Abstract:

Multimodal texts are one of the main resources for accessing learning (Mayer and Moreno 2002), but do students have the necessary strategies to understand texts that combine different codes?

Discontinuous texts are made up of non-sequential information, including text, tables, and graphs, among other elements. They show, therefore, a different structure and presentation of information than continuous texts, organized by sentences grouped in paragraphs and/or sections (OECD, 2019). The integrative model of Schnotz and Bannert (2003) proposes that discontinuous texts are understood by generating two representations that are encoded in an integrated manner: descriptive (processing similar to that proposed by Kintsch, 1998 for the comprehension of continuous texts based on sequential reading) and pictorial (construction of a mental model of the image content through perceptual and semantic processing).

The present study analyzes differences in comprehension of continuous vs. discontinuous texts and the type of question (access-localization vs. inference-integration). Sixty-six students completed a reading proficiency test consisting of two continuous and two discontinuous texts. They answered 22 multiple-choice questions: 11 questions in each type of text. These questions were classified into two types: on the one hand, 8 information access or location questions; on the other hand, 14 integration questions requiring inferential processes. The results reported that the number of correct answers was higher in continuous texts than in discontinuous texts. Additionally, different patterns were observed by type of question and text. While in continuous texts there were no differences between access questions and integration questions, discontinuous texts showed greater accuracy when answering integration questions. It can be concluded that locating information is more complex in discontinuous texts since this type of text encourages the interpretation of multiple data and making inferences between ideas from the different codes used (text, tables, graphs, etc.).

References:
[1] Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 
[2] Mayer, M. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4 
[3] OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en 
[4] Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8 

Keywords:

Continuous texts, discontinuous texts, comprehension, access, integration.