Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visualisation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reading Comprehension

  • 5254 Accesses

Abstract

Thinking processes not only involve the encoding of verbal information but they also use visual imaginable material as well. Visualisation is a powerful memory device that can also be used to improve reading comprehension. This chapter develops the notion that the technique of visualising story content while reading is a very powerful thinking tool that can, if used appropriately, economise on the limited capacity of working memory and free up valuable cognitive space to enable more efficient reading comprehension. When readers construct mental images during reading it enables them to form strong links with personal meanings and develop deeper levels of reading engagement. This is particularly effective in an environment that promotes student discussion because it also facilitates the linking of both visually and verbally encoded information. It follows that children will be more engaged in the reading process when they use visual imagery because it relies on prior experiences to construct mental pictures. As a result, reading comprehension will more likely to be motivating because it incorporates personal and emotional associations that are part of the individual’s unique world of experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, R.J., A.D. Baddeley, and G.J. Hitch. 2006. Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology 135(2): 298–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, N. 1991. Gestalt imagery: A critical factor in language comprehension. Annals of Dyslexia 41: 246–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, C.C. 2004. Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J.G. and Muthukrishna, N. 1992. Moving metacognition into the classroom: Working models and effective strategy teaching. In Pressley, M., Harris, K.R. and Guthrie, J.T. Promoting Academic Competency in post secondary students with learning difficulties 477–501. NY: Accademic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borkowski, J.D., B.H. Schneider, and M. Pressley. 1989. The challenges of teaching good information processing to learning disabled students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 36: 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L. 1982. Learning and development: the problems of compatibility, access and induction. Human Development 25: 89–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D.L. 2002. Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice 41: 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K.B. 2006. Fostering flexibility and comprehension in elementary students. The reading Teacher 59(7): 628–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center, Y., L. Freeman, G. Robertson, and L. Outhred. 1999. The effect of visual imagery training on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening comprehenders in year 2. Journal of Research in Reading 22(3): 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H., and E. Clark. 1977. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics, 43–57. New York: Harcourt and Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J.E. 2002. What motivates students to read? Four literacy personalities. The Reading Teacher 56: 326–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, K., and I. Hay. 2002a. Using the technology of the internet to enhance the literacy development of secondary students with reading problems. In Learning in technology education: Challenges for the 21st century, ed. H. Middleton, M. Pavlova, and D. Roebuck, 1: 71–80. Brisbane: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshler, D.D., and J.B. Schumaker. 1993. Strategy mastery by at-risk students: Not a simple matter. The Elementary School Journal 94: 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, N.K., and P.D. Pearson. 2002. Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed, ed. A.E. Farstrup and S.J. Samuels, 205–242. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, D.W. 1996. Helping readers comprehend stories from the characters’ perspectives. The Reading Teacher 49: 534–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M.J. 1995. Current issues in the neuropsychology of image generation. Neuropsychologia 33: 1455–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L.B. 2004. Exploring the connection between oral language and early reading. The Reading Teacher 57: 490–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L.B., and P.B. Jawitz. 1993. Mental imagery, text illustrations, and the children’s story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly 28: 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L.B., B.A. Kapinus, and R.M. Wilson. 1987. Using mental imagery and summarization to achieve independence in comprehension. Journal of Reading 30(7): 638–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, B., S.A. Mazzoni, and J.F. Almasi. 2000. Promoting collaboration, social interaction, and engagement. In Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation, ed. L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, and J. T. Guthrie, 119–139. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambrell, L.B., Malloy, J.A., and Mazzoni, S.A. 2007. Evidence-based best practice for comprehensive literacy instruction. In Best practices in literacy instruction, ed. L.B. Gambrell, L.M. Morrow, and M. Pressley. (3rd ed. 11–29). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., L.S. Fuchs, J.P. Williams, and S. Baker. 2001. Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research 71: 279–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A.M., and W.E. Langston. 1992. Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A.M., M. Brown, and J.R. Levin. 2007. Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 32: 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, T., and S. McNaughton. 2002. Trust your own observations: Assessment of reader and tutor behaviour in learning to read in English and Maori. International Journal of Disability 49: 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, Y.M. 1996. Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective miscue analysis. The Reading Teacher 49: 600–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, T.D., J. Wiley, and K.W. Thiede. 2008. Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition 36(1): 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J.T., and M.H. Davis. 2003. Motivating the struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 59–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., and B. Weiner. 2002. Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist 37: 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K.R., and M. Pressley. 1991. The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy instruction. Exceptional Children 57: 392–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, A.N., and J.L. Rankin-Erickson. 2003. A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual images to improve comprehension for the middle school struggling readers. The Reading Teacher 56: 758–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. 1990. Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research 60: 549–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, V.L., K. Cain, and N. Maric. 2007. Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment: Does mental imagery training help? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 42(6): 648–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamhi, A., and H. Catts. 2002. The language basis of reading: Implications for classification and treatment of children with reading disabilities. In Speaking, reading, and writing in children with language learning disabilities: New paradigms in research and practice, ed. K.G. Butler and E. Silliman, 45–72. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., R. Savage, and P. Van den Broek. 2009. Revising the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. 1994. Text comprehension, memory and learning. American Psychologist 49: 294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S.M. 1976. Using imagery to retrieve semantic information: A developmental study. Child Development 47: 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S.M. 1988. Imagery in learning. In Perspectives in memory research, ed. M.S. Gazzaniga, 245–273. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J.A. 1990. Understanding Literature. Language Arts 67: 812–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J.A. 1995. Envisioning Literature: Literacy Understanding and Literature Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linden, M., and M.C. Wittrock. 1981. The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly 17: 44–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, S.A., P.N. Winograd, and C.A. Bridge. 1989. The effects of reader and text characteristics on imagery reported during and after reading. Reading Research Quarterly 24: 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marschark, M., and C. Cornoldi. 1991. Static versus dynamic imagery. In Imagery and cognition, ed. C. Cornoldi and M.A. Daniel, 133–163. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M.A., T.E. Scruggs, and J.E. Graetz. 2003. Reading comprehension instruction for the secondary students: challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly 26: 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, M.G., I.L. Beck, and R.G.K. Blake. 2009. Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly 44(3): 218–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, J.W., B.M. Magimairaj, and M.H. O’Malley. 2008. Role of working memory in typically developing children’s complex sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 37: 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J.S., J. Oberer, J. Dobbins, and D. Mitchell. 1998. Understanding learning styles: Implications for staff development. Journal of Nursing Staff Development 14: 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching children to read: Report of the comprehension instruction subgroup to the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Washington, DC: NICD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesbit, J.C., and O.O. Adesope. 2006. Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 76(3): 413–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overett, J., and D. Donald. 1998. Paired reading: effects of a parent involvement program in a disadvantaged community in South Africa. British Journal of Educational Psychology 68: 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. 1969. Mental Imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review 76(3): 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. 1986. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. 1991. Static versus dynamic imagery. In Imagery and cognition, ed. C. Cornoldi and M.A. Daniel, 221–246. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., and A.L. Brown. 1987. Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities 20: 66–75 (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D., L.R. Roehler, J.A. Dole, and G.G. Duffy. 1992. Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In What research has to say about reading instruction, ed. S.J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrup, 101–144. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. 2007. Reading ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading 11(4): 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D.N., P. Van den Broek, K.L. McMaster, P. Kendeou, and C.A. Espin. 2007. Higher order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies in Reading 11(4): 289–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, K.D. 1988. Learning and learning to learn. In Teaching the learning disabled: A cognitive developmental approach, ed. K.D. Reid, 5–28. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romeo, L. 2002. At-risk students: Learning to break through comprehension barriers. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roser, N., M. Martinez, C. Fuhrken, and K. McDonnold. 2007. Characters as guides to meaning. The Reading Teacher 60(6): 548–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M. 1983. An exploratory study of the relationship between reported imagery. Reading Research Quarterly 19: 110–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M. 1999. Comprehending comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 34(4): 493–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., and Z. Quast. 1990. Reader response and long-term recall for journalistic text: The roles of imagery, affect, and importance. Reading Research Quarterly 25: 256–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and S. Kangiser. 1988. Imagination in story response; relationships between imagery, affect, and structural importance. Reading Research Quarterly 23: 320–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., and V.L. Willson. 2006. Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal 43: 137–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., A. Paivio, and E.T. Goetz. 1991. A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly 26: 463–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and E. Avila. 1995. Concreteness effects in text recall: dual coding or context availability? Reading Research Quarterly 30: 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R.C., and R. Ableson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., R. Bruning, and C. Svoboda. 1995. Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behaviour 27: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C.E. 2002. Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: Rand Corp. Retrieved 12 Dec, 2002, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1465/.

  • Stetter, M.E., and M.T. Hughes. 2010. Using story grammar to assist students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education and Treatment of Children 33(1): 115–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stull, A., and R.E. Mayer. 2007. Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organisers. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 808–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12: 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada, A., and J.T. Guthrie. 2006. Contributions of student Questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research 38(1): 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Schoot, M., A.L. Vasbinder, T.M. Horsley, A. Reijntjes, and E.C.D.M. Van Lieshout. 2009. Lexical ambiguity resolution in good and poor comprehenders: An eye fixation and self-paced reading study in primary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology 101(1): 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meter, P., M. Aleksic, A. Schwartz, and J. Garner. 2006. Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31: 142–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, S.E., W.M. Buxton, and M. Kelly. 1999. Using think-alouds to examine reader text interest. Reading Research Quarterly 34: 194–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, D. 2002. “The story means more to me now”: Teaching thinking through guided reading. Reading, Literacy and Language 36(1): 33–37 (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehurst, G.L., and C.J. Lonigan. 1988. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development 69: 848–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G. 2007. A comprehension intervention for children with reading comprehension difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 12(1): 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, G.E., and I. Hay. 2004. Using imagery as a strategy to enhance students’ comprehension of read text. In Learning difficulties: Multiple perspectives, ed. B.A. Knight and W. Scott, 85–101. Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S.M., M. Behrmann, and M. Jeannerod. 1995a. The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsycholigia 33: 1335–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., E.T. Goetz, and S. Kangiser. 1988. Imagination in story response; relationships between imagery, affect, and structural importance. Reading Research Quarterly 23:320–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002b. Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the Future. In Improving comprehension instruction, ed. C. Collins Block, L.B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley, 385–389. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. 2002c. Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. International Reading Association Online Document, http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html.

  • Blachowicz, C.L.Z., P.J.L. Fisher, and D. Ogle. 2006a. Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly 41(4): 524–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walczyk, J.J., M. Wei, D.A. Griffith-Ross, S.E. Goubert, and A.L. Cooper. 2007. Development of the interplay between automatic process and cognitive resources in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 867–887.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, 4111, Australia

    Dr. Gary Woolley

Authors
  1. Dr. Gary Woolley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Woolley .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Woolley, G. (2011). Visualisation. In: Reading Comprehension. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1174-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation