Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

An Analysis of Comprehension Strategies and Visuals Within Grade 6–8 Science Textbooks in the United States

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

This study analyzed the comprehension strategies and visuals in two science textbook series for grades 6, 7, and 8 as means of better understanding a core element of the ecological component of science literacy. The iScience [Biggs et al. in iScience (Grade 6), McGraw-Hill, 2015a, iScience (Grade 7), McGraw-Hill, 2015b, iScience (Grade 7), McGraw-Hill, 2015c)] and Interactive Science [Buckley et al. in Interactive Science (Grade 6), vol 1, Pearson, 2015a, Interactive Science (Grade 6), vol 2, Pearson, 2015b, Interactive Science (Grade 7), vol 1, Pearson, 2015c, Interactive Science (Grade 7), vol 2, Pearson, 2015d, Interactive Science (Grade 8), vol 1, Pearson, 2015e, Interactive Science (Grade 8), vol 2, Pearson, 2015f] textbook series were analyzed for the frequency of comprehension strategies used in during-reading activities as well as the explicit references of visuals and the level of visual captions. Analysis revealed comprehension monitoring, graphic organizers, and question answering were the most frequently used comprehension strategies. Although the numbers, do not highlight the lack of instruction in those strategies. Further, most visuals were explicitly referenced and had descriptive captions. Findings from this study point to the need for science educators to critically examine how comprehension and visuals instruction are included in the textbooks they use in their classrooms.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

Data is available upon request.

References

  • Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beerwinkle, A.L., Wijekujmar, K., Walpole, S., & Aguis, R. (2018). An analysis of the ecological components within a text structure intervention. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2041–2064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9870-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beerwinkle, A. L., Owens, J., & Hudson, A. (2021a). An analysis of comprehension strategies and skills covered within grade 3-5 reading textbooks in the United States. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 26(2), 311–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09484-0

  • Beerwinkle, A., McKeown, D. (2021b). An analysis of reading comprehension questions in Kenyan English textbooks. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 26(2), 429–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09502-9

  • Bernard, R. M. (1990). Using extended captions to improve learning from instructional illustrations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.1990.tb00040.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkman, N.D., DeWalt, D.A., Pignone, M.P., Sheridan, S.L., Lohr, K.N, Lux, L., Sutton, S.F., & Bonito, A.J. (2004). Literacy and Health Outcomes. (Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 87). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

  • Biggs, A., Feather, R. M., Fisher, D., Keeley, S. P., Kilgo, M., Manga, M., Ortleb, E., & Zike, D. (2015a). iScience (Grade 6). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A., Feather, R. M., Fisher, D., Keeley, S. P., Kilgo, M., Manga, M., Ortleb, E., & Zike, D. (2015b). iScience (Grade 7). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A., Feather, R. M., Fisher, D., Keeley, S. P., Kilgo, M., Manga, M., Ortleb, E., & Zike, D. (2015c). iScience (Grade 8). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, D., Miller, Z., Padilla, M.J., Thornton, K., Wysession, M.E. (2015a). Interactive Science (Grade 6) (Vol. 1). Pearson.

  • Buckley, D., Miller, Z., Padilla, M.J., Thornton, K., Wysession, M.E. (2015b). Interactive Science (Grade 6) (Vol. 2). Pearson.

  • Buckley, D., Miller, Z., Padilla, M.J., Thornton, K., Wysession, M.E. (2015c). Interactive Science (Grade 7) (Vol. 1). Pearson.

  • Buckley, D., Miller, Z., Padilla, M.J., Thornton, K., Wysession, M.E. (2015d). Interactive Science (Grade 7) (Vol. 2). Pearson.

  • Buckley, D., Miller, Z., Padilla, M.J., Thornton, K., Wysession, M.E. (2015e). Interactive Science (Grade 8) (Vol. 1). Pearson.

  • Buckley, D., Miller, Z., Padilla, M.J., Thornton, K., Wysession, M.E. (2015f). Interactive Science (Grade 8) (Vol. 2). Pearson.

  • Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991a). A method to quantify major themes of science literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991b). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(10), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660281005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta, E. L. E. L., Sethna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1993). Do middle school life science textbooks provide a balance of scientific literacy themes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90, 1073–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gannaway, S. P. (1980). Development of a high school chemistry textbook evaluation instrument using survey and content techniques. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1011A. (University Microfilms No. 8019878)

  • Harber, J.R. (1983). Effects of illustrations on the reading performance of learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/151086

  • Hayes, D. A., & Reinking, D. (1991). Good and poor readers’ use of graphic aids cued in texts and in adjunct study materials. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(91)90016-E

  • Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1996). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. B. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2018). Teaching reading sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Core.

  • Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008–4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.

  • Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R. (2010). Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in US middle school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903253916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30, 195–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (1990). Representation in scientific practice (1st ed.). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1983). What have we learned about increasing the meaningfulness of science prose? Science Education, 67(2), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Galhni, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, L. A., Crummy, L., & Greer, E. A. (1988). Elementary science textbooks: Their contents, text characteristics, and comprehensibility. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(6), 435–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2022). https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/. On February 17, 2023

  • National Reading Panel (U.S.), & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

  • National Research Council. (2000). How people learn. Bridging research and practice. National Academy Press.

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high-stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831206298171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pena, B. M., & Quilez, M. J. G. (2001). The importance of images in astronomy education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1125–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinking, D. R., Hayes, D. A., & McEneaney, J. E. (1988). Good and poor readers’ use of explicitly cued graphic aids. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968809547641

  • Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunn, C. D., Newcombe, N. S., Alfieri, L., Cromley, J. G., Massey, C., & Merlino, J. F. (2018). Using principles of cognitive science to improve science learning in middle school: What works when and for whom? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slough, S. W., McTigue, E. M., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. K. (2010). Science textbooks’ use of graphical representations: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fall, A. (2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81, 426–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Texas Education Agency (2022). 19 TAC Chapter 112. Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science. https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=4&ti=19&pt=2&ch=112

  • Therrien, W. J., Taylor, J. C., Watt, S., & Kaldenberg, E. R. (2014). Science instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513503557

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

    Andrea L. Beerwinkle

  2. Teaching, Learning, and Culture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Chellie Nelson

Authors
  1. Andrea L. Beerwinkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chellie Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea L. Beerwinkle.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beerwinkle, A.L., Nelson, C. An Analysis of Comprehension Strategies and Visuals Within Grade 6–8 Science Textbooks in the United States. Tech Know Learn 29, 1277–1291 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09672-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-023-09672-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy