{"title":"A longitudinal eye-movement study of text-diagram integrative processing during multimedia reading among upper elementary children","authors":"Yu-Cin Jian, Leo Yuk Ting Cheung","doi":"10.1007/s11145-023-10509-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study aimed to investigate whether elementary school students have different reading strategies based on various levels of text-diagram integrative processing and whether these reading strategies remain consistent or change over a three-year period. The study followed 176 students from grades four to six and observed their eye movements while reading scientific texts. Data were collected once each year. Text-diagram integrative behavior was analyzed using various eye-movement indicators. The number of saccades between the text and diagram was evaluated, as well as the total fixation durations of the longest eye-fixation run that stayed within the paragraph and diagram regions and the remaining eye-fixation runs on the same regions. A separate K-means cluster analysis was conducted on two different text sets (one identical and the other different across grades) to identify three reading strategy patterns at each grade level. The results showed that those associated with integrative processing (i.e., the “integrative group”) constituted a minority across grades (16–25% of students), followed closely by those focusing largely on the main text (“textual group”) (17–28%). The latter group showed a strong motivation to read but failed to utilize the diagrams for knowledge construction. The majority of the students (52–67%) were categorized into the “shallow group,” which showed a relative weakness in both integrative processing and intensive text reading. There was greater consistency in group assignments for individual students between the two text sets within a given year (63% on average) compared to across grade levels (30%), suggesting the instability of reading strategies over time. A growing trend in integrative processing toward higher grades was not observed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10509-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate whether elementary school students have different reading strategies based on various levels of text-diagram integrative processing and whether these reading strategies remain consistent or change over a three-year period. The study followed 176 students from grades four to six and observed their eye movements while reading scientific texts. Data were collected once each year. Text-diagram integrative behavior was analyzed using various eye-movement indicators. The number of saccades between the text and diagram was evaluated, as well as the total fixation durations of the longest eye-fixation run that stayed within the paragraph and diagram regions and the remaining eye-fixation runs on the same regions. A separate K-means cluster analysis was conducted on two different text sets (one identical and the other different across grades) to identify three reading strategy patterns at each grade level. The results showed that those associated with integrative processing (i.e., the “integrative group”) constituted a minority across grades (16–25% of students), followed closely by those focusing largely on the main text (“textual group”) (17–28%). The latter group showed a strong motivation to read but failed to utilize the diagrams for knowledge construction. The majority of the students (52–67%) were categorized into the “shallow group,” which showed a relative weakness in both integrative processing and intensive text reading. There was greater consistency in group assignments for individual students between the two text sets within a given year (63% on average) compared to across grade levels (30%), suggesting the instability of reading strategies over time. A growing trend in integrative processing toward higher grades was not observed.
期刊介绍:
Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.