Effects of Provided versus Learner-Generated Pictures on Chinese Reading Comprehension


Concerning Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), this research builds a “Provided Picture System” and a “Learner-Generated Picture System” based on related pedagogical principles. The effects and longevity of these two methodologies on improving students’ reading comprehension are compared through a teaching experiment. 96 fourth-grade students in a Taiwanese primary school were divided into the provided picture condition group (PPCG) and learner-generated picture condition group (LPCG) based on their reading comprehension test results. One-way ANOVA proved that the reading comprehension competency of these two groups was comparable. The PPCG was trained to read articles and examine pictures based on the articles’ themes by using the “Provided Picture System”. The LPGP was trained to read articles using the “Learner-Generated Picture System” before generating pictures corresponding to the theme of each paragraph. All students were required to take post-test and delayed post-test one and three weeks after the reading classes, respectively. Finally, paired-samples t-test was used to analyze the three test results. Analysis of the PPCG’s results indicated no significant difference in reading comprehension competency among the three tests before and after the experiment. In contrast, the LPCG’s reading comprehension competency improved significantly, and the effects persisted following the experiment. The results revealed that the learner-generated picture pedagogy was effective in improving students’ reading comprehension competency, superior to the provided picture pedagogy.

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2010). Improving learning by drawing. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences. Chicago, 2, 167-168.  |   Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096–1097.  |   Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: Norton.  |   Google Scholar
  4. Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155–166.  |   Google Scholar
  5. de Vries, E., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). Graphicacy: What does the learner bring to a graphic? Comprehension of Text and Graphics Conference. Tübingen, Germany. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/26759  |   Google Scholar
  6. Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.  |   Google Scholar
  7. Fehr, C. N., Davison, M. L., Graves, M. F., Sales, G. C., Seipel, B., & Sekhran-Sharma, S. (2012). The effects of individualized, online vocabulary instruction on picture vocabulary scores: an efficacy study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 87-102.  |   Google Scholar
  8. Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 427-453.  |   Google Scholar
  9. Hamden, A. R., Ghafar, M. N., Sihes, A. J., & Atan, S. B. (2010). The cognitive and meta-cognition strategies of foundation course students in teacher education institute in Malaysia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 133-144.  |   Google Scholar
  10. Hedin, L.R., & Conderman, G. (2010). Teaching students to comprehend informational text through rereading. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 556–565. doi:10.1598/RT.63.7.3  |   Google Scholar
  11. Ko, H.-W., & Chan, Y.-L. (2006). Reading comprehension screening test of fourth grade. Technical Team of Special Education, Taiwan’s Ministry of Education.  |   Google Scholar
  12. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarization as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26.  |   Google Scholar
  13. Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40-49.  |   Google Scholar
  14. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284–289.  |   Google Scholar
  15. Lin, P.-K., & Chi, P.-H. (2000). Chinese reading comprehension test. Ulletin of Special Education, 19(5), 79-104.  |   Google Scholar
  16. Maderazo, C., Martens, P., Croce, K., Martens, R., Doyle, M., Aghalarov, S., et al. (2010). Beyond picture walks: Revaluing picturebooks as written and pictorial texts. Language Arts, 87(6), 437–446.  |   Google Scholar
  17. Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 211-224.  |   Google Scholar
  18. Paivio, A. (1990). Dual-coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.  |   Google Scholar
  19. Pike, M. M., Barnes, M. A., & Barron R. W. (2010). The role of illustrations in children’s inferential comprehension. Journal of Experimental Children Psychology, 105, 243-255.  |   Google Scholar
  20. Risko, V. J., Walker-Dalhouse, D., Bridges, E. S., & Wilson, A. (2011). Drawing on text features for reading comprehension and composing. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 376-378.  |   Google Scholar
  21. Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 89-93.  |   Google Scholar
  22. Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., Thillmann, H., Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872-879.  |   Google Scholar
  23. Stalbovs, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2013). Which cognitive processes predict successful learning with multimedia? Paper presented at the Fifteenth Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.  |   Google Scholar
  24. Stull A. T. & Mayer R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808-820.  |   Google Scholar
  25. Tare, M., Chiong, C., Ganea, P., & DeLoache, J. (2010). Less is more: How manipulative features affect children’s learning from picture. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 395-400.  |   Google Scholar
  26. Türk, E. & Erçetin, G. (2014). Effects of interactive versus simultaneous display of multimedia glosses on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 1-25.  |   Google Scholar
  27. United Nations. 2013/4 Report: Teaching and learning: Achieving quality for all. Retrieved September 9, 2014, from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2013/  |   Google Scholar
  28. Van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 142–166.  |   Google Scholar
  29. Yu, X. (2012). Exploring visual perception and children's interpretations of picture books. Library & Information Science Research, 34, 292-299.  |   Google Scholar

How to Cite

Wang, I.-C. (2022). Effects of Provided versus Learner-Generated Pictures on Chinese Reading Comprehension. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(3), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.3.352

Search Panel

 I-Chen Wang
 Google Scholar |   EJEDU Journal