Email this article 
Hide
Show all
The Impact of Multimodal Texts on Reading Achievement: A Study of Iranian Secondary School Learners
Abstract
This study was designed to investigate the impact of multimodal text on reading comprehension test performance of Iranian intermediate learners. A total of 80 students participated in this study. All of them were Iranian female EFL learners with the age ranging from 16 to 18. They were selected from a boarding high school in Nasr Abad, Torbat Jam in Khorasan e Razavi, Iran. The students were randomly settled in four groups, who received different instructional approaches through using linear texts, multimodal printed texts, non-printed multimodal texts, and both multimodal printed and non-printed texts. A pre-test and post-test were used to find out the differences before and after the experimental treatment. The results reflected that the printed and non-printed multimodal texts had significant impact on reading comprehension test performance. In contrast, applying linear texts or traditional texts did not exert significant influence on reading comprehension ability of the participants. The findings provide useful hints for language instructors to improve effectiveness of instructional reading curriculums and reading ability of language learners. The participants who learned reading comprehension through using multimodal printed and non-printed texts enjoy reading programs and develop their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for improving reading ability.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Block, C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices. New York: Guilford Press.
Bobis, J., Sweller, J. & Cooper, J. (1993). Cognitive load effects in primary-school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(09)80002-9
Bowen, B., M. (1982). Look here! Visual aids in language teaching. London: Macmillan.
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
Chayaburakul, S. (2003). Teaching English methods. Offset creation, Bangkok, Thailand.
Day, R. R. & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900211
Gerrig, R., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: the functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545039
Grabe, W. (2004).Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000030
Grabe, W. Stoller. & F. L. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. London: Pearson Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000030
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). System and function in language. London: Oxford University Press.
Harp, S. & Mayer, R. E. (1997). Role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.89.1.92
Karimi, A. (1386). The most important results of the 2006 national and international PIRLS 2006 compared with 2001. Tehran: Institute of Education Press.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading. A Cross-Linguistics Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524841
Kuhn, M. R. & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.95.1.3
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001.) Multimodal Discourse, London: Arnold.
Kuo, Y. C., Yang, S.-W. & Kuo, H.-H. (2010). Learning Bridge: A Reading Comprehension Platform with Rich Media. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology , 934-936.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions. Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.81.2.240
Mayer, R. (2001). Multi-Media Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Advances in applying the science of learning and instruction to education. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9 (3), pp. i-ii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01037.x
Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.83.4.484
Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 444-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.84.4.444
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R. & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.88.1.64
Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (4), 715-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.82.4.715
Mayer, R. & Moreno, A. (1998). Split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 312-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.90.2.312
Mayer, R. E. & Sims, V. K. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.86.3.389
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G. & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 31-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.86.3.389
Mills, K. A. (2006). Multiliteracies: A critical ethnography: Pedagogy, power, discourse and access to multiliteracies. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R. & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.87.2.319
Paas, F. G. W. & Van Merrienboer, J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02213420
Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M.Brown, & P. Hagoort, The neurocognition of language processing (pp. 167 – 208). London: Oxford University Press.
Roe, D. B. & Ross P. E. (2006). Integrating Language Arts through Literature and Thematic Unit. Pearson
Segers, E. V. & Hulstijn-Hendrikse, N. (2008). Cognitive processes in children's multimedia text learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 375-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1413
Son, J. (2003). A hypertext approach to foreign language reading: Student attitudes and perceptions.Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 91-110
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P. & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structure of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.119.2.176
Taylor, B.M.,Graves, M.E. & Broek, P.V.D (2000) (Eds.) Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades, International Reading Association, Newark, 1–31
Van den Broak, P., Kremer, K. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading .In B.M. Taylor, P.Van den Broek,& M. Graves (Eds), Reading for meaning (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers College Press.
Van den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A ‘‘landscape’’ view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In: B. K.Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Verhoeven, L. & Perfetti, C. (2008). Introduction advances in text comprehension: model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293 – 301.
Walsh, M. (2006). Reading visual and multimodal texts: how is ‘reading’ different? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29, 24-37.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.4p.161
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.