A longitudinal eye-movement study of text-diagram integrative processing during multimedia reading among upper elementary children

IF 2 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading and Writing Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1007/s11145-023-10509-0
Yu-Cin Jian, Leo Yuk Ting Cheung
{"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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小学高年级儿童在多媒体阅读过程中进行文字图表整合处理的眼动纵向研究
本研究旨在探讨小学生在不同的文本图表综合处理水平上是否有不同的阅读策略,以及这些阅读策略在三年的时间里是保持一致还是有所变化。研究跟踪了 176 名四至六年级的学生,观察他们在阅读科学文章时的眼球运动。每年收集一次数据。研究使用各种眼动指标对文本图表整合行为进行了分析。我们评估了文字和图表之间的眼球移动次数,以及停留在段落和图表区域内的最长眼球定点移动和停留在相同区域内的其余眼球定点移动的总定点持续时间。我们对两个不同的文本集(一个相同,另一个不同年级)进行了单独的 K-means 聚类分析,以确定每个年级的三种阅读策略模式。结果显示,与综合处理相关的学生(即 "综合组")在各年级中占少数(16%-25%),紧随其后的是主要关注正文的学生("正文组")(17%-28%)。后一类学生有强烈的阅读动机,但未能利用图表进行知识建构。大多数学生(52-67%)被归入 "浅层组",他们在综合处理和文本精读方面都相对较弱。与不同年级(30%)的学生相比,两套课文在同一年级(平均 63%)的学生分组情况更为一致,这表明阅读策略随着时间的推移具有不稳定性。没有观察到综合处理在高年级有增长的趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
16.00%
发文量
0
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.
期刊最新文献
Subskills and sub-knowledge in Chinese as a second language reading comprehension: a structural equation modeling study Typing /s/—morphology between the keys? Initial validation of the handwriting proficiency screening questionnaire (HPSQ-C) translated to Spanish Understanding narratives in different media formats: Processes and products of elementary-school children’s comprehension of texts and videos Profiling text cohesion in the development of L2 Chinese reading materials: variation by text level and genre
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1