閱讀是傳播、延續知識的重要管道之一，亦是學習的基礎，透過閱讀可汲取個人所需之知識，以提升競爭力。多數人透過學校教育學習閱讀技能，然而，目前之閱讀教學，多僅依教科書內容傳授基礎閱讀技巧，而未能教導如何有系統地分析文章內容與擷取文章重點之策略，加上為了提升學生之學習成效，一昧的增加閱讀的份量與時間，不但降低了學生之閱讀動機，亦無法有效增強閱讀理解能力。為改善此狀況，本研究之目的為規劃適合學童學習之教學方法與教學介面，以提升其閱讀理解能力與動機。因此，本研究以圖像表徵輔助符號表徵學習之模式-提供現成圖片教學法(Provided visualization pedagogy; PVP)與使用者產生圖片教學(Learner-generated visualization pedagogy; L-GVP)為核心，結合情境故事法與電腦輔助教學，發展閱讀學習模式，並規劃選圖系統、選元素系統、與傳統教學-紙本教材，訓練學童分析文章內容，並依其理解成果產生圖片，以加強其閱讀理解能力與閱讀動機。
本研究以就讀台灣國小四年級，且母語為中文之120位學生做為受測者，並檢測其閱讀理解能力(中文閱讀理解測驗；CRCT)與動機(閱讀動機問卷；MRQ)。依測驗結果將受測者均分至選圖組、選元素組、及對照組。同時，透過ANOVA證明三組之初始閱讀理解能力與閱讀動機相當。三組受測者進行為期13週之教學實驗，選圖組透過選圖系統進行閱讀學習，受測者須先閱讀文章後，挑選符合文章各段落主旨之圖片；選元素組藉由選元素系統進行閱讀學習，受測者亦須先閱讀文章，而後挑選符合文章各段落主旨之背景、人物、及事物；對照組則使用傳統教學-紙本教材進行閱讀學習，受測者需閱讀文章與符合文章主旨之圖片。在完成閱讀學習後一周與四周，受測者分別接受後測與維持測驗。實驗過程將紀錄受測者測驗和問卷調查結果，與作答次數、時間、正確率，以作為後續分析之用。
研究結果顯示，1. 本研究提出之閱讀學習模式對四年級學童之閱讀理解能力與動機具有成效，L-GVP增進受測者之閱讀表現與動機顯著優於PVP(MRQ: F (2, 117) = 7.70, p < .01; CRCT: 選圖組：t (39) = -8.27, p < .01; 選元素組：t (39) = -7.24, p < .01)，且在教學實驗結束後，提升之閱讀理解能力仍具維持成效(選圖組： t (39) = .70, p > .05; 選元素組：t (39) = .04, p > .05)。2. L-GVP對會想像故事情節之閱讀者閱讀表現具顯著成效(F (2, 81) = 13.66, p < .01)。3.積極閱讀者之閱讀理解能力與提升閱讀動機不論實驗前或後均顯著優於消極閱讀者(CRCT: F (2, 117) = 4.00, p < .05; MRQ: F (2, 117) = 9.16, p < .01)。4.喜歡閱讀者之閱讀表現不論實驗前或後均顯著優於不喜歡閱讀者(前測： F (2, 117) = 4.57, p < .05; 後測：F (2, 117) = 3.58, p < .05)。5. 學童對介面之喜好程度、教學喜好程度、與閱讀動機具正相關(Pearson Correlation分別為.41; .42; .24)。

Reading is a key means for spreading and sustaining knowledge, and is the basis of most learning. It is through reading that individuals can absorb required knowledge to intellectually enrich themselves. However, most existing reading instruction fails to teach proper reading strategies, so students not only are unable to perform systematic content analysis and identify key concepts, but also have lower reading motivation.
To fix this problem, the author of this study has designed and employed a teaching method and instructional interface for elementary school students to enhance their reading comprehension abilities and motivation. Thus, the author developed a Reading based model of learning to increase elementary school students’ reading motivation and comprehension. The Reading based model of learning focuses on a learning method that highlights symbolic representation supplemented by iconic representation—Provided visualization pedagogy (PVP) or Learner-generated visualization pedagogy (L-GVP), integrating Scenario and CAI. Following the theory of the Reading based model of learning, the author planned Image-selecting system, Element-selecting system, and Traditional book-based teaching materials to train students to analyze an article and then generate pictures based on their understanding. Moreover, by means of drills in the lesson tasks, students can achieve the goal of increasing their reading comprehension and motivation.
120 native Chinese speaking Taiwanese fourth grade elementary schools students participated in this study. The pre-test was conducted to gauge their reading comprehension abilities (Chinese reading comprehension test; CRCT) and motivation (Motivation for Reading Questionnaire; MRQ), with the results used to divide the participants into the Image-selecting group, Element-selecting group, and Control group (I-SG, E-SG, and CG, respectively). One-way ANOVA confirmed the initial ability and motivation of the three groups to be equivalent. During a 13-week teaching experiment, the I-SG received instruction using an image-selecting system, the E-SG took reading course using an element-selecting system, and the CG followed the traditional picture-assisted book-based learning. In the first and fourth weeks after completing the reading course, the participants took a post-test and delayed post-test, respectively. The experiment outcomes of the exams and questionnaires, as well as the frequencies, duration, and scores of exercises were statistically analyzed and used as the basis of data analysis.
The results indicate that, 1. A reading based model of learning can effectively promote fourth graders’ reading comprehension (MRQ: F(2, 117)=7.70, p<.01; CRCT: I-SG: t(39)=-8.27, p<.01; E-SG: t(39)=-7.24, p<.01) and motivation, and L-GVP is more effective in improving and maintaining learners’ reading comprehension and motivation than PVP(I-SG: t(39)=.70, p>.05; E-SG: t(39)=.04, p>.05). 2. L-GVP can effectively enhance readers’ who image the plots of articles the reading performance (F(2, 81)=13.66, p<.01). 3. The aggressive reading cluster’s progress in reading comprehension ability and motivation were significantly better than Inactive reading cluster’s (CRCT: F(2, 117)=4.00, p<.05; MRQ: F(2, 117)=9.16, p<.01). 4. The Pro-reading cluster performed significantly better than Passive reading cluster before and after the teaching experiment (pre-test: F(2, 117)=4.57, p<.05; post-test: F(2, 117)=3.58, p<.05). 5. There is a positive correlation among fourth graders’ degree of preference for the interface, degree of preference for the teaching method, and reading motivation (Pearson Correlation=.41; .42; .24, respectively).

Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153
Alfassi, M. (2004). Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 171-185. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.4.171-185
Arnall, T. & Martinussen, E. S. (2010). Depth of field: Discursive design research through film. FORMkademisk, 3(1), 100-122. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.189
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452-477. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
Bar-Eli, S. (2013). Sketching profiles: Awareness to individual differences in sketching as a means of enhancing design solution development. Design Studies, 34(4), 472-493. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.007
Bates, M. J. (2007). What is browsing—really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Information Research, 12(4), paper 330. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-4/paper330.htm
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: a longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773-785. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020084
Bergstrom, B. (2008). Essentials of Visual Communication. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(2), 293-327. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067867
Bilal, D. (2001). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: II. Cognitive and physical behaviors on research tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 118-136. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1038>3.0.CO;2-R
Blankenship, T. L., Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2005). Effects of computer-based cognitive mapping on reading comprehension for students with emotional behavior disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 15-23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000202
Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whiteley, C. S., & Cleveland, M. D. (2009). Instructional approaches that significantly increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 262-281. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014319
Bowman, G., MacKay, R. B., Masrani, S., & McKiernan, P. (2013). Storytelling and the scenario process: Understanding success and failure. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(4), 735-748. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.009
Booth, J. W., Taborda, E. A., Ramani, K., & Reid, T. (2016). Interventions for teaching sketching skills and reducing inhibition for novice engineering designers. Design Studies, 43, 1-23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.002
Brinck, T., Gergle D., & Wood, S.D. (2001). Usability for the web: Designing web sites that work. San Francisco. CA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryant, K., Campbell, J., & Kerr, D. (2003). Impact of web based flexible learning on academic performance in information systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(1), 1-15.
Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann.
Campbell, R. L. (1992). Will the real scenario please stand up? ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(2), 6-8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/142386.1054872
Chang, Y.-M., Wang, I.-C., & Ma, M.-Y. (2015). Study on Children’s Web Page Preferences through Participatory Design. Innovation in Design, Communication and Engineering, 132, 703-705. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b18737-147
Chang, Y.-M., Wang, I.-C., & Ma, M.-Y. (2016). Efficacy of Supplementary Image Schemes on Reading Motivation and Comprehension. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1153-1162. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1503a
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155-166. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260
Carroll, J. M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 43-60. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00023-0
Cassady, J. C., & Smith, L. L. (2003). The impact of a reading-focused integrated learning system on phonological awareness in kindergarten. The Journal of Literacy Research, 35(4), 947-964. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3504_2
Chall, J. S. (1995). Literacy development. Journal of Education, 177(1), 63-83.
Chang, Y.-M., & Wang, I.-C. (2008, May). A Study on the Interface Usability of children's websites. Proceedings of the 13th Chinese Institute of Design Conference. Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Charlesworth, Z. M. (2008). Learning styles across cultures: Suggestions for educators. Education and Training, 50(2), 115-127. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910810862100
Chen, C.-H., Wu, F.-G., Patrick Rau, P.-L., & Hung, Y.-H. (2004). Preferences of young children regarding interface layouts in child community web sites. Interacting with Computers, 16(2), 311-330. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2003.11.009
Chen, H.-L., & Williams, J. P. (2009). Use of multi-modal media and tools in an online information literacy course: College students’ attitudes and perceptions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(1), 14-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.10.021
Cheng, F.-F., Wu, C.-S., & Yen, D. C. (2009). The effect of online store atmosphere on consumer’s emotional responses – an experimental study of music and colour. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 323-334. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290701770574
Cheong, H. & Shu, L. H. (2013). Using templates and mapping strategies to support analogical transfer in biomimetic design. Design Studies, 34(6), 706-728. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.02.002
Chi, P.-H. (2001). A study on the verbal skills of elementary school children with poor reading skills. Ulletin of Special Education, 20(4), 69-96.
Cogmen, S., & Saracaloglu, A. S. (2009). Students’ usage of reading strategies in the faculty of education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 248-251. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.045
Danos, X. (2014). Graphicacy and culture: Refocusing on visual learning. Loughborough Design Press Ltd.
de Koning, B. B. & van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming Part of the Story! Refueling the Interest in Visualization Strategies for Reading Comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 261-287. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9222-6
de Vries, E., & Lowe, R. (2010, August). Graphicacy: What does the learner bring to a graphic? Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 2 Comprehension of Text and Graphics meetings, Tübingen, Germany.
Deaver, S. P. (2009). A Normative Study of Children’s Drawings: Preliminary Research Findings. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 26(1), 4-11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421656.2009.10129309
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Demirkan, H. (2016). An inquiry into the learning-style and knowledge-building preferences of interior architecture students. Design Studies, 44, 28-51. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.009
Demirkan, H. & Demirbas, O. O. (2010). The effects of learning styles and gender on the academic performance of interior architecture students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1390-1394. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.205
Druin, A. & Fast, C. (2002). The child as learner, critic, inventor, and technology design painter: An analysis of three years of Swedish Student Journals. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(3), 189-213. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020255806645
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48-63. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002
Eris, O., Martelaro, N., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). A comparative analysis of multimodal communication during design sketching in co-located and distributed environments. Design Studies, 35(6), 559-592. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.002
Fehr, C. N., Davison, M. L., Graves, M. F., Sales, G. C., Seipel, B., & Sekhran-Sharma, S. (2012). The effects of individualized, online vocabulary instruction on picture vocabulary scores: an efficacy study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 87-102. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.586640
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210-225. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301
Galitz, W. O. (2002). The Essential guide to user interface design: An introduction to GUI design principle and techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gijlers, H., Weinberger, A., van Dijk, A. M., Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. (2013). Collaborative drawing on a shared digital canvas in elementary science education: The effects of script and task awareness support. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(4), 427-453. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9180-5
Glenberg A. M., Goldberg A. B., & Zhu X. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27-39. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2007). Electronic books: children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583-599. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00640.x
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Davis, M. H. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
Hansen, D. L., & Morgan, R. L. (2008). Teaching grocery store purchasing skills to students with intellectual disabilities using a computer-based instruction program. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43(4), 431-442.
Hassett, D. D. & Curwood, J. S. (2009). Theories and practices of multimodal education: The instructional dynamics of picture books and primary classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 270-282. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.4.2
Hedin, L. R. & Conderman, G. (2010). Teaching students to comprehend informational text through rereading. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 556-565. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.3
Hernandez, N. V., Schmidt, L. C., Kremer, G. O., & Lin, C.-Y. (2014, September). An empirical study of the effectiveness of selected cognitive aids on multiple design tasks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Design Computing and Cognition, 12, 227-246. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_13
Hope, G. (2008). Thinking and learning through drawing. London: SAGE.
Jonas, W. (2001). A scenario for design. Design Issues, 17(2), 64-80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/07479360152383796
Kelley, T. R. & Sung, E. (2016). Sketching by design: teaching sketching to young learners. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 1-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9354-3
Ketokivi, M. & Castañer, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(3), 337-365. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4131439
Kirby, J. R., Ball, A., Geier, B. K., Parrila, R., & Wade-Wooley, L. (2010). The development of reading interest and its relation to reading ability. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(3), 263-280. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01439.x
Lan, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-T., & Chabg, K.-E. (2009). Let us read together: Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted reciprocal early English reading system. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1188-1198. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.002
Law, Y.-K. (2006). The Effectiveness of Student-Centered Education in Second Graders’ Reading Instruction. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 38(1), 51-66. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20060622
Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press/Elsevier.
Le Fevre, D. M., Moore, D. W., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2003). Tape-assisted reciprocal teaching: Cognitive bootstrapping for poor decoders. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), 37-58. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709903762869905
Lee, K. S., & Carrasquillo, A. (2006). Korean college students in United States: Perceptions of professors and students. College Student Journal, 40(2), 442-456.
Lee, S., & Koubek, R. J. (2011). The Impact of Cognitive Style on User Preference Based on Usability and Aesthetics for Computer-Based Systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(11), 1083-1114. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555320
Lee, Y., & Vail, C. O. (2005). Computer-based reading instruction for young children with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 5-18. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000101
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarization as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005
Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40-49. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003
Lerner, J. W., & Johns, B. (2009). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities: Characteristics, teaching strategies, and new directions (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284-289. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010
Liikkanen, L. A. & Perttula, M. (2010). Inspiring design idea generation: insights from a memory-search perspective. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(5), 545-560. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544820802353297
Lin, P.-K., & Chi, P.-H. (2000). Chinese Reading Comprehension Test. Ulletin of Special Education, 19(5), 79-104.
Lu, L., & Ung, K.-C. (2007). An exploratory study on psychological traditionality, modernity, advisor-student fit, their influences on quality of the relationship and students’ well-being. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 27, 81-118.
Luh, D.-B., & Chen, S.-N. (2011). A Novel CAI System for Space Conceptualization Training in Perspective Sketching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 137-150. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9171-7
Ma, G. L., Li, Y., Li., W. Q., & Pan, P. Y. (2011). A process model and method of idea generation for conceptual design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B – Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 225(4), 568-586. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041297510394103
Macaruso, P. & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 266-287. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710801982019
Maderazo, C., Martens, P., Croce, K., Martens, R., Doyle, M., Aghalarov, S., & Noble, R. (2010). Beyond picture walks: Revaluing picturebooks as written and pictorial texts. Language Arts, 87(6), 437-446.
Mahapatra, S., Das, J. P., Stack-Cutler, H., & Parrila, R. (2010). Remediating reading comprehension difficulties: A cognitive processing approach. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 428-453. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710903054915
Mantzicopoulos, P. & Patrick, H. (2010). “The seesaw is a machine that goes up and down”: Young children’s narrative responses to science-related informational text. Early Education and Development, 21(3), 412-444. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409281003701994
Martin, P. & Velay, J.-L. (2012). Do computers improve the drawing of a geometrical figure for 10 year-old children? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(1), 13-23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9140-6
Mason, L., Lowe, R., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Self-generated drawings for supporting comprehension of a complex animation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 211-224. doi:http://dx.doi.org/l0.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.04.001
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011
McCabe, S., Sharples, M., & Foster, C. (2012). Stakeholder engagement in the design of scenarios of technology-enhanced tourism services. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 36-44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2012.04.007
McGee, A. & Johnson, H. (2003). The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Education Psychology, 23(1), 49-59. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410303220
Mechling, L., & O’Brien, E. (2010). Computer-based video instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to use public bus. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(2), 230-241.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-99. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077
Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O., & Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006: Assessment Framework and Specifications (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS and PIRLS, International Study Center, Lynch School of Education.
Nardi, B. A. (1992). The use of scenarios in design. SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(4), 13-14. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/142167.142171
Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Kid's Corner: Website usability for Children. Retrieved September 9, 2014, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020414.html
Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(4), 443-468. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008
Oberg, A. & Daniels, P. (2013). Analysis of the effect a student-centred mobile learning instructional method has on language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Leaning, 26(2), 177-196. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649484
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2000). Literacy in the Information Age: Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/21/39437980.pdf doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264181762-en
Otis, N., Grouzet, M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 170-183. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.170
Outhred, L. & Sardelich, S. (2005). A problem is something you don’t want to have: Problem solving by kindergarteners. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(3), 146-154.
Pantaleo, S. (2010). Mutinous fiction: Narrative and illustrative metalepsis in three postmodern picturebooks. Children’s Literature in Education, 41(1), 12-27. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10583-009-9096-x
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Park, J. (2011). Developing a knowledge management system for storing and using the design knowledge acquired in the process of a user-centered design of the next generation information appliances. Design Studies, 32(5), 482-513. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.05.001
Pei, E., Campbell, I., & Evans, M. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. The Design Journal, 14(1), 64-91. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175630610X12877385838803
Pfeil, U., Svangstu, K., Ang, C. S., & Zaphiris, P. (2011). Social Roles in an Online Support Community for Older People. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(4), 323-347. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.540490
Pike, M. M., Barnes, M. A., & Barron R. W. (2010). The role of illustrations in children’s inferential comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(3), 243-255. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.10.006
Ranalli, J. (2013). Online strategy instruction for integrating dictionary skills and language awareness. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 75-99.
Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530417
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734-746. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
Risko, V. J., Walker-Dalhouse, D., Bridges, E. S., & Wilson, A. (2011). Drawing on Text Features for Reading Comprehension and Composing. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 376-378. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.64.5.12
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M., & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 609-635.
Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 89-93. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028
Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., Gunter, R. E., & Gunter, G. A. (2008). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technology and digital media in the classroom (5th ed. ). Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.
Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00117.x
Snow, C.E. (2010). Reading comprehension: Reading for learning. International Encyclopedia of Education, 413-418. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00511-X
Stalbovs, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2013, August). Which cognitive processes predict successful learning with multimedia? Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
Stull A. T. & Mayer R. E. (2007). Learning by Doing Versus Learning by Viewing: Three Experimental Comparisons of Learner-Generated Versus Author-Provided Graphic Organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808-820. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808
Sun, L., Xiang, W., Chai, C., Yang, Z., & Zhang, K. (2014). Designer’s perception during sketching: An examination of Creative Segment theory using eye movements. Design Studies, 35(6), 593-613. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.04.004
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Huang, J.-S. (2008). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1552-1571. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009
Suri, J. F. & Marsh, M. (2000). Scenario building as an ergonomics method in consumer product design. Applied Ergonomics, 31(2), 151-157. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(99)00035-6
Tare, M., Chiong, C., Ganea, P., & DeLoache, J. (2010). Less is more: How manipulative features affect children’s learning from picture. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 395-400. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.005
Taura, T., Yamamoto, E., Fasiha, M. Y. N., Goka, M., Mukai, F., Nagai, Y., & Nakashima, H. (2012). Constructive simulation of creative concept generation process in design: a research method for difficult-to-observe design-thinking processes. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 297-321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.637191
Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a Combined Repeated Reading and Question Generation Intervention on Reading Achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 89-97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127-145. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00031-X
Trotman, D. (2006). Evaluating the imaginative: Situated practice and the conditions for professional judgment in imaginative education. International Journal of Education and the Arts, 7(3), 1-19.
Türk, E. & Erçetin, G. (2014). Effects of interactive versus simultaneous display of multimedia glosses on L2 reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 1-25. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.692384
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization. (2012). 2012 Report: Youth and skills: Putting education to work. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/efareport/reports/2012-skills/
van Garderen, D. (2007). Teaching students with LD to use diagrams to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (6), 540-553. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400060501
van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142-166. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162-186. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299-309. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.6.299-310
Woolley, G. (2010). Developing reading comprehension: combining visual and verbal cognitive processes. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(2), 108-125.
Yang, M. C. (2009). Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 1-11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0055-0
Yang, M. C. & Cham, J. G. (2007). An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(5), 476-482. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2712214
Yang, Y.-F. (2012). Blended learning for college students with English reading difficulties. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 393-410. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.597767
Yu, X. (2012). Exploring visual perception and children's interpretations of picture books. Library & Information Science Research, 34(4), 292-299. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.06.004
Zhang, Z. H. & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can Generating Representations Enhance Learning with Dynamic Visualizations? Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177-1198. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20443
Zhou, Y. R., Knoke, D., & Sakamoto, I. (2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(3), 287-311. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110500075180