Visual Comprehension 1 Running head: VISUAL COMPREHENSION

Visual Comprehension 1

Running head: VISUAL COMPREHENSION

VISUAL COMPREHENSION: COGNITIVE PROCESSING OF ART TEXT BY

PREADOLESCENT AND ADOLESCENT READERS

Sandra M. Loughlin, Patricia A. Alexander, Daniel L. Dinsmore, Emily W. Fox, and Emily

M. Grossnickle

University of Maryland

DRAFT


Abstract

Educational theorists have contended that the cognitive processes required to comprehend art are similar to processes activated by reading traditional text. However, there is scant empirical research that supports these contentions by explicating the nature of visual comprehension processes. This study explored how “reading” art text mapped onto reading traditional text. We used think-aloud protocols to analyze the processing of 35 fourth-grade and 34 eighth-grade students from public and private schools comprehending two works of art. Think-aloud data provided evidence of 14 text comprehension processes, including elaborating and inferring. Results indicated that comprehension of artistic text entail cognitive processes that have been documented in the reading of traditional text.


According to Alexander and Jetton (2003) and others (e.g., Watts, 2007), text constitutes both traditional text (i.e., linear print) and alternative text (e.g., hypertext, oral text, film, or diagrams). This more liberal conceptualization of text is associated with an expanded view of literacy. Alvermann (2001), for instance, suggests that the tem literacy be broadened to include multiple literacies , such as computer, visual, graphic, and scientific literacies. Au and Raphael (2000) go further to include movement-based communications like dance under the rubric of literacy. Such expanded conceptualizations are grounded in the notion that literacy is a sociocultural practice, and that literacies vary across cultural contexts (Au & Raphael, 2000; Street, 1995). Thus, traditional text literacy is but one of many literacies that should be recognized and valued.

Educational researchers have employed alternative texts as a mechanism from exploring multiple literacies, including hypertext (e.g., Salmerón, Kintsch, & Cañas, 2006), oral text (e.g., Vandergrift, Goh, & Mareschal, 2006), television (Kendeou, van den Broek,

White, & Lynch, 2007) diagrams (e.g., Butcher, 2006), and wordless picture books (e.g.,

Paris & Paris, 2003). However, there is scant research that investigates the cognitive processes engaged in another form of alternative text, visual art.

Educational theorists have suggested that the apprehension of meaning from art in general, and visual art in particular, is cognitively demanding and rich in opportunities for thinking and learning (Efland, 2002; Goodman, 1976; Perkins, 1994). Cognitive processes theoretically associated with making meaning of art include many of those long associated with traditional reading comprehension, such as connecting to background knowledge, questioning, and elaborating (Graesser, 2007; Hilden & Pressley, 2007). This assumed

Visual Comprehension 4 similarity has led some to describe understanding visual information as visual literacy

(Azripe & Styles, 2003).

Educational practitioners have embraced the suggestion that art and traditional text tap similar meaning-making processes, and have developed a variety of art-based reading instructional practices (e.g., Clyde, 2003; Williams, 2007). For instance, it is assumed that art experiences will positively affect student learning and academic achievement (Winner

& Cooper, 2000). However, there is little evidence to support such assumptions. In fact, a meta-analysis revealed only a handful of studies addressing visual art and reading that conformed to rigorous standards of research (Burger & Winner, 2000). Further, Burger and

Winner noted that the reviewed studies did not explicate the cognitive processes inherent in making meaning from artwork. Rather, the reviewed studies generally tested the assumption that reading skills, generally defined, were enhanced by instruction in visual arts.

Therefore, we undertook this study to explore the cognitive processing that emerged in students’ “reading” of art and to compare those to the processing associated with the reading of traditional text.

Theoretical Framing

Because the cognitive processing comparisons we will be making between traditional and alternative art texts are less trodden territory, we begin by establishing the legitimacy of this endeavor. In his seminal work on this subject, philosopher Nelson

Goodman (1976) noted that both art and text are structured symbol systems that encode information visually. Letters, words, and sentences are used to present information in traditional text, just as color, line, and shape convey information artistically. Further,

Goodman argued that these symbol systems require not only decoding, but also encoding

Visual Comprehension 5 and recoding as the ideas or experiences represented by these symbols are perceived, pondered, and shared. For example, in text-based decoding, this means understanding the relation between phonemes and graphemes (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, &

Seidenberg, 2001), while decoding in art deals with perceptual features such as contrast and visual complexity (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004).

In addition to being structured symbol systems, both art and text have similar purposes—to communicate ideas, feelings, or experiences (Arnheim, 1989). For example, poet Langston Hughes and artist Palmer Hayden both communicated their experiences as

African American artists during the Harlem Renaissance, but used different media to convey their ideas. Art and traditional text both offer the potential for complexity and multiple layers of meaning. In traditional texts such as poetry, ideas can be presented abstractly, using figurative language or allusions to meaning (Peskin, 1998). Similarly, art texts can be symbolic or non-representational, requiring the viewer to go beyond the literal image (Yenawine, 1991).

Art Text Comprehension

For this investigation, we define art text as a type of alternative text, specifically a visual composition intended to communicate ideas. In the present study, we further operationalize this term to mean paintings. Art text comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from this medium of communication.

Unlike reading comprehension, art comprehension is not a priority of formal public education (Eisner, 2002). Thus, the field has received almost no attention in educational psychology literature, and very little is known about the processes required to understand art (Koroscik, 1984). Instead, the majority of psychological research in art has been

Visual Comprehension 6 devoted to information-processing explanations of visual perception, (e.g., Ramachandran

& Hirstein, 1999; Solso, 1996) or explorations of factors that influence preference or aesthetic appreciation (e.g., Leder et al., 2004; van Meel-Jansen, 2006).

The relatively limited empirical research on art text comprehension processes is likely influenced by a long-term and widespread opinion that the domain of art is concerned mainly with affect or emotion (Efland, 2002). While affective response is certainly implicated in art text comprehension (Silvia & Brown, 2007), there are significant cognitive demands, as well. For example, in his book, The Intelligent Eye: Learning to

Think by Looking at Art

, David Perkins (1994) argues that, “Looking at art invites, rewards, and encourages thoughtful dispositions, because works of art demand thoughtful attention to discover what they have to show and say” (p. 4). Drawing upon the work of Perkins and others, Tishman and Palmer (2006) have recently proposed six types of thinking that they believe are required to explore and appreciate art texts: reasoning, questioning and investigating, exploring points of view, comparing and connecting, exploring complexity, and noticing and describing.

Despite these and other theoretical examinations, the assertion that art texts require cognitive processing has been supported with few studies in research literature. Using an information-processing model, Korosckin (1984) suggested two broad processes for viewing and understanding paintings, structural and semantic. Structural information processing includes encoding and relating an artwork’s physical properties and visual elements, while semantic information processing addresses the interpretation of meaning.

Korosckin described semantic processing as identification of representational features,

Visual Comprehension 7 recognition of symbolic denotation, and determination of underlying principles (e.g., religious, political, or philosophical ideas).

In contrast, Benton (1992) identified three phases of looking in which the participants engaged: perception of the painting itself, conception of it within the mind, and construction of meaning. These representations may resemble those associated with the three levels of text representation in the Construction-Integration model of discourse comprehension: surface level, textbase, and situation model (e.g., Kintsch, 1988).

Despite the lack of research addressing art text comprehension, there is a growing body of research addressing the comprehension of some other visual texts, including picture books and visual text adjuncts like diagrams. For instance, Paris and Paris (2003) studied young children’s narrative comprehension of several wordless picture books. They concluded that the processes elicited in the children’s comprehension of picture books as narratives were similar to processes elicited in traditional texts, and that students’ ability to comprehend the picture texts was concurrent to and predictive of standardized measures of traditional literacy.

Studies on other, frequently didactic, visual text adjuncts such as diagrams, illustrations, and maps have also demonstrated requisite comprehension processes. For example, Butcher (2007) examined the cognitive processing of simplified and complex diagrams used as text adjuncts. Analyses of participants’ think-aloud data revealed that both types of diagrams supported inference generation and reduced traditional text comprehension errors. In addition, simplified diagrams supported textual-visual information integration during learning. Butcher concluded that visual representations appear to support the cognitive processes necessary for deep comprehension. While picture

Visual Comprehension 8 books and diagrams are forms of visual texts, they may be less likely to provide the extended opportunities for building meaning than art texts such as paintings, especially those meanings that are constrained to interpreting traditional text adjuncts.

These studies, and the handful of others addressing cognition and art, support the idea that cognitive comprehension processes are engaged when individuals attempt to understand visual texts, including works of visual art. What is less clear, however, is what processes are engaged in art text comprehension and how they work together to help the reader make meaning of art texts. For instance, how do viewers recognize symbolic denotation in an art text (Korosckin, 1984) or construct its meaning (Benton, 1992)? In order to better understand the cognitive mechanisms underlying these complex processes, we draw on traditional reading comprehension research.

Traditional Text Comprehension

Unlike art text comprehension, a great deal is known about the cognitive processes implicated in making meaning from traditional texts. Reading comprehension, the process of constructing meaning from written text (Gambrell & Koskinen, 2002), provides the base for a significant portion of learning in and out of school contexts, and has therefore been the focus of a significant and rich history of research.

Reading traditional text has two broad components: word recognition or decoding and comprehension. Word identification requires a reader to use alphabetic principles to accurately, consistently, and rapidly make sound-symbol correspondences that transform letters into words (Georgiou, Parilla, & Papadoloulos, 2008). This process is a necessary prerequisite to comprehension, which requires the reader to construct meaningful connections between words and parts of text.


One valuable model of reading is Kintsch’s (1988) Construction-Integration model.

This model has three levels of representation that the reader develops in the course of making meaning from traditional text. The first level of representation is the surface text, which includes identification of specific words, connected text, and overall text structure.

The second level, the textbase, requires the reader to make meaningful connections between text elements, such as words or sentences. These connections are largely cued from the text itself, thus requiring minimal reference to prior knowledge (Coté, Goldman,

& Saul, 1998). Finally, the reader must situate the text in the world referenced by the text.

This situation model requires the reader to meaningfully relate the text to relevant knowledge about the topic of the text and general world knowledge.

Kintsch’s (1988) model assumes an active, participatory reader, and the reader’s ability to construct a coherent textbase or situation model is likely to be influenced by what the reader brings to the reading situation. Several of these reader-level factors affecting traditional text comprehension have been identified, including connecting to background or prior knowledge (Romance & Vitale, 2001), vocabulary or word knowledge (Cromley &

Azevedo, 2007), and motivation (Guthrie et al., 2004; Guthrie et al., 2007). Another critical component of reading comprehension success is the appropriate implementation of comprehension skills and strategies. Comprehension strategies are cognitive or behavioral actions used by readers, which are enacted under particular contextual conditions with the goal of improving some aspect of comprehension (Graesser, 2007). In contrast, reading comprehension skills are automatized processes that have become second nature to a more expert reader (Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008). Both skills and strategies are cognitive processes, distinguished only by their effortful implementation. Reading comprehension

Visual Comprehension 10 processes include actions such as connecting to background knowledge, asking and answering questions, visualizing, or summarizing (e.g. Hilden & Pressley, 2007).

Much of the research identifying the cognitive processes involved in traditional text comprehension has come from studies using think aloud or verbal report protocols, which are rich sources for identification of cognitive and metacognitive activities, as well as reader responses to text (Schellings, Aarnoutse, & van Leeuwe, 2006). Think-aloud protocols are research methodologies in which a participant performs a task while continuously reporting thoughts or feelings that occur during its implementation (Ericsson

& Simon, 1984; Eva-Wood, 2004). It is assumed that these on-line verbalizations are related to a participant’s concurrent thoughts that emanate from working memory (Ericsson

& Simon, 1984).

Think-aloud protocols are viewed as dependable because verbalized thinking occurs simultaneously with the thinking process and the task, making it possible to draw reliable connections between verbalized thought and task action (Ericsson & Simon, 1984).

Additionally, think-aloud protocols provide a relatively unadulterated view of thinking, because the researcher does not attempt to interpret or influence thinking during the thinkaloud task, nor is the participant asked to theorize about his or her own thinking (Schellings et al., 2006). Finally, think alouds are not perceived to significantly impact task performance, because the thoughts that are reported are present in working memory, which is easily accessible (Ericsson & Simon, 1984).

Due to its reliance on thoughts present in working memory, think-aloud protocol in reading provide information only about deliberately enacted reading strategies; reading skills are automatized, and therefore do not impact working memory. Therefore, expert

Visual Comprehension 11 readers do not report the same cognitive processes as novice or competent readers (Fox &

Alexander, 2006; Fox, Maggioni, & Riconscente, 2005). This does not mean that expert readers do not engage in a wide variety of reading comprehension processes, only that many of those processes are automatized skills instead of effortful strategies.

In an extensive review of think-aloud literature, Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) identified a long list of reading comprehension actions or processes, which are organized by processes that aid the reader in constructing text meaning, monitoring reading behavior, and evaluating text. While not all of these processes have been demonstrated in any one participant or in any one study, a number of these comprehension processes have been exhibited in think-aloud research with preadolescent and adolescent readers. For instance, in a study of 24 third-graders thinking aloud while reading expository text, Schellings et al.

(2006) identified three types of reading comprehension behaviors, including text reproduction, metacognition, and comprehension strategy use. The strategic comprehension processes used by the third-graders were predicting, responding to visual text adjuncts, commenting upon the text, identifying a contradiction, adding information, inferring the meaning of a word, and inferring an idea correctly.

Chamot and Beard El-Dinary (1999) also considered the comprehension processes revealed by preadolescents in their study of third- and fourth-graders in language immersion classrooms. They also identified a number of metacognitive, self-regulatory, recall, and cognitive strategies. The cognitive strategies were broadly grouped into inference-generation, prediction, and elaboration, with each group containing several subgroups.


Adolescents’ comprehension processing of traditional text has also been considered in the think-aloud literature. Wolfe and Goldman (2005) identified five categories reflecting different kinds of text processing used by sixth-graders reading about a historical issue from multiple information sources: paraphrasing, evaluating, identification of comprehension problems (e.g., “What does that mean?”), identification of comprehension success (e.g., “That makes sense”), and elaborating. The elaborating category was further coded to reflect the source of elaborated information: self-explanation, surface-text connection, irrelevant association, and prediction.

Research has also been conducted with adolescents reading literary text. Janssen,

Braaksma, and Rijlaarsdam (2006) studied 19 tenth-graders thinking aloud about narrative short stories. From these protocols, the researchers identified eight reading processes: retelling, inferring, detecting problems, making associations, analyzing, evaluating, responding emotionally, and responding metacognitively.

A few think-aloud studies have directly compared the comprehension processes articulated by preadolescent and adolescent readers. For example, Moore and Scevak

(1997) compared fifth, seventh, and eighth graders’ processing of two types of expository texts with visual aids: a history text and a science text. Analyses of the think-aloud protocols yielded over 50 different processes, subsumed under 10 major categories. Four of these categories were observed with and without reference to the accompanying diagram: details, main idea, theme, and general. Two additional categories specifically addressed students’ creation of visual artifacts, namely artifact production and artifact use.

The coding systems used by these and other think-aloud studies have been conducted within the frame of traditional text comprehension by preadolescent and

Visual Comprehension 13 adolescent readers. Yet the theoretical work of Goodman (1976) and Perkins (1994), and the research on picture books and diagrams (Butcher, 2006; Paris & Paris, 2003), point to a possible connection to art text comprehension. Thus, we used the comprehension processes identified in these studies to inform our predictions about the art text comprehension processes of preadolescent and adolescent readers.

Research Questions

The focus of this study is to examine how “reading” paintings maps onto what we know about reading traditional text.

Based upon the theory and empirical work noted above, our study addressed this issue through three broad, exploratory research questions.

These questions, along with their related predictions, are presented below.

Do preadolescent and adolescent readers exhibit traditional text comprehension processes when trying to comprehend an art text?

We predicted that the cognitive processes involved in understanding artwork are similar to the processes known to be activated in reading comprehension. Specifically, we predicted that students would need to make text connections, respond to and evaluate the text, infer, elaborate, and question in order to comprehend the art texts. To elicit these processes in order to test this prediction, we relied on think alouds, which have been widely used in reading comprehension research (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).

Do preadolescent readers demonstrate different art text comprehension processes than adolescent readers?

Traditional text comprehension strategies manifest differentially in age groups, with older readers interpreting and elaborating more appropriately than younger readers, although differential processing is closely related to particular reading situations (Fox,


2009; Oakhill & Cain, 2007). Likewise, Parsons (1987) and van Meel-Jansen (2006) suggest that there are developmental differences in students’ art comprehension processes, with older children more likely to exhibit emotion and interpretation-related responses than younger children. Thus, we predicted that eighth-grade participants would infer, elaborate, respond emotionally, and interpret more than would fourth-grade readers.

How does interest in art affect the art text comprehension processes of adolescent and preadolescent readers?

We also predicted that interest would impact the types of statements made by the participants. Expertise research, such as the Model of Domain Learning forwarded by

Alexander and colleagues (e.g., Alexander, 1997; Alexander, Jetton, & Kulikowich, 1995) suggests that interest impacts how individuals process information, with higher levels of interest related to higher-level processing toward a situation model of the art text. Based on this research, we expected that students with higher levels of interest in art (as measured by their art-related activities outside of school) would infer, elaborate, and interpret more frequently than students with low interest in art.

Method

Participants

The participants in the study were 35 fourth-grade and 34 eighth-grade students from a mid-Atlantic state. Approximately 40 percent of the participants ( n = 28) were enrolled in one of two small, suburban, parochial schools serving students in kindergarten through eighth grade. The remaining participants ( n = 41) were enrolled public schools in the same area. Of the 69 total participants, 40 were female and 29 were male, with 65 percent of the participants representing non-Caucasian ethnicities. This level of diversity

Visual Comprehension 15 was similar across school type. All participants were above nine years of age, received parental permission, and were expected to be able to read and comprehend the assent form and respond in a meaningful way to the measures and the think-aloud protocol (Azripe &

Styles, 2003).

We chose to target fourth and eighth graders in this investigation for two reasons.

First, within the developmental psychology literature, there is ample evidence to assume that cognitive processing differences might result for the preadolescent and early adolescent learners (e.g., Moshman, 1998; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Second, comprehension differences between preadolescent and early adolescent readers have also been reported (Moje, 2002; Sturtevant, Boyd, Brozo, Hinchman, Moore, & Alvermann,

2006). Given our purpose of exploring the processing of art as alternative text, we wanted to test for such age/grade differences in this study.

The fourth-grade public school students attended a small, suburban elementary school, while the eighth-grade students were enrolled at a large, suburban middle school.

All schools in the study provided visual art education once a week through fourth grade, and then offered art as an elective subject thereafter. Based on the populations served by the public and private schools in terms of socioeconomic status and diversity of the student populations, as well as the aforementioned exposure to art education, it was determined that these two sites would be relatively comparable. This determination was later supported in the patterns of outcome data for which there were no significant differences between students in the public and private schools ( F = 1.241, df = 6, 62, p = 0.30). Therefore, in the analyses for this study, data from the public and private school students were aggregated.


Measures

Individual Interest.

Interest in art was measured with eight self-report items that directed participants to indicate frequency of participation in visual art-related activities outside of school (e.g., “Drawing or painting;” or “Going to art museums”). This

“experienced-based” measure of individual interest has been used successfully in prior studies (e.g., Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008). It was generated on the assumption that a better indicator of students’ more enduring versus transient or hypothetical interests is what they report doing rather than liking (Schiefele & Csikszentmihalyi, 1995). All items were measured using a continuous 100-millimeter line. Participants were asked to make a slashmark on the line corresponding to their level of activity. The possible responses for the activity question ranged from “Never” (i.e., 0 mm) to “Very often” (i.e., 100 mm).

Cronbach's alpha for this measure was acceptable for research (α = 0.73).

Looking at art in books or magazines

never very often

Artworks. The comprehension tasks used in this study involved reproductions of two fine art paintings: The Janitor Who Paints (1937) by Palmer Hayden and Birthday

(1913) by Marc Chagall (see Appendices A and B). The two paintings were presented as full-color prints, and re-sized to fit a standard 8.5” x 11” sheet of paper. Even though the artworks were presented as reproductions and not in their original size, we did not anticipate any effect on the students’ analysis of their meanings (Locher, Smith, & Smith,

1999). The title of the work, artist, year of publication, and ownership were also included with the image. The titles were included to aid the participants in making meaning of the

Visual Comprehension 17 images; including titles has been shown to increase understanding and engagement with art

(Franklin, Becklin, & Doyle, 1993).

The selection of the paintings for this study was based on several criteria. First, the works were intended to be unfamiliar to the participants, which we verified prior to beginning the think alouds. We chose to focus on unfamiliar works because we wanted participants’ comments to reflect more spontaneous impressions and initial understanding rather than those recalled or previously formed. Second, the artwork was selected to reflect a medium level of complexity, as defined by a relatively realistic representation, a discernable structure, and familiar semantic features. Such factors have been shown to affect the preference and processing of artwork (Berlyne, 1974; Silvia, 2005). The difficulty level of traditional text in think alouds has also been shown to affect comprehension; text must be at an appropriate level of difficulty to elicit strategic processing while not being so difficult as to shut it down altogether (Pressley & Afflerbach,

1995). Thus, we chose two painting that were fairly realistic in nature, with clearly discernible indoor scenes including people and objects. The chosen paintings were shown to an elementary and a middle school art teacher, who validated their complexity level.

Finally, the paintings were chosen for their potential narrative interpretability, which has also been shown to be preferable for novice viewers (Winston & Cupchik, 1992).

Think-aloud task.

Participants were asked to think aloud while studying each of the paintings. We specifically directed students to study the painting (versus “enjoy” or “look at” or other more general term) in order to ensure that they understood we were interested in more than a transient or fleeting exposure to the work. Students were told that when they

Visual Comprehension 18 finished studying at the artwork, they would be asked questions about it. Specifically, participants were told:

In a few moments, I am going to show you a painting, and I would like you to study it. While you are studying the painting, I would like you to talk out loud so I know what you are doing and thinking. So, for example, if you are looking at the objects in the painting, you might say, “I see a cat.” If something in the painting reminds you of something else, you might say, “This reminds me of a story I read in class.”

You might also have a reaction to the painting, and you should tell me about that, too. Do you have any questions about how to think out loud? Now, I am going to ask you to think out loud while you study the painting. After you are finished studying it, I will ask you some questions about it. Let me know when you are finished looking.

After each think aloud, students responded to a set of questions regarding the art text, however those data will not be addressed here. Participants' think-aloud verbalizations were recorded with a digital audio recorder. The think-aloud data were intended to investigate cognitive processes, strategy use, and overall engagement with the art activity.

Due to time constraints, we were unable to provide students with think-aloud training or practice prior to the first audiotaped session. However, the students completed two think alouds (one for each painting), and there were not significant differences on the outcome variables in the two sessions ( F = 2.06, df = 6, 62, p = 0.072). Additionally, the two art pieces were counterbalanced to minimize order effects.


Procedures

Participants met with either the first or third author at their elementary or middle schools in a room near their classroom twice with a one-to two-week interval between the sessions. When possible, each experimenter met with the same participants for both sessions and was matched by gender. During the first session, participants completed the art interest measure and completed the think aloud for one of the two paintings. During the second session, participants completed the think aloud for the second piece of art. Sessions were untimed but were rather brief in duration, lasting for an average of 259.64 seconds for fourth graders and 195.34 seconds for eighth graders. This difference was not significant ( F

= 2.38, df = 1, 65, p = 0.13). The collected think alouds were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim for coding and analysis.

Three participants were absent from school on the second day of data collection, so we were unable to obtain the second think aloud for them. One additional student’s thinkaloud protocols were uncodable, and were eliminated from the analyses. The remaining

133 think alouds were coded independently by the first and fifth authors, and then compared. Any differences in coding were resolved through discussion.

Coding

We began with 17 a priori codes arising from a pilot study that also used thinkaloud protocol to explore the processes used by fourth and eighth graders to make meaning from paintings. These 17 a priori codes reflected ten empirically established reading comprehension processes (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) and seven processes discussed in art analysis (Schmidt, McLaughlin, & Leighten, 1989). Specifically, the ten reading comprehension processes were questioning, elaborating, inferring, evaluating the author’s


(i.e. artist’s) purpose, connecting to life experiences, intertextuality, connecting to text features, constructing explanations, interpreting symbols, and responding to emotions. The seven a priori art comprehension processes were responding to aesthetics and six attentional codes (i.e., where respondents directed their attention): objects, actions, location, object characteristics, visual elements (e.g., color, or line), and text features. After coding a sample of the transcripts from the current data, we added additional codes for connecting to prior knowledge, evaluating quality, and contextualizing the scene.

To make our data more interpretable, we condensed the 20 codes into six groups reflecting broad comprehension processes: noticing, responding, connecting, evaluating, constructing within the text, and constructing beyond the text.

Noticing. This grouping code included statements of attention and perception.

Specifically, it combined noticing: objects, object location, object characteristics, object actions, and visual elements (e.g., color, or line). We also included reading text features

(e.g., Leder, Carbon, & Ripsas, 2006). Noticing accounted for 69.23 percent of the overall coded statements.

Responding. During the think-aloud sessions, students occasionally articulated overt reactions to the paintings. Thus, we created a Responding grouping code to reflect two types of reactions: responding aesthetically (e.g., Schmidt, McLaughlin, & Leighten, 1989) and responding emotionally (e.g., Silvia, 2005). The Responding code made up 2.23 percent of the overall statements.

Connecting. Occasionally, participants would make statements linking specific information in the painting to other sources. We created the Connecting grouping code for these relational statements, and included four types of connection-making activities:

Visual Comprehension 21 connecting to life experiences, connecting to other paintings, connecting to prior knowledge, and connecting to the painting’s text features (e.g., title, or year of publication).

Connecting accounted for 2.09 percent of the overall code statements.

Evaluating. This grouping code combined statements that revealed the student evaluating the art text. Specifically, the Evaluating code included evaluating the artist’s purpose and evaluating the quality of the artwork. On average, participants evaluated 0.30 percent of the time.

Constructing within. We grouped together four types of comprehension processes that involved bringing together prior knowledge and information in the text: making an inference, drawing conclusions, identifying symbolism, and constructing explanations. We considered such behaviors to reflect a strategic attempt to build an understanding of the meaning of the text by building an integrated situation model of the art text using strategic comprehension behaviors. Instances of constructing within the text were relatively high, accounting for 19.44 percent of the code statements.

Constructing beyond. Participants also manifested constructive processes that speculated beyond the specifics or content of the art text. Our Constructing Beyond code thus included elaborative statements and statements reflecting the readers’ contextualization of the scene (i.e., inferring the state of the world from the information presented in the text; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). As the example illustrates, such utterances extended beyond the information presented in the text. These speculations beyond the text reflected a more- or less-integrated situation model, depending upon the appropriateness of the prior knowledge used. However, our coding scheme was not

Visual Comprehension 22 sensitive to these differences. This grouping code was representative of 6.71 percent of the coded statements.

Questioning. One of the original 20 codes, Questioning , was difficult to categorize in any one of the six coding groups, because our analysis was not fine-grained enough to distinguish the type of question being asked. For instance, “I wonder why the artist painted this,” and “Did they just get married or something?” were both coded as questions, but they have different types of referent. “I wonder why the artist painted this,” is reflective of an attempt to evaluate, while “Did they just get married or something?” demonstrates an attempt to construct a situation model of the art text. Thus, the questioning code was not included in the subsequent analyses. However, it should be noted that our descriptive analysis suggested that almost all of the questions arose from the readers’ attempts to evaluate the art text, or to construct situation models within or beyond the text. Because we did not code the question referent, only the frequencies of the Evaluation, Constructing

Within, and Constructing Beyond codes are underrepresented in our data.

To capture the complexity of the art text comprehension processing engaged in by our participants, we used a multi-level coding scheme, in which single statements often received multiple codes. For instance, the word mother was coded both as an observation of objects (OO) and as an inference (IN). Whole statements received multiple codes, as well, reflecting the myriad processes evidenced by the participant.

OO/IN OA IN OO OA OL OO OC/OO OL

I see a mother holding her baby. They are sitting by a table with an alarm clock on it.

OO/IN IN CE OA OO OC/OO/CK

The husband is dead because he is floating and she is wearing a funeral outfit.


The coding scheme with grouping codes and sub-codes, along with relevant definitions, descriptions, and sample statements is provided in Table 1.

Results and Discussion

To address the three exploratory research questions, analyses were conducted using a combination of correlation and boot-strapped group-comparison procedures. The results of these analyses for the three research questions are presented and discussed below.

Do preadolescent and adolescent readers exhibit traditional text comprehension processes when trying to comprehend an art text?

In line with our prediction, the data from the think-aloud protocols indicated that preadolescent and adolescent readers did exhibit traditional text comprehension processes when trying to make meaning of art text. Specifically, we observed 14 comprehension processes commonly associated with traditional text: questioning, elaborating, inferring, evaluating the author’s (i.e. artist’s) purpose, connecting to life experiences, intertextuality, reading and connecting to text features, constructing explanations, interpreting symbols, responding to emotions, connecting to prior knowledge, evaluating the quality of the text, and contextualizing the scene.

In addition to the 14 comprehension processes associated with traditional text comprehension, we also found evidence of six processes not commonly associated with traditional text comprehension but potentially capturing attentional and perceptional processes involved in the processing of any symbolic array, be it linguistic or nonlinguistic: observation of objects, actions, visual elements, location, object characteristics; and responding to aesthetics. Moreover, we found evidence of a statistically significant relation between traditional text and art text comprehension processes in bivariate correlations

Visual Comprehension 24 between the six code categories (i.e., noticing, connecting, responding, evaluating, constructing within, and constructing beyond). These correlations appear in Table 2.

The noticing and connecting grouping codes were significantly interrelated ( r =

0.04, p < .01). This small, but significant relation may stem from a common purpose, such as aiding the reader in constructing a textbase by making meaningful connections between elements in the painting and limited prior knowledge schemata. Additionally, we found that both the noticing and connecting grouping codes were significantly related to constructing within and beyond the text. This relation may suggest that the ability to engage in art text comprehension processes is predicated on basic attentional and perceptual processes, much like building a situation model with traditional text is dependent upon the formulation of a coherent text base.

These data did not reveal significant relational patterns for responding to and evaluating the art text; evaluating was not significantly correlated with any other grouping codes, and responding was only associated with constructing within (i.e., r = .32, p < .01).

However, due to the relatively small percentage of statements that were coded as evaluative or responsive (0.03 and 2.24 percent, respectively), it is hard to say whether this pattern is interpretable.

Do preadolescent readers demonstrate different art text comprehension processes than adolescent readers?

Think-aloud protocols elicit count data (i.e., observations that can only take nonnegative integer values and arise from counting rather than ranking), which cannot be assumed to be normally distributed. One method for addressing non-normal data is through the use of non-parametric bootstrapping. This procedure uses the median, and the 5 th

and


95 th

percentile values in a repeated sample re-sampling strategy which creates a distribution of scores based on the participants. Treatments of bootstrapping can be found in numerous sources (e.g., Efron & Tibshirani, 1997). There are a number of advantages to the nonparametric bootstrapping procedure. One advantage vis-à-vis the present study is that this procedure is robust to non-normal distributions, which, by their nature, think-aloud data can be. Another advantage of this procedure is that it mitigates the influence of outliers.

Think-aloud analyses that use raw data counts are often criticized because they allow the possibility for exceptionally verbose or quiet participants to skew the data. The nonparametric bootstrapping procedure uses the median value to construct a representative distribution of the sample data, which is robust to the influence of outliers, so our analysis minimizes the effect of these extreme participants.

To assess the differences between preadolescent and adolescent readers on each of the code groups (i.e., noticing, connecting, responding, evaluating, constructing within, and constructing beyond) we ran six non-parametric boot straps using an N = 5000 resampling strategy. The null hypothesis for this test is that there are no differences between fourth and eighth graders on the mean number of statements in each of the six coding groups. We created a 95% confidence interval to determine when to accept or fail to reject this null hypothesis. We also assessed the variation in number of statements for each code group by examining the means and standard deviations, and concluded that there was sufficient variability to warrant further exploration. Finally, we compared the percentages of the six code groups for fourth and eighth graders, using the median values. The descriptive statistics of code categories for fourth and eighth graders and the percentages of code

Visual Comprehension 26 categories for fourth and eighth graders using median values are presented in Tables 3 and

4, respectively.

Noticing.

Noticing had by far the highest medians for any of the code categories, with fourth graders making an average of 34.69 observations and eighth graders averaging

32.59 statements. From the bootstrap, we determine that the 95% confidence interval around the median difference spanned -9.84 to 12.86. Since this confidence interval was inclusive of zero, we failed to reject the null hypothesis that there were no group differences, and concluded that preadolescent and adolescent readers displayed similar attentional and perceptional processes. Further, we see this pattern in data as supporting the idea that attentional and perceptional processes are potentially basic cognitive activities for participants—activities that result in information that can be subsequently processed.

Connecting.

Unlike the Noticing code, the medians for Connecting were much lower—1.20 statements on average for fourth graders and 0.82 for eighth graders. The calculated 95% confidence interval around the median difference for Connecting ranged from -0.66 to 1.87. Again, since zero was included in the confidence interval, we failed to reject the null hypothesis, and concluded that preadolescent and adolescent readers did not connect differentially to the text.

Responding.

The group medians for the Responding code were similar in magnitude to the medians for Connecting; 0.89 and 1.29 respectively for fourth graders and eighth graders. The 95% confidence interval around the median difference for this grouping code spanned –1.16 to 0.31. Again, we failed to reject the null hypothesis, and concluded that adolescent and preadolescent readers responded in a similar fashion to the art text.


Evaluating.

Of the six grouping codes, Evaluating occurred with the least frequency. On average, fourth graders made only 0.11 evaluative statements, while eighth graders made an average of 0.18 statements. However, the 95% confidence around the median difference interval once again included zero (CI = -0.36 to 0.17), so we again failed to reject the null hypothesis, and concluded that, though infrequent, evaluative statements were not significantly different for preadolescent and adolescent readers.

Constructing Within.

The data indicate that participants were frequently

Constructing Within the text, as evidenced by medians of 9.23 and 9.68 statements for fourth graders and eighth graders respectively. The 95% confidence interval around the median difference for constructing within was from -4.98 to 4.94 and inclusive of zero.

Thus, we again failed to reject the null hypothesis, and determined that preadolescent and adolescent readers were similarly constructing within-text situation models.

Constructing Beyond.

The students in the sample also built situation models by

Constructing Beyond the art text. Specifically, fourth graders made 3.88 Constructing

Beyond statements on average, while eighth graders made an average of 5.19. The 95% confidence interval around the median difference was from -3.43 to 0.82 indicating a failure to reject the null hypothesis. From these data, we concluded that preadolescent and adolescent readers did not differentially construct situation models that extended beyond the art text.

Our failure to reject the null hypothesis for any of the six code groups indicates that our sample of preadolescent students did not demonstrate statistically different comprehension processes than the adolescent students. This finding was unanticipated, given the literature in both developmental psychology and reading (Fox, 2009; Oakhill &


Cain, 2007). Although we did not find significant differences in the quantitative analyses, the descriptive data do offer some interesting glimpses into potential differences between these preadolescent and adolescent students. Specifically, the median data by category by grade revealed that much of the cognitive energy of the students was directed toward attentional and perceptional processing with little or no evaluative or affective responses to the artworks. Moreover, the younger students were more engaged in the attentional and perceptional processes of “studying” the art, whereas the older students demonstrated a slightly greater tendency to forge connections within the painting than did the fourth graders.

How does interest in art affect the art text comprehension processes of adolescent and preadolescent readers?

Interest in art was measured using an eight-item scale. To make this scale interpretable in relation to the six groups of comprehension processes, we used principal components analysis. One factor had an eigenvalue significantly greater than one, explaining 35.63% of the variance. The scree plot was additional evidence for a one-factor solution. While the variance explained was relatively low, the loadings were high on items that were of particular interest to us (i.e., painting, drawing, looking at art online, and reading about artists online). Table 5 shows the rotated factor loadings on component 1.

We concluded that this scale was a useful indicator of interest in art, and valuable in exploring the relation between interest and art text comprehension strategies.

To address this research question, we used factor scores from component one in a series of regressions, with interest as a predictor of each of the six comprehension categories. The standardized betas and significance tests for the interest regressions appear

Visual Comprehension 29 in Table 6. The betas for all six the regressions equations were non-significant, although there was a slight trend for connecting beyond ( t = 0.22, p = 0.08).

There are several possible explanations for this counter-predicted finding. First, the standard deviations for each of the eight items on the scale were rather high, indicating that the fourth and eighth graders may have tended to use extreme ends of the 100-mm line, which would impact the amount of variance explained. It is possible there are developmental patterns that elicit extreme responses from these age groups, wherein they perceive themselves engaging in activities very frequently or rarely, when the actual frequency of activity is more moderate.

A near-floor effect for aesthetic responses and evaluations may also explain the present findings. In their comparison of expert and novice strategies for understanding paintings, Schmidt, McLaughlin, and Leighten (1989) noted that art experts were more likely than novices to verbalize the formal elements of the art and to evaluate the style of the paintings. In contrast, novices were more likely than experts to describe the semantic, or content, features of the paintings, more than the formal elements. The infrequency of

Evaluating and Responding categories in the present study indicate that the participants were not competent enough in the domain of art to show discernable patterns in the relation between interest and comprehension processing which may arise from greater expertise in art.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study was one of the first to systematically investigate the visual comprehension processes involved in the apprehension of meaning from art as an alternative text form, and to explore the theoretical relation between those processes and

Visual Comprehension 30 those involved in the comprehension of traditional text. Moreover, our sample size was relatively large for a study investigating comprehension processes, and the targeting of fourth graders and eighth graders afforded us the opportunity to look for potential developmental differences.

In keeping with our expectations, results of the study demonstrated that the cognitive processes required to “read” artwork share similarities with the processes known to be active in traditional reading comprehension. Specifically, we found evidence from think-aloud statements that students engaged in six broad comprehension processes: noticing, making connections, responding to the art text, evaluating the work, and constructing meaning within and beyond the text. Moreover, we found that both the noticing and connecting grouping codes were significantly related to constructing within and beyond the text. This relation may suggest that the ability to engage in art text comprehension processes is predicated on basic attentional and perceptual processes, much like building a situation model with traditional text is dependent upon the formulation of a coherent textbase.

Our second prediction regarding differential processing of art text by preadolescent and adolescent students was not confirmed. When we selected fourth and eighth graders for this investigation, we did so with some expectation that there may well be developmental differences in the processing of art texts. This expectation was based on trends documented in both the developmental psychology (e.g., Moshman, 1998; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles,

2006) and reading literatures (e.g., Moje, 2002; Sturtevant, Boyd, Brozo, Hinchman,

Moore, & Alvermann, 2006). However, such differences were not evidenced. There are several possible explanations for this counterintuitive finding.


First, based on the data, we have evidence that the art literacy task we chose was within a suitable range for our fourth and eighth graders. There was ample variability in performance and students appeared to engage well in the task during the think aloud processing. However, despite their exposure to art education within the school setting, we would classify the experimental task as novel or unfamiliar to both fourth and eighth graders. To our knowledge, these students have not explicitly been asked to “study” a work of art or to think aloud as they share their understandings. This novelty factor could serve to explain the lack of developmental effect in that the cognitive processes being tapped were not advantaged by experience and were within the maturation range for these two groups of students. The descriptive data in Table 4 provides some support for our contention that this was a novel task for the students requiring more effort toward building the textbase. It is also conceivable that these students were not “schooled” in evaluation of art text and, consequently, did not feel self-efficacious at engaging in such a critique.

Second, both paintings depicted scenes that were somewhat familiar to both fourth and eighth graders. Thus, the tasks may have drawn on available world knowledge for both groups, which has been shown to affect text processing generally and inference-generation in particular (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994). Additionally, it is possible that the paintings, with their provocative scenes that seem to tell a story, had parallels to narrative texts, which are commonplace in the literacy education of both younger and older students

(van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). This conclusion is supported by Moore and Scevak (1997), who used think aloud protocols to compare the comprehension processes of fifth, seventh, and ninth graders as they read text with diagrams. Their analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups on the history text, which the authors attributed to similar

Visual Comprehension 32 levels of generalized world knowledge about battles (the content of the texts) and the descriptive-narrative style of text materials. Similarly, it is possible that the present task was accessible for both the preadolescent and adolescent readers, which resulted in similar frequencies of comprehension processes.

Third, as mentioned, the coding scheme used in the present study was not finegrained enough to capture the quality of student’s statements in relation to their construction of a situation model. Specifically, we did not code for differences in the quality of Constructing Beyond or Questioning statements, which may have affected what was observed about the two groups.

Fourth, our group comparisons also did not take into account traditional reading comprehension abilities of the sample. Thus, if the fourth graders in the sample had unusually high reading comprehension abilities, or that the eighth graders were below average, there may be an impact on the comprehension processes related to this comparison.

On the other hand, it is possible that our findings illuminate an important developmental distinction between the comprehension of art texts and more traditional texts, namely that art may be more accessible than traditional text (particularly for younger readers) because it mitigates the linguistic barrier of those traditional texts. In that case, differences between fourth and eighth graders would not be anticipated. This supposition is supported research on narrative comprehension processes evidenced by young children with other forms of visual texts. From their series of studies of young children comprehending wordless picture books, Paris and Paris (2003) concluded that comprehension of narrative visual texts may reflect skills that are fundamental to reading

Visual Comprehension 33 comprehension, yet independent from language and decoding skills. Likewise, Kenedou, van den Broek, White, and Lynch (2007) concluded from their studies of young children comprehending aural and televised narratives, that comprehension processes are relatively separate from basic language skills and vocabulary. Further, they argue that some comprehension processes, including inference-generation, transfer across media. Thus, although further research is required to ascertain the reasons for the findings between fourth and eighth graders, we are currently working under the hypothesis that the novelty of the task and the absence of language demands may have attenuated effects for age/experience.

The findings for our third research question indicate that individual interest did not affect the comprehension processes evidenced by preadolescent and adolescent participants in this study. The lack of hypothesized effect for interest seemed tied to the manner in which these students responded rather strongly to our questions. That is, they more often perceived themselves engaging in activities very frequently or rarely than at some more moderate level. Such “all or nothing” perception is not atypical for young or inexperienced learners (Chambers & Johnston, 2002), but rather stands as further indication of their relative naïveté.

The nature of exploratory research is to investigate an area of the literature by determining appropriate research designs, data collection methodology, and selection of subjects. The limitations of exploratory research produce results that are not often appropriate for drawing practical implications, but can provide directions for further investigation. As such, limitations in the present study suggest avenues for future research.


Though our coding scheme included 20 comprehension processes observed in participants’ think alouds, it may not have fully revealed the full range of behaviors articulated by the students. As mentioned, the coding scheme did not evaluate the appropriateness of students’ elaborative and contextualizing statements vis-à-vis the text, nor did it distinguish between question referents. Moreover, the coding scheme did not take into account comprehension monitoring statements (e.g., Kolić-Vehovec, & Bajšanski,

2006). Monitoring statements were not evidenced in the pilot data or in the sample of transcripts used to develop the coding scheme, but our descriptive analysis suggested that there were a number of monitoring statements made by students in the full data. A finergrained coding scheme with these additions may prove more robust in capturing the complexity of students’ art text comprehension processes.

Future research should more directly address the relation between art and text comprehension processing. The results of this exploratory investigation suggest that similar meaning-making processes undergird these two domains, but it is not clear if these processes are similar within individuals. For instance, do students who demonstrate comprehension in art also perform well on reading comprehension tasks? A study that directly compares art and text comprehension through parallel think alouds in each domain may shed additional light on this relation.

The nature of the art text should also be considered in future investigations. For this exploratory study, we chose paintings that seemed to tell a story, which appears somewhat analogous to narrative text. However, this type of painting is but one of many genres of art text. Like traditional text, paintings can also be informational, metaphorical/abstract, or persuasive. A next step for this line of inquiry may explore the relation between similar

Visual Comprehension 35 genres of art and traditional text (e.g., comparing poetry to non-representational art, or comparing descriptive-informational text to technical drawing).

Finally, studying the art text comprehension processes of those competent or expert in the domain of art may prove valuable. Students in the present study were likely too novice in the domain to evidence the range of comprehension processes that might be articulated by more knowledgeable and experienced experts. Identifying the processing of these individuals may inform our understanding of the similarities and differences between art and text comprehension.

The present study undertook to investigate an understudied area of the literature which has considerable potential value for research and practice. If the cognitive processes necessary for comprehending traditional and art texts are indeed similar, art may provide a scaffold for the development reading-relevant comprehension strategies, particularly for students who have difficulty in decoding or gaining access to meaning when reading. For example, instead of attempting to teach struggling readers or English language learners comprehension strategies with traditional text, which has the extra burden of decoding and vocabulary constraints, a fruitful avenue may entail teaching reading strategies with art text. After students have mastered the comprehension strategy with art, they may be guided to apply it to traditional text. However, a significant amount of additional research is needed before a grounded connection can be made between comprehending art and comprehending text.


References

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, G. S. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. Reading Teacher, 61 , 364-373.

Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.

Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. (Vol. 10, pp. 213-250).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2003). Learning from traditional and alternative texts:

New conceptualizations for the information age. In A. C. Graesser, M. A.

Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes . Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 87, 559-575.

Alvermann, D. E. (2001, October 30). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents . Paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from http://www.nrconline.org/publications/alverwhite2.pdf

Arnheim, R. (1989). Thoughts on art education. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for

Education and the Arts.

Arizpe, E., & Styles, M. (2003) Children reading pictures interpreting visual texts. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Au, K. H., & Raphael, T. E. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millennium. Reading

Research Quarterly, 35 (1) , 170-188.


Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perceptions and

Psychophysics, 8 , 279-286.

Burger, K., & Winner, E. (2000). Instruction in visual art: Can it help children learn to read? [Special Issue] Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 277-293.

Butcher, K. R. (2006) Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,

182-197.

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. S., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chambers, C. T., & Johnston, C. (2002). Developmental differences in children’s use of rating scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27 , 27–36.

Chamot, A.U., & Beard El-Dinary, P. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83 , 319-338.

Clyde, J.A. (2003). Stepping inside the story world: The Subtext Strategy—A tool for connecting and comprehending. Reading Teacher, 57, 150-160.

Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology ,

99 , 311–325.

Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25 , 1-

53.


Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). The impact of new learning environments in an engineering design course. [Special Issue on Effects of

Constructivist learning environments] Instructional Science , 36, 375-393.

Donohue, P. L., Voekl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998: Report card for the nation and the states.

Washington, DC.: Department of Education.

Efland, A. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum.

New

York: Teachers College Press.

Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind . New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review,

87, 215-251.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman

& Hall.

Eva-Wood, A. L. (2004). Thinking and feeling poetry: Exploring meanings aloud. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 , 182-191.

Franklin, M. B., Becklin, R. C., & Doyle, C. L. (1993). The influence of titles on how paintings are seen. Leonardo, 26, 103-108.

Fox, E. (in press). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research.

Fox, E., Maggioni, L., & Riconscente, M. (2005, August). Exploring expertise in reading and with reading: Characteristics and methodological issues. In P. Alexander

(Chair). The road to domain expertise: Texts, situations, technology, and

Visual Comprehension 39 methodology. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American

Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Gambrell, L. B., & Koskinen, P. S. (2002). Imagery: A strategy for enhancing comprehension. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.) Comprehension instruction:

Research-based best practices (pp. 305-318) .

New York: Guilford Press.

Gardner, H. (1984). Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York:

Basic Books.

Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2008). Predictors of word decoding and reading fluency across languages in varying orthographic consistency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 566-580.

Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.

Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S.

McNamara (Ed.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 , 371–395.

Guthrie, J. T., Taboada, A., & Coddington, C. S. (2007). Engagement practices for strategy learning in Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.)

Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, (pp.

397-420). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P, Perencevich, K. C, Taboada, A., Davis, M. H.,

Scaflddi, N. X, & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and

Visual Comprehension 40 engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 96, 403-423

Helson, H. (1955). Book review: Rudolph Arnheim’s Art and Visual Perception .

Psychological Bulletin, 52, 537-539.

Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 51-75.

Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literacy reading activities of good and weak students: A think-aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education,

21 , 35-52.

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M.J., & Lynch, J. (2007). Comprehension in preschool and early elementary children: Skill development and strategy interventions. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.) Reading comprehension strategies:

Theories, interventions, and technologies, (pp. 27-45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review , 95 , 163–182.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition . New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajšanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of

Education, 21, 439-451.

Koroscik, J. S. (1984). Cognition in viewing and talking about art. Theory Into Practice,

23, 330-334.


Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgment. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489-508.

Leder, H., Carbon, C., & Ripsas, A. (2006). Entitling art: Influence of title information on understanding and appreciation of paintings. Acta Psychologica, 121 , 176-198.

Locher, P., Smith, L., & Smith, J. (1999). Original paintings versus slide and computer reproductions: A comparison of viewer responses. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17,

121-129.

McNamara, D. S. (2007). Preface. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, (pp. xi-xv). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Moje, E. B. (2002). Re-framing adolescent literacy research for new times: Studying youth as a resource. Reading Research and Instruction, 41 , 211-228.

Moore, P.J., & Scevak, J.J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 205-223.

Moshman, D. (1998). Cognitive development beyond childhood. In W. Damon (Series

Ed.), D. Kuhn & R.S. Seigler (Volume Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Introduction to comprehension development. In K. Cain &

J. Oakhill (Eds.),

Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language:

A cognitive perspective (pp. 3–40) . New York: Guilford Press.

Palinscar, A. S., Spiro, R. J., Kucan, L., Magnusson, S. J., Collins, B., Hapgood, S.,

Ramchandran, A., DeFrance, N., & Gelpi-Lomangino, A. (2007). Designing a hypermedia environment to support comprehension instruction. In D. S. McNamara


(Ed.) Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies,

(pp. 441-462). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paris, A. H. & Paris, G. S. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children.

Reading Research Quarterly, 38 , 36-76.

Parsons, M. J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive development account of aesthetic experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perkins, D. N. (1994) The intelligent eye: Learning to think by looking at art . Santa

Monica. CA: The John P. Getty Trust.

Peskin, J. (1998). Constructing meaning when reading poetry: An expert-novice study.

Cognition and Instruction, 16 , 235-263.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art. Journal of Consciousness

Studies, 6, 15-51.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. F., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the

Public Interest, 2, 31–74.

Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2001). Implementing an in-depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi-year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 373-404.

Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1157-1171.


Schiefele, U., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics experience and achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education , 26 , 163-181.

Schmidt, J. A., McLaughlin, J. P., & Leighten, P. (1989). Novice strategies for understanding paintings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 65-72.

Schellings, G., Aarnoutse, C., & van Leeuwe, J. (2006). Third graders’ think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text. Learning and

Instruction, 16 , 549-568.

Silvia, P. J., & Brown, E. M. (2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions:

Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics,

Creativity, and the Arts, 1, 100-106.

Silvia, P. J. (2005). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 23, 119-133.

Solso, R. L. (1994). Cognition and the visual arts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Street, B. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education . New York: Longman.

Sturtevant,E.,Boyd,F., Brozo, W., Hinchman, K., Moore, D.,& Alvermann, D. (2006).

Principled practices for adolescent literacy: A framework for instruction and policy.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tishman, S., & Palmer, P. (2006). Artful thinking: Stronger thinking and learning through the power of art . Final report to Traverse City Public Schools. Cambridge, MA:

Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Visual Comprehension 44 van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies for Discourse Comprehension . New

York: Academic Press. van Meel-Jansen, A. (2006). The magical number five in art appreciation. Empirical

Studies of the Arts, 24, 107-118.

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., & Mareschal, C. J. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56, 431-

462.

Watts, R. (2007). Harnessing the power of film in the elementary school classroom.

Literacy , 41, 102-109.

Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J.P., & Eccles, J.S. (2006). Development during early and middle adolescence. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Williams, T.L. (2007). “Reading” the painting: Exploring visual literacy in the primary grades. Reading Teacher, 60 , 636-642.

Winner, E., & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link between art study and academic achievement. [Special Issue] Journal of Aesthetic

Education, 34, 11-75.

Wolfe, M. B., W. & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reading. Cognition and Instruction, 23 , 467-502.

Winston, A. S., & Cupchik, G. C. (1992). The evaluation of high art and popular art by naïve and experienced viewers.

Visual Art Research, 18 , 1-14.

Yenawine, P. (1991). How to look at modern art. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams.

Appendix A


Palmer Hayden, The Janitor Who Paints , about 1937

Smithsonian American Art Museum Washington, D.C.

Appendix B


Marc Chagall, Birthday , 1915

Museum of Modern Art, New York


Table 1

Coded scheme of students' statements in think aloud transcripts

Grouping

Code

Noticing

Sub-Codes Definition Sample Statements

NO

Observing

Objects

NV

Observing Visual

Elements

NC

Observing

Characteristics

NA

Observing

Action

NT

Observing Text

Features

Perceiving discernable objects

Perceiving colors, lines, and shapes (not connected to an object)

Perceiving an object's characteristics

Perceiving objects acting

Reading printed painting information (i.e., artist, title, year of creation, origin)

NL

Observing

Location

Perception of object in relation to other objects

I see a clock.

A man.

There's lots of red.

I see shapes, like circles and ovals. wooden she's very tiny kissing floating floor

"Birthday by Marc Chagall, from the Museum of Modern

Art, New York."

The title is "The Janitor Who Paints" next to in the background


Table 1, continued

CT

Connecting to

Text Features

CK

Connecting to

Prior Knowledge

Connecting

CL

Connecting to

Life Experiences

Inferring connections between elements in the painting using test features

Relating information encountered in painting to prior knowledge

Well, the title is "The Janitor Who Paints," so this must be the janitor.

"Birthday..." Hey, there's a birthday cake!

Humans don't ususally bend their necks backward like that.

She's wearing a funeral outfit or something, 'cause it's all black.

Instantiating general prior knowledge schemata that are activated by the painting

The picture reminds me of a book I got at Borders.

I think about helping my mom in the kitchen.

Responding

CP

Connecting to

Other Paintings

RA

Responding to

Aesthetics

RE

Responding to

Emotions

Evaluating

AP

Evaluating the

Artist's Purpose

EQ

Evaluating the

Quality of the

Painting

Instantiating painting-specific prior knowledge schemata that are activated by the painting

Evaluating the style of the painting using prior knowledge

Reacting affectively to the painting

Inferring the artist's purpose, intention, or goals

This reminds me of the painting you showed me before.

This and the other painting, they don't look the same. it's very cartoonish.

It's very abstract.

It's pretty cool!

And it makes me laugh

I think the artist painted this because he felt like no one appreciated him.

[the artist] loved painting so much, he made a painting about painting.

Relating the quality of the painting to personal or assumed artistic standards

I like the way [the painting] is set up.

[the painting] is very plain. I would have put more things in.


Table 1, continued

IN

Making an

Inference

DC

Drawing

Conclusions

Constructing

Within SY

Identifying

Symbolism

CE

Constructing

Explanations

EQ

Elaborating

Constructing

Beyond

CS

Contextualizing the Scene

Other

QU

Questioning

Inferring the state of objects in the painting (e.g. emotions, relations)

Drawing conclusions about specific aspects of the painting using prior knowledge

She is surprised.

The mother is holding her baby.

“They look kind of poor.”

“The house is very shabby.”

Identifying symbols or symbolic objects

Reasoning about elements of the painting using evidence

I think the artist painted so much red, because he wanted to show that they are happy.

And this guy in the air, he probably represents a ghost or a spirit.

I think they are in love, because he is kissing her.

It looks like they are poor, because there's a trashcan in the room.

Speculating beyond information presented in the painting

That broom in the corner hasn't been touched in a while.

The man was her husband and he died, and today is his birthday.

Constructing explanations of the time period, time of year, or geographic location using prior knowledge

Asking questions about the painting

I think they live in a crowded city like New York.

It is in the Renaissance.

I wonder why the artist painted this.

Did they just get married or something?

Table 2

Intercorrelations Between the Six Categories of Comprehension Processes

Noticing Connecting Responding Evaluating

Constructing

Within

Constructing

Beyond

Noticing

—

Connecting .04** —

Responding .01 .21

—

.13 .23

—

Evaluating -.01

Constructing

Within

.56**

Constructing

Beyond

*p < .05, **p < .01

.33**

.82**

.41**

.32**

.18

.13

.05

—

.66**

—



Table 3

Descriptive Statistics of Code Categories for Fourth and Eighth Graders

Noticing

Fourth Graders

Min. Max. Mean (SD)

0.00 87.00 34.69 (20.35)

Eighth Graders

Min. Max. Mean (SD)

9.00 162.00 32.59 (27.50)

Connecting 0.00 22.00 1.2 (3.75) 0.00 5.00 0.82 (1.31)

Responding 0.00 7.00 0.89 (1.39) 0.00 9.00 1.29 (1.71)

0.00 4.00 0.18 (0.72) Evaluating 0.00 2.00 0.11 (0.40)

Connecting

Within

0.00 72.00 9.23 (13.15)

Connecting

Beyond

0.00 15.00 2.63 (3.88)

0.00

0.00

29.00

25.00

9.68 (7.87)

3.91 (5.19)


Table 4

Percent of Code Categories for Fourth and Eighth Graders Using Median Values

Noticing

Min.

(%)

Fourth Graders

Max.

(%)

Median (%)

42.00 100.00 78.66

Min.

(%)

Eighth Graders

Max.

(%)

Median (%)

40.70 100.00 66.77

Connecting 0.00 11.11 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00

Responding 0.00 10.45 0.40 0.00 16.67 2.24

Evaluating 0.00 4.00 0.00

Constructing

Within

0.00 40.00 14.46

Constructing

Beyond

0.00 16.67 3.67

0.00 7.27 0.00

0.00 40.00

0.00 29.07

20.24

3.93

Table 5

Rotated Component Loadings for Individual Interest

Reading about an artist

Component 1

0.28

Painting

Looking at art in books

0.78

0.15

Drawing

Looking at art online

Looking at art in museums

Reading about artists online

Taking photographs

0.72

0.47

0.04

0.67

0.23



Table 6

Standardized Betas and Significance Results for Interest Regressions

Noticing

Beta

-0.15 t value

-1.2 df

1, 66 p value

0.23

Connecting -0.10

Responding -0.12

-0.80

-0.95

1, 66

1, 66

0.43

0.35

0.32 1, 66 0.75 Evaluating 0.40

Constructing within

-0.06

Constructing beyond

0.22

-0.06

0.22

1, 66

1, 66

0.63

0.08

Visual Comprehension 1 Running head: VISUAL COMPREHENSION

DRAFT

Related documents

Products

Support

Visual Comprehension 1 Running head: VISUAL COMPREHENSION

DRAFT

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib