Henry and Simpson (2001) argued that picture books are not just for young readers anymore. Picture books, “combing text and picture cues in ways that make the text clearer and more fun to read,” can be used in high school as well (p. 23). Hibbing and Rankin-Erickson (2003) recommended the use of picture cues in reading as a tool to build the needed background knowledge for struggling readers to improve their comprehension. The functions of picture cues on reading comprehension are confirmed in many studies based on the theoretical supports for picture cues (Fahnestock, 2003; Kress, 2000; McVicker, 2007; Royce, 2002; Schwartz &
Rubinstein-Avila, 2006; Williams, 1995).
Filippatou and Pumfrey (1996) synthesized a research review of 17 studies from 1973 to 1995, regarding the effects of pictures on reading comprehension. The subjects in those studies were mostly elementary and college students, except two studies investigating 13 to 14-year-old teenagers. 15 out of the 17 studies approved the facilitative role of picture cues in reading, for the results of improved retention or
reading comprehension. Holmes (1987) indicated that not only for factual recall, but also for inferential comprehension could fifth- and sixth-grade students perform significantly better in the read-with-picture conditions. Although the samples, reading tasks, and experimental conditions were not equivalent in different studies, picture cues enhanced various learners’ comprehension in general. Gambrell and Jawits (1993) pointed out that illustrations help readers to focus attention on information in text, make associations and inferences based on the information, and reorganize the information into useful mental models. Their research also offered positive findings for the beneficial read-with-picture condition to fourth-grade readers’ reading comprehension. Liu (2004) reported a more detailed experiment investigating the role of comic strips on ESL adult students’ L2 reading comprehension by applying immediate recall protocols. The results revealed that the lower language proficiency level students with comic strips in their reading text scored significantly higher than the counterparts who received the text without pictures. However, comic strips did not apparently enhance the performance of ESL adult students at higher language proficiency level. Thus, Liu suggested that ESL or EFL teachers should consider their students’ language proficiency level and cautiously choose the reading texts with visuals which can reflect linguistic complexity to help comprehension.
Even though picture cues may play facilitative roles in learners’ reading comprehension based on several theoretical claims and empirical findings, dissimilar arguments and findings about the functions of picture cues in reading still can be found. Schallert (1980) analyzed the role of illustrations in reading comprehension from several researchers’ viewpoints and investigation. There were cases for pictures and cases against pictures as well. Samuels (1970), one of the researchers being studied, was the typical example who considered pictures in text as interferences.
From his own experimental work, Samuels commented that pictures “interfere with the beginning reader’s ability to concentrate on and learn to discriminate properly the printed stimuli,” and “did not seem to add or to detract from the comprehensibility of the text for good readers” (Schallert, 1980, p. 505). In that case, Samuels concluded that pictures have no positive effects on reading comprehension. Willows (1978a) did not take optimistic attitudes to pictures in reading either. He examined children’s speed and accuracy of reading, and then found both related and unrelated pictures as distracters which lowered learners’ performances. Following that, Willows (1978b) continued another experiment on the influences of picture cues on children’s reading performances. The result showed that poor readers were distracted by pictures the most, which was consistent with his findings in the previous study. Similar findings were found in Harber’s (1983) study. Harber investigated children’s reading and reported that picture cues had a detrimental effect on the poor learners’ performance.
Simons and Elster (1990) also argued that “picture-dependent text did not assist children’s reading acquisition process and might interfere with it” (p. 91). Kehoe, Singh and Solman (1992) indicated that adjunct picture cues “block the acquisition of a new association between the written word and the naming response to it” (p. 143).
In their study, the children received the no-picture simple stimuli significantly outperformed those who received the compound stimuli with pictures. Izumi’s research (2002) on ESL adults’ language learning revealed that picture cues as visual input worked better in combination with other forms of assistance, but not so well when used in isolation. The statement once again questioned the effectiveness of picture cues in reading comprehension. Moreover, in Filippatou and Pumfrey’s (1996) research review, Rose’s research in 1986 showed that learning disability readers comprehended non-illustrated reading passages better than illustrated ones. Another
study from Reid and Beveridge (1996) in Filippatou and Pumfrey’s research review described that children would spend longer time on picture cues in reading when they gradually lost focus of their learning. Besides, the least successful children accessed the picture cues more frequently than the most successful ones. For these findings, Filippatou and Pumfrey concluded that picture cues are neither uniformly effective in all reading situations, nor equally effective for readers with different reading abilities.
Because of the different findings, whether the effects of picture cues in the present study were positive to EFL Taiwanese junior high school students’ English reading recall remained to be explored.