IMPACT OF VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS (REALISTIC VS. CARTOON VS. NO VISUALS) ON READINGCOMPREHENSION IN 9–11-YEAR-OLDS

Ekta Rathi

doi:10.29121/ackww437

Authors

Ekta Rathi Affiliation: Department of Design , SVVV, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/ackww437

Keywords:

Visual Representation, Reading Comprehension, Realistic Vs. Cartoon Visuals, Children 9–11 Years, Nep 2020, Visual Literacy, Multimodal Learning, Dual-Coding Theory

Abstract

Reading comprehension is a cornerstone of cognitive development and lifelong learning. As visual materials increasingly accompany textual content, their pedagogical function extends beyond aesthetic appeal—they shape attention, understanding, and memory. Yet, the nature of visuals most effective for comprehension, particularly within Indian primary classrooms, remains underexplored.
This study investigates the differential impact of realistic, cartoon, and no-visual formats on reading comprehension among 400 Indian children aged 9–11 years. The research is grounded in Dual-Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986) and Cognitive Load Theory (Mayer, 2009), integrating the policy vision of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 toward multimodal and experiential learning. Participants were assigned to one of three visual conditions and tested for factual recall, inferential reasoning, and engagement using standardized reading materials.
Statistical analyses (ANOVA, t-tests, correlations) revealed that realistic visuals significantly outperformed cartoon and text-only formats in comprehension accuracy and inferential reasoning, while cartoon visuals achieved the highest engagement scores but slightly lower comprehension depth. Text-only formats yielded the weakest performance, emphasizing the cognitive importance of visuals as scaffolding tools.
The study concludes that visuals should be treated as cognitive instruments—structured to aid information integration, schema activation, and motivation—rather than decorative supplements. The results provide actionable guidelines for textbook designers, publishers, and educators under NEP 2020, bridging psychology, design, and pedagogy for evidencebased literacy design.

References

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Children’s Comprehension Problems in Oral and Written Language: A Cognitive Perspective. Guilford Press.

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students’ Learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013186309260 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting Reading Comprehension in Early Elementary School: The Independent Contributions of Oral Language and Decoding Skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of Text Illustrations: A Review of Research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 195–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765184

Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding Illustrations in text: Towards a Theory of Picture Processing. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (453–478). International Reading Association.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.

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)00020-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8