Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students?

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 143-153

  McTigue, Erin M ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Diagrams; Graphical representations; Middle grade students; Reading comprehension; Science text

Indexed keywords

EID: 62649087475     PISSN: 0361476X     EISSN: 10902384     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Anderson J., and Gunderson L. "You don't read a science book, you study it": Exploring cultural concepts of reading. Reading Online 4 7 (2001). http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/ anderson/index.html
2. Beck I.L., McKeown M.G., Sinatra G.M., and Loxterman J.A. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly 26 (1991) 251-276
3. Biesty S. Stephen Biesty's cross-sections: Man-of-war (1993), Dorling Kindersley, London
4. Boruch R.F., McSweeney A.J., and Soderstrom E.J. Bibliography: Illustrative randomized field experiments for program planning, development, and evaluation: An illustrative bibliography. Evaluation Quarterly 2 (1978) 655-695
5. Bowen G.M., and Roth W.-M. Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education 32 (2002) 303-327
6. Cezairiliyan, A. (2005). Heat. Retrieved November 2005.
7. Coleman, J., McTigue, E.M., Smolkin, L.B. (submitted for publication). Elementary teachers' self-reported use of graphical representations: Implications for the teaching of science.
8. Davey B. How do classroom teachers use their textbooks?. Journal of Reading 31 4 (1988) 340-345
9. Fang Z. The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education 28 (2006) 491-520
10. Fry E. Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading 21 (1977) 242-252
11. Garner R. Learning from school texts. Educational Psychologist 27 (1992) 53-63
12. Gerber R., Boulton-Lewis G., and Bruce C. Children's understanding of graphic representations of quantitative data. Learning and Instruction 5 (1995) 77-100
13. Goldman S.R. Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help?. Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 239-244
14. Graesser A.C., Singer M., and Trabasso T. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101 (1994) 371-395
15. Green S.B., and Hershberger S.L. Correlated errors in true score models and their effect on coefficient alpha. Structural Equation Modeling 7 (2000) 251-270
16. Guthrie J., Wigfield A., Metsala J., and Cox K. Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading 3 (1999) 231-257
17. Halpern D.F. Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist 52 10 (1997) 1091-1102
18. Hannus M., and Hyona J. Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology 24 (1999) 95-123
19. Harber J.N. The effects of illustrations on the reading performance of learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly 6 (1983) 55-60
20. Hegarty M., Carpenter P.A., and Just M.A. Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In: Barr R., Kamil M.L., Mosenthal P.B., and Pearson P.B. (Eds). Handbook of reading research Vol. 2 (1996), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 641-668
21. Henderson G. Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers' Journal 45 2 (1999) 17-25
22. Hubisz J.L. Report on a study of middle school physical science texts. The Physics Teacher 39 (2000) 304-309
23. Kahle J.B. Will girls be left behind? Gender differences in accountability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (2004) 961-969
24. Kesidou S., and Roseman J.E. How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (2002) 522-549
25. Kincaid J.P., Fishbume R., Rogers R.L., and Chissom B.S. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, Fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel (1975), National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
26. Kirby J.R. Collaborative and competitive effects of verbal and spatial processes. Learning and Instruction 3 (1993) 151-155
27. Kress G., and van Leeuwen T. Reading images: The grammar of visual design (1996), Routledge, London
28. Levie W.H., and Lentz R. Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology 30 (1982) 195-232
29. Martins I. Visual imagery in school science texts. In: Otero J., Leon J.A., and Graesser A.C. (Eds). The psychology of science text comprehension (2002), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 73-90
30. Maton A., Hopkins J., Johnson S., LaHart D., Warner M.Q., and Wright J.D. Parade of life: Monerans, protists, fungi and plants (1994), Prentice Hall, New Jersey
31. Mautone P.D., and Mayer R.E. Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 93 (2001) 377-389
32. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning (2001), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
33. Mayer R.E., Fennell S., Farmer L., and Campbell J. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology 96 (2004) 389
34. Mayer R.E., and Gallini J.K. When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?. Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (1990) 715-726
35. Mayer R.E., and Sims V.K. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 86 (1994) 389-401
36. McTigue, E. & Croix, A. (2008). An investigation of young learners' diagrammatic literacy. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
37. McKenna M.C., Kear D.J., and Ellsworth R.A. Children's attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly 30 (1995) 934-956
38. Moline S. I see what you mean (1995), Stenhouse Publishing, York, ME
39. Nunnaly J.C. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. (1994), McGraw-Hill, New York
40. Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach (1986), Oxford University Press, Oxford, England
41. Peeck J. Role of illustrations in processing. In: Willows D.M., and Houghton H.A. (Eds). The psychology of illustration Vol. 1 (1987), R. R. Donnelley & Sons, Harrisonburg, VA 115-151
42. Peeck J. Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction 3 (1993) 227-238
43. Radcliffe R., Caverly D., Peterson C., and Emmons M. Improving textbook reading in a middle school science classroom. Reading Improvement 41 3 (2004)
44. Reid D.J., and Beveridge M. Effects of text illustration on children's learning of a school science topic. British Journal of Educational Psychology 60 (1986) 76-87
45. Reid D.J., and Beveridge M. Reading illustrated science texts: A microcomputer based school science topic. British Journal of Educational Psychology 56 (1990) 294-303
46. Reinking D.R., Hayes D.A., and McEneaney J.E. Good and poor readers' use of explicitly cued graphic aids. Journal of Reading Behavior 20 (1988) 229-243
47. Rieber L.P. The effects of visual grouping on learning from computer animated presentations. Journal of Educational Psychology 39 (1991) 5-15
48. Sadoski M. Resolving the effects of concreteness on interest, comprehension, and learning important ideas from text. Educational Psychology Review 13 (2001) 263-281
49. Sadoski M., and Paivio A. Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing (2001), Erlbaum, NJ
50. Sadoski M., and Paivio A. A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In: Ruddell R.B., and Unrau N.J. (Eds). Theoretical models and processes of reading Vol. 5 (2004), International Reading Association 1329-1362
51. Santos J. Cronbach's alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension (1999) 99. http://joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.html
52. Schnotz W., Picard E., and Hron A. How do successful and unsuccessful learners use text and graphics?. Learning and Instruction 3 (1993) 181-199
53. Stern E., Aprea C., and Ebner H.G. Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 191-203
54. Sweller J., and Chandler P. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition & Instruction 12 (1994) 185-233
55. Tabachnik B.G., and Fidell L.S. Using multivariate statistics (2001), Allyn and Bacon, Boston
56. Thompson B. Score reliability: Contemporary thinking on reliability issues (2002), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
57. Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (2008). Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
58. Van Parreren C.F. Teaching pupils to "read" pictures. In: Briel R. (Ed). Media science (1983), Butterworth, Durban 65-71
59. Walpole S. Changing texts, changing thinking: Comprehension demands of new science textbooks. The Reading Teacher 52 (1999) 358-369
60. Weaver C.A., and Kintsch W. Expository text. In: Barr R., Kamil M.L., Mosenthal P.B., and Pearson P.B. (Eds). Handbook of reading research Vol. 2 (1996), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 230-245
61. Wheeler A.E., and Hill D. Diagram-ease. Why children misinterpret diagrams. The Science Teacher 57 (1990) 58-63
62. Winn W. Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In: Willows D.M., and Houghton H.A. (Eds). The psychology of illustration Vol. 1 (1987), R. R. Donnelley Sons, Harrisonburg, VA 152-198
63. Yeh, Y. & McTigue, E. M. (in press). Analysis of graphical representations in state science tests. School Science and Mathematics Journal.