Cited by 122Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesScience Education and PedagogyDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Science Textbooks' Use of Graphical Representation: A Descriptive Analysis of Four Sixth Grade Science Texts

Abstract

Middle school teachers tend to rely heavily on texts that have become increasing more visual. There is little information available about the graphical demands of general middle grades' science texts. The purpose of this study was to quantify the type and quality of the graphical representations and how they interacted with the textual material in middle school science texts. Four State of Texas–approved sixth-grade science texts were examined using a researcher-developed instrument, Graphical Analysis Protocol (GAP). Results produced reasons for concern (least analytic forms of graphics dominated, one third of all graphics were decorative in nature, most graphics were static in nature, and approximately one third were not connected to the text spatially or semantically) and reasons for optimism (approximately one third of the time more analytic forms of graphics were used, two thirds served a specific cognitive function, and over half of the graphics were connected to the text and indexically referenced). Further research is warranted on a larger sample of texts from different states, publishers, grade levels, and subjects. It is also important to establish a connection to increased student learning and/or teacher preference due to higher incidences of any of the variables or principles that make up the GAP instrument.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02702710903256502

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 122

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.342 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.1990.tb00040.x · DOI
  3. Bieger G. R., 1986, Journal of Experimental Education, 54, 181, 10.1080/00220973.1986.10806418 · DOI
  4. 10.1023/A:1020833231966 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1020::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  6. Duke N. K., 2002, What research has to say about reading instruction, 205
  7. Freitas C. A., 2007, Pedagogies, 2, 151, 10.1080/15544800701366456 · DOI
  8. 10.1207/s15326985ep2701_5 · DOI
  9. 2002, Texas science: Grade six
  10. 10.1006/ceps.1998.0987 · DOI
  11. Hegarty M., 1996, Handbook of reading research, 2, 641
  12. Henderson G., 1999, Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45, 17
  13. Holliday W. G., 1976, Audio-Visual Communication Review, 24, 63, 10.1007/BF02768332 · DOI
  14. Holliday W. G., 1991, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 99
  15. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 2002a.Holt science & technology, Texas edition Grade 6, New York: Author.
  16. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 2002b.Holt science & technology, Texas edition Grade 7, New York: Author.
  17. 10.1037/0033-295X.92.2.137 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/tea.10035 · DOI
  19. Kress G., 1996, Reading images: The grammar of visual design
  20. Leu D. J., 2000, Handbook of reading research, 3, 743
  21. Levie W. H., 1982, Educational Communication and Technology, 30, 195, 10.1007/BF02765184 · DOI
  22. Levin J. R., 1987, The psychology of illustration, 1, 51, 10.1007/978-1-4612-4674-9_2 · DOI
  23. Martins I., 2002, The psychology of science text comprehension, 73
  24. 10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003 · DOI
  26. McTigue, E. M., Carlin, B. and Coleman, J. Presented at annual meeting of National Reading Conference (NRC). Austin, TX.The integration of text and supporting graphics in science trade books,
  27. Moline S., 1995, I see what you mean
  28. 10.2307/747915 · DOI
  29. 10.1598/RRQ.41.2.4 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/0959-4752(93)90006-L · DOI
  31. 10.1080/09500690110038611 · DOI
  32. 2002, Prentice Hall science explorer: Grade six
  33. Pressley M., 1997, School Psychology Review, 26, 448, 10.1080/02796015.1997.12085878 · DOI
  34. Pylyshyn Z. W., 2002, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 157, 10.1017/S0140525X02000043 · DOI
  35. 10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_4 · DOI
  36. Reinking D. R., 1988, Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 229, 10.1080/10862968809547641 · DOI
  37. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.135 · DOI
  38. 2001, Select science six
  39. 10.1023/A:1022459009182 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00020-8 · DOI
  41. 10.1177/1075547099020004004 · DOI
  42. 10.1023/A:1016064429161 · DOI
  43. Walpole S., 1999, The Reading Teacher, 52, 358
  44. Winn W., 1987, The psychology of illustration, 1, 152, 10.1007/978-1-4612-4674-9_5 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Slough, S. W., McTigue, E. M., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. K.
Affiliations
Texas A&M University (US)
Venue
Reading Psychology
Published
2010-05-28
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
301-325
ISSN
  • 0270-2711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0685
OpenAlex
W2078163868
Cited by
122
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Reading Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
science textbooks, graphical representation, visual literacy, junior high school science, sixth grade, static graphics, indexical reference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Science Textbooks' Use of Graphical Representation: A Descriptive Analysis of Four Sixth Grade Science Texts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02702710903256502
The paper
Slough, S. W., McTigue, E. M., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. K. (2010). Science Textbooks' Use of Graphical Representation: A Descriptive Analysis of Four Sixth Grade Science Texts. Reading Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256502