
and/or to gain new
information! meaning.
Graphic prompts student to
make a connection to another
text (e.g., book, movie, TV

show, etc)

Example 1: I like rainbow (traces
rainbow).

Example 2: That it’s cool to ﬂy
kites in the sky (affective), but they
need to know, like, what the
weather is like (evaluate).
Example 3: That’s weird.
Example: It shows like it said
before in the book that if you ﬁnd
one fossil you probably ﬁnd more
cause it looks like more than one
dinosaur.

Example 1: Hey, I think (looks
back and forth between the two
graphics), it looks like they’re the

same thing.

Example: In a show I saw they
called them carnivores, the

dinosaurs.

 

91

Table 2.2 (cont.)

 

Connection-
to- prior

knowledge

Connection-

to —-self

Connection-

Irrelevant

Create

narrative

Student references prior
knowledge related to the
graphic. Prior knowledge may

be inaccurate.

Graphic prompts student to
make a connection to the

student’s own life.

The connection made is
topically connected, but is not

relevant to the author’s intent.

The graphic prompts student to
create a narrative. Student
ascribes feelings, thoughts, and

actions to the pe0ple or

Example: Our teacher did tell us
that you can memorize the colors
(pointing to list of colors in
rainbow) by Roy G. Biv. R, O, Y,
G, B, I, V, as in a name.

Example: (Looking at picture of
storm clouds and umbrellas) I’m
thinking about right now because
look outside (it is raining). . .it was
like before it was only like poom,
poom, poom.

Example: (looking at a rainbow)
I’m drinking of sunlight and
happiness and rainbows and
dandelions and pots of gold on the
other side of the rainbow. I don’t
really think there is another side of
a rainbow. Hmmm. . .Bet there isn’t.
Example 1: He’s like (points to
larger dinosaur, in a low voice)
“Where are you?” (then in a really

high voice) “Let’s play hide and

 

92

Table 2.2 (cont)

 

Evaluate

Knowledge

monitoring

animals in the pictures. The
actions are not present in the
graphic and/or not reasonably
inferred from the graphic and
the words.

Student judges or forms an
opinion based on the
information presented in the
graphic and/or his or her
background knowledge.
Student recognizes absence of
prior knowledge or recognizes
that the text or graphic

conﬁrms previous thinking

seek. Ahhhhh!” (Runs ﬁngers

across the page.)

Example: I don’t think it’s really
good because lightning can like

shock you for electricity.

Example 1: I know lightning can go
up (points to picture) or lightning
can come down. And then there is
another thing that lightning can go
like it can either go up out of
nowhere and just form. It can go up
out of nowhere and just form. And
it can come from clouds. And that’s
how it forms. That’s what my mom
told me.

Example 2: I never knew that.

 

93

Table 2.2 (cont)

 

Label Student labels something in the Example: snow (points to snow)
picture while pointing to the
objects being labeled. Labels
may or may not be correct.

Names Student names or lists items Example: I’m thinking like
found in the picture without lightning (looking at picture, but
pointing to the objects in the not pointing).
picture. Names may or may
not be correct.

Literal The graphics prompt student to Example 1: I'm thinking, for this

description describe (not simply name or picture (points to picture of

label) what is explicitly lightning hitting tree), I think that it
depicted in the graphic. really I'm thinking about how when
Student may be gaining lightning comes it kind of affects,

information, or may be stating urn, buildings and trees.

what they see in the graphic. Example 2: Mmm. . .their bones like

Information may or may not be all squiggly (points to bottom part

correct. of the bones on the tail), like, like
all. . .the bones like this side is all
sticking out, like pointy (points to
bottom parts) and this side (points

to top parts) is not.

 

 

94

Table 2.2 (cont)

 

Inferential

description

Infer author’s

purpose

Prediction

Use of

graphical

The graphic prompts student to
infer information. The
information is implied in the
graphic or by combining
information from the graphic
and the words, but is not
explicitly depicted.
Information may or may not be
correct.

Student infers the author’s
purpose for including a
graphic, what the author
wanted you to learn from the
graphic, or why author placed
a graphic in a speciﬁc spot.
Student uses the graphic to
predict what will be on the

page/in the book.

Student uses graphical text

features (e.g., labels, captions,

Example: I'm thinking that these
are guys who throw a (sic) airplane

up in the sky when the wind blows.

 

Fm“ ' i '.u .-

Example: It's kind of like rain and
snow are on the same page because
they’re the same sometimes.
Sometimes the rain is bad weather
and sometimes snow is bad
weather.

Example: Um, I think this is

goin. . .this page is going to tell us
about like about like what’s on the
land like where deserts are and
where like tropical rainforests are.
Example 1:. .. I did notice that these

(points to map key) match there

 

95

Table 2.2 (cont)

 

Devices

Use of

running text

Repeat-
paraphrase

text

Conﬁrm-
disconﬁrm

text

map keys, arrows in ﬂow
chart, graphics’ titles) to
understand graphic. Student is
not just restating or rephrasing
the caption or label.

Student uses the text to better
understand and gain
information from the graphic.
Student is not just restating or
rephrasing the running text.
While looking at the graphic,
student repeats or attempts to
repeat text verbatim or
paraphrases or attempts to
paraphrase text using own
words. The text can be the
running text, captions, or

labels (if the label is a phrase).

Student uses the graphic to
conﬁrm/disconﬁrm what was

stated in the text.

(pointing to map) so that would be
a desert, that would be a tropical
piece. The colors match.
(Continues pointing to map key and
matching areas on map.)

Example: (After reading running
text) Oh. . .I just learned that’s

(points to graphic) a kite.

Example 1: Text: Bolts of lightning
ﬂash when the electricity builds up.
Student: That lightning can build
up...

Example 2: Label: Clouds move
with the wind.

Student: That, like, clouds can like,
like the wind can move the
clouds...

Example: Text: They then add
muscle tissue and skin to the

skeleton. This makes the dinosaur

 

96

Table 2.2 (cont)

Wonder

Word

identiﬁcation

Reading
Process-

Other

Student uses the graphics to
question or wonder about
topic. The wonders can be said
as statements or questions.
They may include words such
as if or wonder but do not have
to.

Student uses the graphic to
decode word or comprehend

meaning of word.

Comment does not ﬁt into any

of the other processes listed.

look like it did when it was alive.
Student: That does not look like it
did when it was alive (point to
dino). Only the skin (points to skin)
would be there (circles around
dinosaur).

Example: Are there tons of the
polars or not? Or if there’s, like
most deserts in most states or
places? And, and how how (sic) are
the temperature in like Afr, in like
Australia, Africa, Europe, and
South America?

Example: I'm trying to see if the
picture will help me ﬁgure out the
word (mutters to self, repeats
sentence).

Example: Have you ever seen a
wooly mammoth or a saber tooth
statue in museums, hm? (Student is

asking the researcher a question)

 

97

 

Table 2.3

Number of Times Each Process was Prompted

 

 

 

 

 

Weather Dino Dig Both Books
Watching
Process No. of times No. of times No. of times
prompted prompted prompted
(% of total (% of total (% of total
processes) processes) processes)
Affective response 19 (5.21) 23 (4.97) 42 (5.07)
Conﬁrm-disconﬁrm 5 (1.37) 5 (1.08) 10 (1.21)
text
Create narrative 15 (4.11) 47 (10.15) 62 (7.49)
Intertextual 4 ( 1.10) 3 (0.65) 7 (0.85)
connection
Graphic-to-graphic 0 (0.00) 6 (1.30) 6 (0.72)
connection
Graphic—to-written O (0.00) 5 (1.08) 5 (0.60)
text connection
Irrelevant connection 7 (1.92) 12 (2.59) 19 (2.29)
Connection-to-prior 33 (9.04) 23 (4.97) 56 (6.76)
knowledge
Connection-to—self 15 (4.11) 10 (2.16) 25 (3.02)
Evaluate 5 (1.37) 2 (0.43) 7 (0.85)

98

 

Table 2.3 (cont)
Infer the author’s
purpose
Inferential
description
Knowledge
monitoring
Label
Literal description
Name

Prediction

Repeat-paraphrase

written text
Use of graphical

devices

Use of running text

Wonder

Word identification

Reading process-

other

1 (0.27)

27 (7.40)

24 (6.58)

19 (5.21)
28 (7.67)
15 (4.11)
15 (4.11)

35 (9.59)

28 (7.67)

4 (1.10)
53 (14.52)
6 (1.64)

7 (1.92)

0 (0.00)

47 (10.15)

23 (4.97)

23 (4.97)
51 (11.02)
17 (3.67)
19 (4.10)

46 (9.94)

4 (0.86)

2 (0.43)
72 (15.55)
9 (1.94)

14 (3.02)

1 (0.12)

74 (8.94)

47 (5.68)

42 (5.07)
79 (9.54)
32 (3.86)
34 (4.11)

81 (9.78)

32 (3.86)

6 (0.72)
125 (15.10)
15 (1.81)

21 (2.54)

 

99

Table 2.4

Descriptive Statistics for Number of Diﬂerent Processes and Number of Total Processes
Prompted

 

 

 

Total Sample
M SD Range
Weather
’8 >‘ :3 U Watching 12.17 6.406 3-28
8 51 3 *3
g g g g Dino Dig 15.77 7.592 6-36
. g *-
Z P 6. “- Both Books 28.00 12.625 9-64
Weather
‘6’ E 8 Watching 6.30 3.385 1-13
5 23. E
E872 g Dino Dig 7.30 3.153 1-14
2 5 53
Both Books 9.93 4.226 1-16

 

100

Table 2.5

Descriptive Statistics for the Comprehension Measures and Correlations between
Comprehension Measures and Number of Different Processes and Number of Total
Processes Prompted

 

 

 

 

Number of
Times Any Number of
Processes Different
Was Processes
Prompted
Book Cong/prehensron M SD Range r r
easure
’23 g0 Retelling 8.00 5.72 1.11-26.66 .064 -.209
”S E
8 E Comprehension t
E g Questions 41.38 18.09 3.13-62.5 -.070 .309
Retellin 9 03 5 65 1'02' 403* 171
.29 g ° ' 22.45 ' '
Q
o .
E (3033;338:011 47.43 16.83 1851935 .216 .213
g Retelling 8.54 4.70 213-2261 .282 .001
g C h ' 1406
5 ompre ensron . - t
8 Questions 44.01 15.69 71.88 .083 .325
"I—
signiﬁcant at p<.05

t signiﬁcant at p<.10

101

Table 2.6

Descriptive Statistics for Individual Processes and Correlations between Comprehension
Measures and Individual Processes for Dino Dig

 

 

 

 

 

Dino Dig
Retelling Comp.
Questions
Process M SD Range R r
Affective
.77 1.633 0-7 .067 .051
response
Conﬁrm-
disconﬁrrn .17 .379 0-1 -.029 .279
text
Connection- ,, t
.10 .403 0-2 .363 .326
intertextual
Connection-
graphic-to- .17 .531 0-2 .191 .170
written text
Connection-
* III
graphic-to .20 .484 0-2 .436 .528
graphics
Connection- ...
.40 .968 0-5 .382 .062

irrelevant

Table 2.6 (cont)

Connection-
to-prior
knowledge
Connection-
to-self
Create
narrative

Evaluate

Infer the

author’s

pin-pose
Inferential
description
Knowledge
monitoring

Label

Literal
description

Name

Prediction

.77

.33

1.57

.07

.00

1.57

.77

.77

1.70

.57

.63

1.104

.758

1.695

.254

.000

1.591

.898

1.278

1.236

.935

2.735

0-3

0-5

0-1

0-6

0-3

0-5

0-4

0-15

103

.417

.395

-.029

-.287

.204

.274

.517

.039

.310

-.112

.010

-.049

-.264

-.059

-.050

.290

.187

.038

.062

.231

Table 2.6 (cont)

Reading

.47 .900 0-4 .295 .224
process-other

Repeat—

paraphrase 1.53 2.013 0-6 .003 -.214
written text

Use of

graphical .13 .434 0-2 .439 .078

devices

 

Use of -
.07 .254 0-1 .241 .078
running text

Wonder 2.40 4.507 0-16 -.147 .079

Word
.30 .837 0-4 -.176 -.027
identiﬁcation

 

a Correlations could not be run.
*

signiﬁcant at p<.05
' signiﬁcant at p<.10

104

Table 2.7

Descriptive Statistics for Individual Processes and Correlations between Comprehension
Measures and Individual Processes for Weather Watching

 

Weather Watching

 

 

 

 

 

Retelling Comp.
Questions
Process M SD Range r r
Affective .63 1.245 0-4 -.101 -.188
response
Conﬁrm- .17 .461 0-2 .044 -.235
disconﬁrm text
Connection- .13 .434 0-2 .1 l l .104
intertextual
Connection- .00 .000 0 'a -3
graphic-to-
written text
Connection— .00 .000 O '3 -3
graphic-to-
graphics
Connection- .23 .568 0-2 -.146 .056
irrelevant
Connection-to- 1.10 1.447 0-5 “357t -.251
prior
knowledge

105

Table 2.7 (cont)

Connection-to-
self
Create
narrative

Evaluate

Infer the

author’s

purpose
Inferential
description
Knowledge
monitoring

Label

Literal
description

Name

Prediction

Reading

process-other

.50

.50

.17

.03

.90

.80

.63

.93

.50

.50

.900

.861

.531

.183

1.242

1.400

1.033

1.363

1.306

1.676

.504

0-3

0-1

0-4

0-5

0-4

0-5

0-5

0-2

-.186

.214

-.063

-.154

-.018

.171

-.167

.223

-.113

*8"!

.702

-.158

-.l88

-.O94

-.115

.090

.035

.086

.004

.043

-.121

.225

.275

Table 2.7 (cont)
Repeat- 1.17 1.262

paraphrase
written text
Use of .93 1.048
graphical
devices
Use ofrunning .13 .346
text

Wonder 1.77 3.159

Word .20 .484

identiﬁcation

0-5

0—4

0-1

0-11

.154

.172

.382

-.160

-.266

.186

-.054

.264

-.074

-.116

 

a Correlations could not be run.
a: .

signiﬁcant at p<.05
IMHO!

signiﬁcant at p<.001
t signiﬁcant at p<.10

107

Appendix A: Retelling Checklist for Dino Dig

 

 

Page Main Main idea Supporti Supporting Caption Caption
idea . ng Idea ideas Score
Score (2 pornts) Score (1 point
_ _ (1 point unless
('5 pornt It? unless indicated as
names to?” indicated as 1/2 point)
of the mam 1/2 point)
Idea)

3 Dinosaurs Almost
were everything
reptiles. (1 we know
point) about them

comes from
studying the
bones. (1/2
point)
__ They lived __ Ahnost
long ago.(1 everything
point) we know
about them
comes from
studying
their tracks.
(1/2 point)

4-5 __ Dinos could __ Dinosaur’s __ Predators
turn into a body lay on sometimes
fossil when the ground. ate its ﬂesh.
they die. (2 (1/2 point) (1/2 point)
points)

Dinosaur’s
body lay in
the water.

(1/2 point)

108

6-7 Dinosaurs
became
fossils after

a long time.

(2 points)

8-9 Different
things can
be fossils.

Bones are
replaced by
minerals. (1
point)

Bones turn to
stone. (1
point)

Plant (or
leaves) can
be fossils. (1
point)

Plant fossils
form when a
leaf falls into
clay and
makes an
impression.
(I point)

Dinosarus
have
predators (or
enemies).
(1/2 point)

Dinosaurs
are covered
by sand. (1
point)

Layers of dirt
covers the
dinosaur’s
body(l
point)

Scientists
discover the
dinosaur
fossils.(1
point)

The hard,
bony parts
are strong
enough to
make
fossils.(1
point)

Even insects
can become
fossils.

10-
11

12-
13

14-
15

Tracks can
be fossils.
(2 points)

Places with
sedimentary
rock are
good places
to look for
fossils. (2
points)

Scientists
uncover

fossils in
rocks (2

points)

Tracks
happen when
animals walk
in mud. (1
point)

Tracks tell us
how
dinosaurs
moved. (1
point)

Tracks can
be made
when
animals run
from a
predator. (1
point)

Where you
ﬁnd one
dinosaur
fossil, you
might ﬁnd
others. (1
point)

You can
break rocks
with a
hammer to
ﬁnd fossils.

(1 point)

Scientists
have to work
carefully. (1
point)

It may take a
long time to
uncover the
fossil. (1

point)

16-
17

18-
19

20-
21

Fossil bones
are mixed
up. (2
points)

Fossil
skeletons
are in
museums.
(2 point)

111

Found in
Montana. (1
point)

Found a
brachylophos
aurs. (1
point)

It was named
Leonardo. ( 1
point)

Have to put
them back
together like
a puzzle. (1
point)

Skeletons are
big. (1 point)

hwwa
mummy. (1
point)

Soft tissue
has been
found as well
as bones.(l
point)

Information
and pictures
around the
displays tell
us what
animals were
like. (1/2
point)

Information
and pictures
around the
displays tell
us how they
lived. (1/2
point)

22-
23

Bones can
be missing
from fossil
skeletons. (1
point)

Scientists
make bones
to ﬁll in the

gaps. (1
point)

The bones
are made out
of plaster. (1
point)

_—

They add
muscle tissue
(1/2 point)

They add
skin to the
skeleton. (1/2
point)

This makes
the dinosaur
look like it
did when it
was alive. (1
point)

 

112

Appendix B: Researcher-Designed Comprehension Questions for Weather Watching

1. What are some different types of climates?
2 points- hot, cold, and mild (warm) OR desert, tropical, polar, mountain,
temperate
1 point- for naming at least 1 of the above
O-points- for not naming any of the above

2. Why do you think the author talks about clouds on so many pages?

2 points- Because most weather comes from clouds like snow and rain and
hail and all the weather pretty much has to do with the clouds like you can
tell if it's going to rain or it's going to snow or stuff like that from looking
at the clouds

1 point- they are part of the weather and the book is about weather

0 points- I don’t know; he likes clouds

3. What causes wind?
2 points- the sun heats the earth unevenly
1 point- moving air; the sun
O-points- I don’t know; a village
4. Why did the author put rain and snow in one section?
2 points- they are the same thing it is just when rain freezes it turns to snow
1 point- they are like the same thing; they are similar
0 points- he had enough room

5. Do you think the author did a good job of explaining what frost is? Why (not)?
2 points- Well, the writing part didn't explain much about frost but the pictures

when you looked at it you could see like the little spikes and like to me it

113

automatically popped into my head and said, “oh that’s how frost looked"
and I didn’t know how frost looked and that explained its
2 points- Yes, because he told you how water freezes and it forms at night.
1 point- Yes, he used a lot of details
0 points- Yes, I don’t know; Yes, because frost is cool.
6. Why does the author write about rainbows?
2 points- Because rainbows have to do with weather. They have to do with sun
and rain like combining
1 point- because sun makes rainbows OR because rain makes rainbows
0 points- he thinks rainbows are pretty
7. How did people learn about weather a long time ago? How do they learn about it
today?
2 points- A long time ago they ﬂew kites and today they use satellites to send
back pictures
1 point- answers one part of the question
0 points- has neither answer
8. Why did the author write this book?
2-point To teach people about weather like rain, snow, rainbows and how it
forms.
1-polnt- because weather is important

O-point- he wanted to, he likes weather, etc.

114

References

Afﬂerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
III, pp. 163-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Afﬂerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology: On the use of verbal
reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 307-322.

Baumann, J. F ., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's
literature: Effects on ﬁrst graders' comprehension of central narrative elements.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 407-437.

Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2003). A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous
strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 195-218.

Brookshire, J ., Scharff, L. F. V., & Moses, L. E. (2002). The inﬂuence of illustrations on
children's book preferences and comprehension. Reading Psychology, 23, 323-
339.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental
validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students'
learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.

Chall, J. S. (1996). Qualitative assessment of text drﬁiculty: Practical guide for teachers
and writers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Clark, R. C., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning: Proven guidelines for planning,
designing, and evaluation visuals in training materials. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading
comprehension achievers' strategic behavior and their relation to performance in a
reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471-492.

Duke, N. K. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as a nonunitary
construct. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds), Children ’s reading comprehension
and assessment (pp. 93-104). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.

Duke, N. K., & Kays, J. (1998) “Can I say ‘Once upon a time’?”: Kindergarten children
developing knowledge of informational book language. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13, 295-318.

115

Duke, N. K., Norman, R. R., Roberts, K. L., Martin, N. M., Knight, J. A., Morsink, P. M.,
et al. (in preparation). Expanding Concepts of Print to include Concepts of
Pictures.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. F arstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds), What research has to
say about reading instruction (V 01. 3, pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring

youth's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 1521-
1 540.

Fingeret, L. (in preparation). Graphics in children 's informational texts: Establishing a

representative typology of images in informational textbooks, little books, and
trade books.

Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. ( 1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science
textbook passages among low- and high- ability children. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.

Harber, J. R. (1983). The Effects of Illustrations on the Reading Performance of Learning
Disabled and Normal Children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6(1), 55-60.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for
understanding and engagement. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

IRA/NCTE. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. . United States of America:
International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of
English.

J ewitt, C., & Oyama, R. (2001). Visual meaning: a social semiotic approach. . In T. van
Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134-156). London:
Sage.

Keene, E. 0., & Zimmermann, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of
comprehension strategy instruction (second ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. ( 197 8). Toward a model of text comprehension and
production. Psychological Review, 85 , 363-394.

Levin, J. R. (1981). On the functions of pictures in prose. In M. C. Wittrock & F. J.
Pirozzolo (Eds), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp.
203-228). New York: Academic Press.

Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J ., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating ﬁmtions of
pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds), The psychology of
illustration (V 01. I, pp. 51-85). New York: Springer-Verlag.

116

MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-
MacGinitie Reading Tests: Level 2 Form T (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing.

McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge
and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.

Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. H., and Bluth, G. J. (1978). Use of author ’s textual schema:
Key for ninth graders ’ comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association: Toronto.

Miller, W. A. (1938). Reading with or without pictures. The Elementary School Journal,
38, 676-682.

Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children's
comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. The
Elementary School Journal, 85, 646-661.

Moss, B. (1997). A qualitative assessment of ﬁrst graders' retelling of expository text.
Reading Research and Instruction, 3 7, 1-13.

Moss, B. (2008). Getting the picture: Visual dimensions of informational texts. In J.
Flood, S. B. Heath & D. Lapp (Eds), Handbook of research on teaching literacy
through the sommunicative and visual arts (V 01. II, pp. 393-398). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading framework for the 2009
National Assessment of Educational Progress [electronic resource] / National
Assessment Governing Board, US. Department of Education. National
Assessment Governing Board, US. Dept. of Education, Washington, DC.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientiﬁc research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4 769). Washington, DC: US.
Government Printing Ofﬁce.

Norman, R. R. (in press). Picture this: Reading processes prompted by the graphics in
informational text. Literacy Teaching and Learning.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1994). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering
and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 , 117-175.

Park, Y. (2008). Patterns in and predictors of elementary students' reading performance:
Evidence from the data of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
(PIRLS). Unpublished Dissertation. Michigan State University.

117

Parris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young
children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 36-76.

Pressley, M., & Afﬂerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In N. K. Duke & M. H.
Mallette (Eds), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 308-321). New York: The
Guilford Press.

Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to read and write
genre-speciﬁc text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42, 8-45.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards and R&D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.

Roberts, K. L. (in prepration). Retelling as a measure of primary grade narrative listening
comprehension.

Romero, F., Paris, S. G., & Brem, S. K. (2005). Children's comprehension and local-to-
global recall of narrative and expository text. Current Isses in Education [On—
line], 8(25).

Rose, T. L. (1986). Effects of illustrations on reading comprehension of learning disabled
students Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 19 542-544.

Rose, T. L., & Robinson, H. H. (1984). Effects of illustrations on learning disabled
students’ reading performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 165-171.

Rusted, J ., & Coltheart, V. (1979). The effect of pictures on the retention of novel words
and prose passages. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 516-524.

Samuelstuen, M. S., & Braten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in
comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-
1 17.

Schnotz, W., Picard, E., & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners
use text and graphics. Learning and Instruction, 3, 181-199.

Small, M. Y., Lovett, S. B., & Scher, M. S. (1993). Pictures facilitate children's recall of
unillustrated expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 , 520-528.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children’s memory for expository text after reading. Reading
Research Quarterly, 15, 399-411.

118

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.

Watkins, J. K., Miller, E., & Brubaker, D. (2004). The role of visual image: What are
students really learning from pictorial representations? Journal of Visual Literacy,
24(1), 23-40.

119

‘4