TY - JOUR
T1 - Do You Get the Picture? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Graphics on Reading Comprehension
AU - Guo, Daibao
AU - Zhang, Shuai
AU - Wright, Katherine Landau
AU - McTigue, Erin M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2020.
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - Although convergent research demonstrates that well-designed graphics can facilitate readers’ understanding of text, there are select situations where graphics have been shown to have no effect on learners’ overall text comprehension. Therefore, the current meta-analytic study examined 39 experimental studies published between 1985 and 2018 measuring graphics’ effects on readers’ comprehension. We first quantified the overall effect on reading comprehension. Then, we considered interactions with learners’ characteristics, graphic types, and assessment formats. Our analysis revealed that the inclusion of graphics had a moderate overall positive effect (Hedges’s g = 0.39) on students’ reading comprehension, regardless of grade level. Regarding graphic type, we did not find a significant difference among pictures, pictorial diagrams, and flow diagrams. Only when compared to mixed graphics, pictures had a greater effect on comprehension. Additionally, compared with true and false assessments, graphics differentially benefited students’ comprehension on open-ended comprehension assessments and mixed format assessments. Implications for future research are presented.
AB - Although convergent research demonstrates that well-designed graphics can facilitate readers’ understanding of text, there are select situations where graphics have been shown to have no effect on learners’ overall text comprehension. Therefore, the current meta-analytic study examined 39 experimental studies published between 1985 and 2018 measuring graphics’ effects on readers’ comprehension. We first quantified the overall effect on reading comprehension. Then, we considered interactions with learners’ characteristics, graphic types, and assessment formats. Our analysis revealed that the inclusion of graphics had a moderate overall positive effect (Hedges’s g = 0.39) on students’ reading comprehension, regardless of grade level. Regarding graphic type, we did not find a significant difference among pictures, pictorial diagrams, and flow diagrams. Only when compared to mixed graphics, pictures had a greater effect on comprehension. Additionally, compared with true and false assessments, graphics differentially benefited students’ comprehension on open-ended comprehension assessments and mixed format assessments. Implications for future research are presented.
KW - comprehension
KW - graphics
KW - literacy
KW - meta-analysis
KW - reading
KW - reading comprehension
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185818583&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/2332858420901696
DO - 10.1177/2332858420901696
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85185818583
VL - 6
JO - AERA Open
JF - AERA Open
IS - 1
ER -