The Design of Printed Instructional Materials: Research on Illustrations and Typography

DOCUMENT MOBS

ED 211 122 II 010 C16 AUTHOR Wilson, Thomas C.; And Others TITLE The Design of Printed InstructionalMaterials: Research on Illustrations andTypography. INSTITUTION -ERIC Clearinghouse on InformationResources, Syracuse, N.Y. SPORS AGENCY National Inst. of EducationAED),Washington, D.C. POE DATE 81 CONTRACT 400-77-0015 NOTE, 56p,

!DRS PRICE NFO1/PC03 Plus Postage, DESCRIPTORS Color: Cues; Design Preferences;*Illustrations: *Instructional Materials; *Layoit(Publications): Material Development: *Media Research;Pecall (Psychology); *Texttook Preparation; Visual Learning IDENTIFIERS *Printed Materials; Typeface:*Typography ABSTRACT Intended for use by both producersand evaluators Of textbooks and other print instructional materials,this review of the literature focuses on the effectivenessof illustrations for motivation and fbr learning, andmoth typographical_vsrlablesas resdibality, legibility, standardtypographical conventions, and format and layout, Areas examined include-ihe-Offectscf the presence or absence of illustrations; the effectsof illustrations on-recall; readability as a function ofvissaaVirititors: legibility, including type size and typeface, leading and linewidth, ink and paper color, and aesthetics; justification: cslag-tyseans of headings, underlining, ant-questions: paragraphsand column format; vertical typography and segmentation; andformat and layout: A bibliography of sources cited is provided. (BBN)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRSare the best that can be made from the original document. 4141444044*****4441**10444441***44*100***44***414,1010****1010***0***10*****441**401*** Go ILS. OSPANTIMOIST OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE Of EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES `NFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 111.1116 document Ms been reproduced as rsosised from the person or orpenizabon orieinsting a Minor chimps hese been med. to improve reproduction quality

Pointed veer or opinions meted in this document do not mama* represent official NE passion or policy.

THE DESIGN OF PRINTED INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS:

RESEARCH ON ILLUSTRATIONS AND TYPOGRAPHY

Thomas C. Wilson

Fred C. Pfister

Bruce E. Fleury

ERICClearinghouse on Information Resources Syracuse University

1981 Thomas C. Wilson isDirector of the Open Universityand an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Library and Information Studies at the University ofSouth Florida in Tampa. Fred C. Pfister is anAssociate Professor in theDepartment of Library and Information Studiesat the University of South Florida in Tampa. 4.4,f- , Bruce P... Fleury isa Reference Librarian noux Library at Florida Southern College in Lakeland.

MOThis publication was prepared withfunding from the National Institute of Education, U.S. Departmentof Education, under contract no. NIE-400-77-0015. The opinionsexpressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positionsor policies of NIE or ED.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1

illustrations-7An Overview 3 A. Introduction 3 B. Rationale and Discussionof Variables 3 C. Early Research 4

Effectiveness of Illustrations 5 A. Illustrations and Motivation 5 B. Illustrations and Learning 6 1. General Background 6 2. Presence or Absence ofIllustrations 7 3. Effect of Illustrationson Recall 8

Typography--An Overview 10 A. Introduction.. 10 B. Scope and Definition ofVariables 11 C. Early Research 12

Effects of Typographical Variables 14 A. Readability B. Legibility 14 15 1. Type Size and Typeface 15 2. Leading and Line Width 16 3. Ink_m_l_Paper Color .. _17 4. Aesthetics 18 ° C. Standard TypographicalConventions 1. Justification 19 19 2. Cuing--Headings,Underlining and Questions 22 3. Paragraphs and ColumnFormat 24 D. Vertical Typography andSegmentation 27 E. Format and Layout 30

Conclusions 34 A. Illustrations 34 B. Typography 35 C. General Conclusions 37 Bibliography of Sources Cited 39

4 PREFACE

In a satirical essay comparing print mediawit_h_electronic technology, Mitchel asksus to "suppore....ust-fora-inoment--that the invention of modulated elecKcal-current and-f photography had come before the invention of movable type and the printingpress by some 200 or so years.What would have happened?" (1976,p. 64). This supposition brings forthvisions of educators probing every aspect of the "new" medium called pant, assessingits instructional value and devising methodsto increase its effectiveness. However, the advent of printing predated"educational assessment" and Instructional design" by a few hundredyears, and printed materials became accepted as instructional toolswithout much of the research that follows the introduction ofa new medium today. This is not meant to imply that researchershave ignored the print medium. An impressive body ofliterature exists, but we rarely see evidence that it has been drawnupon as a tool for those who use, evaluate, or produce books and otherforms of printed materials for instruction. Apparently we have becomeso comfortable with textual materials that we accept themas they are and give little thought to how they could be improved. A comparisonof today's texts with their counterparts ofa decade ago will show few changes, and most of those will be cosmetic innature.Print, possibly because of its long existence, has escapedmost of the accountability procedures applied Or' the newer media.

We believe that diminishingresources will soon force printed materials to be assessed in terms of theircost effectiveness and ability to deliver information. Asa result, we believe the design of printed Instructional materials will changedramatically in the next ten years;The research identified here is potentiallyuseful to producers of print materials and couldresult In products that deliver Information more effectively.The power to Improve information delivery is available to all producers ofprinted information, whether they are commercial publishersor educators with access orb, to a mimeograph machine.Either group could adoptmany procedures that would produce products superiorto those we now use.This document can also serve those who evaluatetextbooks by providing information to reassess theircurrent standards. Miller (1957)

5 -2-

suggested that research relatingto illustrations should be compiled in a single source to aid publishers of illustratedtextbooks.Perhaps this publication will bea step in that direction.

The literature of Illustrations andtypography relating to the design of printed instructional materialswas reviewed. Only English language printed or microform itemswere considered in an initial computer search of the ERIC database whichidentified relevant citations, and was the starting point forour research. Our quest for additional materials was greatly'aided by Ms. Marykay Hartung, Interlibrary Loan Librarian, University ofSouth Florida Library, and we wish to acknowledge her contribution.

The authors wish to thank Ms. Barbara Minorand Dr. Donald Ely of the ERIC Clearinghouseon Information Resource for their assistance. Without their support andencouragement thidocument would not exist. We also wishto thank Ms. Donna Griffin for her patience and care in typing thenumerous drafts this project required.

6 -3-

ILLUSTRATIONS- -ANOVERVIEW A. Introduction In 1658 the first illustrated text printed with movable type, Orbis Pittus, was published by Comenius.The 150 woodcuts he incorpora , in the book helped assure its success and importance in the educatiorial world for nearly 100 -years.In spite of this success, Illustrations were rarely used in other texts until the 1830's.Even then, nearly two centuries later, only elementary test bookswere commonly illustrated (Johnson, 1963). Today, incorporating pictures in texts is the accepted practice. As Travers and Alvarado (1970) observed,we developedthe technology for reproducing *turps cheaply long beforewe began to analyze their role Withe instructional process. There isno lack of research data dealing with illustrations in texts, but,as Spaulding (1955) indicates, the resultsare not always consistent. He found that in some cases illustrations aided retention while in others they resulted in less information being retained. His contradictory results, not substantially different from many of the studies discussed below, are not surprising considering the number of variables incorporated in these studies and the variety of roles ascribed to illustrations.

B. Rationale and Discussion of Variables Dwyer (1972) cited a number of reasoni for using visual material, including clarifying information, and highlighting key parts of a presentation.He also ascribes several other functions to illustrations, noting that visualization of content materialcan: 1. Facilitate the accuracy and standarization of the message being communicated; 2. Bring intothe classroom inaccessible processes, events, situations, materials, and phase changes in either space or time; 3. Illustrate,clarify, and reinforce oralsold printed communication, quantitative relation ships, specific details, abstract concepts, and spatial relationships; 4. Provide concreteness (realistic detail) in the learning situation; 5. Increase student interest, curiosity, and con- centration; -4-

6. Present to the learner theopportunity to perceive an object,process, or situation from a variety of vantage points; 7. ProvideimportantInstructionalfeedback. (Dwyer, 1972, p. 1)

The most common variables identifiedin the es examined were the mix of verbal andvisual information, the variety of pictorial formats ranging fromsimple line drawings to realistic phgtographs, color or the lack ofcolor, the placement of illustrations, the presenceor absence of instructions to study the pictures, the amount of time allocatedto read the text and view the accompanying pictures, and the text. number of pictures accompanying the C.Early Research In one of the earliest studies ofillustrations, Lewerenz (1929) found that pictures helpedlearners understand verbal information.. This position was supported b)Strang(1941) and Halbert (1944). Goodykoontz t1936), howeVi, foundthat the addition of picturesto printed materials didlittleor nothing to aid comprehension. MacLean (1930) found pictures aidedin d4fining contrasts but also Indicated that pictureswere of limited value. EFFECTIVENESS OF ILLUSTRATI N

The following section willexamine the fun of picturesin 'motivatingpitoducers andusersoftexts anthe effectsof illustrations on the learning process.

A.Illustrations and Motivation. Illustrations are often included to make les more attractive and increase sales. Legenza andKnafle (1978, p. 170) state that, "It even seems as though publishers use pictures inbasal readers as a primary vehicle with whichto compete with each other for sales." Dwyer (1972) also discusses theuse of pictures as decorations. He concludes that "the basicproblem relative to the use of visuals is that visual illustrationsare not produced primarily for their instruc- t tional value.° Usually the productionof visual illustrations is based on the subjective feelings of the designerabout *hat is ben,... the 'attractiveness of the finisbed product, andthe availability of a ready market" (p. 2).

Even when pictures are included onlyto make a book more attractive, they may fail to achieve theirIntended purpose if they do not appeal to children.Wotking with both young children (from kindergarten through the sixth grade) andwith adults, Rudisill (1952) found that the dilldrell's preferencesvaried widely from those of the adults.The ackfits. were instructed to selectthe illustrations that they felt childreal would mostprefer. Even 'though her adult - population was not representative ofthose who produce or evaluate children'sbooks;her results do indicate that illustrationsused solely as decoration may be counter-productive if theyare not carefully selected with children's preferencei in mind.

Adults may also interpret pictures differentlythan children. Higgins (1980) Indicatesa potentially serious problem that young children ages three to seven encounterwhen attempting to use pictures for Interpretation. Children inthis age range appear unable to envision any element of a picture that is notcomplitely visible. A truncated dog, for aexample, with his hindquarters out of the picture or tbscured by another dog in the foreground,appears to be half a dog to a young child. Similarly,a picture of a boy seated In front of a girl standing behind his chair elicits literalresponses about the girl's Inability to walk.It appears that many young learners receive information that artistsor photographers never meant to convey and in doing-stfieceive Information thatwould hinder the interpretation functions. -6-

Myatt and Carter (1979) examinedstudent picture preference in a wide range of grades (K, 1, 2, 3,5, 9, and 10. They found color photographs, were the overwhelmingfirst. preference. Full-line drawings in wrndi form andcontour were established by colorwere the second choice.Cartoons' were liked least bx all gradelevels. Anothgr indication of children'spreferences may be the degree to which they can articulatetheir feelings. Legenza and Knafle (1978) found that factors suchas action or the number of Children ina picture affected the, amount of language first and second grade students used when discussingthe pictures. Sewell and Moore (1980) found thatundergraduatecollegestudentsenjoyedcartoon- embellished text al opposedto text alone or audiovisualpresenta- tions, but therewere no significant differences in learning the forms. between

Research results on the motivationfor purchase or selection appear 'inconclusive.The value of illustrationsas motivation for learning is also unclear.CoMmenting on. the ability of illustrationsto motivate learners, Levin (1979)says that, in general, they have little effect.Both Samuels (1970_ andDuchastel (1980) notea total absence of studies discussingthe motivational value of_ illustrations. Levin (1979) concludes that"there exist no convincing datato relate increased motivationa:: se to increased prose recall" (p. 15). B. Illustrations and Learning 1. General Background Current evidence does notsupport the proposition that visual repetitionoftextualinformation(reiteration)contributes'to improved prose learning. Onepossible reason for thismay have been identified by Dwyer (197.4) ina description of color as an instructional variable.He notes that detailed illustrations--may distract from essential learningcues and may also requiremore time for study.Citing Travers (1964), Broadbent (1965),and others, Dver cautions that:

The effectiveness of discriminationlearning promoted by' the addition of relevant stimulimay be limited by the information processing rapacityof the organism.. .The failure of themore realistic illustrations to facilitate achievement may be attributedto the amount of realistic detail they contained whichmay have had the net effect of distracting students,from essential learningcues. (p. 413)

10 -7-

In a series of studies with collegeage subjects ranging across more than a decade, Dwyer (v972)examined the effects of color and varying pictorial details,on the subjects' ability _to: (1) draw a diagram of _a heart and labelspecified elements, (2)A,identify the parts of a heart n (imberedon a detailed drawing, (3) define related terminology, 14) demonstratecomprehension, and (5) demonstrate of total understanding by completinga final° 78-Item criteria! test. Dwyer (1968, 1971b, 1971c,1971d, 1972) found simple line drawings most-effeetlife for improving student'sability to draw and label parts of the heart.Detailed shaded drawings in colorwere found most effective for the identificationtask.Print materials without illustrations proved to beas effective as print materials incorporating illustrations on the terminology,comprehension, and total criteria tests. He examined questionsas pre- and post-organizers and found that this Instructional techniquewas ineffective when used with illustrations. Readers seeking more detailedinformation than Dwyer's syn6psis (1972) provides willfind citations to his earlier publications in The bibliographyat the end of this work. Peterson (1976) concludes frog' herreview of the literature on black and whiteversus color illustration that color is more effective when younger children (agestwo to five), or illiterate, deaf, or immature adults are concerned. Colorwas most effective whet; used to emphasize differences,aidinthe retention of non-verbal materials, and direct attentionto the "information areas" of the text.

Levin (1979) indicates that pictures assistlearners in organizing information presented bya combination of twit and pictures. He also alludes to the power of illustrationto clarify complex concepts. 'He concludes that pictures contributea moderate to substantial amount to improved learning of prose materials.Few data other than Levin's were found to support these conclusions,although Weisberg (1970) reported that visualization in the formof a map and a graph proved to be significantly more effectiveas an advance organizer than .did a verbal expository treatment. O 2. Presence or Absence of Illustrations Pictures provide a second modality(pictorial as opposed to verbal) for transmittinginformation and thereby making the.information learners receivemore concrete. Levin feels that this dual input can help loth cerebral hemispheres acquireinformation and result in improved prose learning. Smith (1971)and Donald (1979) agree that pictutes can provide useful contextualinformation.Smith claims -8-

that this is an efficientproces5 because only the visual cues that are needed to reduce uncertaintyare selected from the redundant information provided.Not all researchers agree with these conclusions. Broadbent (1958, 1965) and Travers (1967)both warn of the possibility of exceeding a learner's` capacity forusing information. Samuels (1970) citesnumerous studies indicating no significant difference or even negative effects whenpictures are used with print materials. Among these worksare those of Braun (1969) and Baker and Madell (1965).Braun's study dealt with young children while Baker and Made 11 worked with college. students.In spite of the age discrepancy, their resultswere similar and indicatO that pictures were a liability to learning.

Thomas (1978) examined elementaryscience textbooks and found that including or excluding pictures hadno bearing on the comprehension of the material.He concluded that the cost of textbooks could be greatly reduced if illustrations,particularly color photogriphs, were omitted. Working witha population of first grade students learning to read, Samuels found"no difference in learning between t.1* picture and no-picturecondition for better readers. Among the poorer readers, those in theno-picture condition learned significantly more words"(1970,p. 399).

His results were similar to those ofan earlier study by Braun (1969), who found kindergartenstudents learned to read words significantly faster without pictures.Donald (1979) indicates that Samuels' work may be flawed, since he'used isolated words not in continuous context.Donald's research sugggests that there isa positive effect when "relevant illustrations,"as he refers to them,. are incorporated with print material.Samuels concludes that "the bulk of the research findingson the effect of pictures on acquisition of a sight-vocabularywas that pictures interfere with learning to read" (1970, p. 405).

3. Effect of Illustrations on Recall According to Levin (1979), illustrationscan serve as mnemonic prompts. He argues that this "transformationfunction" is necessary for textual components that,are not difficult to understand but are difficult to remember. He concludes that children exposed to story-relevant pictures may be expectedto recall at least 40 percent more ot the information in comparison to no-picture controls.This would be a useful process fornames and dates, and in historical text that must be memorized.

12 -9-

Haring and Fry (1979), working with fourtlaidsixth grade students, found that when pictureswere redundant with the text, the subjects were able to recall themain elements of the story but not less essential elements. Koenkeand Otto (1969) found th-t sixth graders using passages with picturesrepresenting the mainideasof the passages scored hi/4.rthan did subjects who did notsee the pictures.Their similar experiment with thirdgraders did not yield similar retults, however.Pictures appeared to be of no value to this population. Koenke (1969) found that when instructionsto view pictures were given, emphasized,or omitted, no significant differences occurred between similar, testgroups. Vernon's (1933,19)4,1964) studies showed that pictures probably improved the recall of factsbut served to retard the ability of students t describe theoverall purpose of the text.It may be that the location of pictures hassome effect on different types of learner fecal'. -Brody and Legenza (1980)found that placing pictures after the text led to better comprehensionof incidental informe-ann.

13 -10-

TYPOGRAPHYAN OVERVIEW A. Introduction While research on typography has been conductedfor over 150 years, the advent of printing precedeseven the earliest research by several centuries. Whereasa rational case can be made for adding or omitting illustrations froman instructional text, no printed text can exist in the absence of typography.All of the essential elements of the printed page are involved intypography--the nature of the tyr, Itself, its size and spacing, theformat and layout of the page, the width of the typeset line--allpaxticipate in the final product, regardless of whether thetype Is set by hand or generated from computer memory, Furthermore, these elementsinteract with one another In subtle and often unpredictableways.

Before research Into typography began,the basic decisions Involved In the composition ofa printed page were made by trades- men, artists and craftsmen.Many of their books are undeniably attractive and legible,even masterful, but they worker in the abience of any scientific knowledgeabout the psychological effects of what they were doing.Their artistic instincts were their sole guide.

Today, we have the benefit of hundredsof studies concerning typographical variables to helpus make the necessary decisions that result in printed materials. But,as Macdonald-Ross (1977) points out:

-Educational-texts--are-extremelyxomplex typographically: they contain title, contents,section numbering system, glossary, index,- running heads, sectionheadings, page numbers,footnotes,references,tables,photographs, die captions, questions andanswers, Instructions, rnal alcal formulae or other specialnotation, typeface, type size, work spacing, interlinearspacing, line length, use ofspace, columns, boxes and rules, cover design, bindings, page size. Also the designer must consider the productiod system, theconditions of usage and the needs of marketing. Over thirtyissues must be esolved by the typographeror book designer. (p. 41)

No one can possibly reach a perfectcompromise between the effects of all these variables, andno researcher has successfully predicted their Interaction.Concessions must therefore be made fortext

14 production to take place.The end result, as with illustrations, is often merely decorative, and the final decisionsare often based less on sound research than on practical financial and marketingcon- siderations. B. Scope and Definition of Variables A jomplete treatment of the extensive researchon all the variables listed above by Macdonald-Rossis well beyond the scope of this paper.The following review will highlightthe significant research in The areas of typeface andtype size, leading and line width, Ink and paper color;and aesthetics., Wewill also examine several standard typographical conventions:justification, cuing, and paragraphs and column format. Finally,we will consider format and layout and a non-standard style oftypography called vertical typography.

For extensive bibliographies of research involvingthese variables and others not treated in thisreview, the reader is referred to Tinker (1966), Macdonald-Ross andSmith (1974, 1977), Hartley, Fraser, and 13urnhill (1974), andSpencer's excellent text, The Visible Word (1969).For discussions of the mechanics of book designand modern practices In typography,Morison (19G7), Williamson (1966),- Rehe (1974), Hartley and Burnhlit(1977a), and 'Hartley (1978)are all useful sources.Watts and Nisbett (1974) providea review of legibility in children's books withrecommendations for standtrds of legibility.

To better understand andcompare the various research studies we will-examine, it is first necessary to define certainkey terms, and explain how they will be used in thisreview.

As Foster (1965) notes, a good deal ofconfusion surrounds the current terminology used in typographicalresearch: Three terms have currentusage among research workers, these being legibility, visibility, andfeadability.All are used to signify certain qualities of printedmatter, but are used with different meanings in differentcontexts, sometimes by the same author. (p. 279) Foster distinguishes between visibility andlegibility, claiming that visibility is the "identifiability ofa printed character or form," such as the greatest distance at which a given typefacecan be identified.

11.1...... a...., -12-

Legibility, on the other hand, Is reserved for the "influenceof the total format of a printedpage on the ability of the reader to understand the text," or the "ease with which runningtext matter can be uiderstood under normal readingconditions." ,Readability is defined as the effect of writing styles, suchas the length of sentences and sentence structure, on "comprehensibility" (p. 279).

Tinker (1963) also refers to the difference betweenreadability and legibility, adding that priorto 1940, legibility was used to express "factors affecting ease and speed of reading" (p. 4).Since then, the term readability has begun to be used for thesame purpose.He continues:

For a time, it appeared to bea broader term and perhaps more meaningful. However, with the advent of the readability formulas devised tomeasure the level of mental difficulty of reading material,we have had the same terminology employed with entirely differentmean- ings. Obviously, this has led to confusion. (p. 4)

Zachrisson (1965) concurs, and defines legibilityas the speed and accuracy of visually receiving andcomprehending meaningful running text, while in general language,legibility refers to contents and is then called readability.

This paper wt-be concerned primarilywith variables affecting legibility, although readability will also be.discussed.These terms will be used in the manner describedabove. C.- Early Research The first typographical researchon record was conducted in 1790 by Anisson in Paris. He experimented with the relative visibility, at increasing distances, oftwo contemporary typefaces (Wiggins, 1967).His work, as well as that of Hansard in 1825 and Babbage In 1827, is summarized in the classicreview by Pyke (1926), Report on the Legibility of Print.In addition to reviewing the earliest research, Pyke also reportson his own experiments, which involved eight different typefaces. He measured their relative, legibility in terms of reading speed,and found that there were significant differences between them.He concluded, however, that under normal readingconditions thedifferences between typefaces would have to be radical in orderto affect legibility. His discussion of the specific criteria of legibility isnoteworthy for attempting to

16 -13-

define this elusive term. He definedlegibility with specific reference to measurable quantities, reading speed andaccuracy, and noted that few of the early investigatorshad made any attempt to define legibility.

Anisson and other early researchers anticipatedthe work of Emik 3aval, the first researcherto perform scientifically controlled experiments in typography.Working at the University of Paris in 1878, 3aval studied eye movements,the relative visibility of letters, and the effects of variables suchas lighting and paper color on the eyes of the reader (1878).

3aval also mentions an earlier study by Cohn, Irt1865, In which 10,060 children were examined. 3avalcredits Cohn's Investigation of myopia In these school childrenas being the starting point for subsequent studies of lighting,text, type, and other variables that affect reading (Cohn, 1886).

One methodological criticism thatSpencer (1969) levels against these early researchers Is thatthey utilized the edistance method, measuring the visibility of printedcharacters at Increasing distances. He claims that the results of suchstudies can be misleading when applied to normal reading conditions,and are more appropriate for road signs, street lettering, andcar number plates.

Spencer's review of the historyof typographical research is recommended for the reader wishinga more detailed historical survey, as are Pyke (1926) and Zachrisson (1965).

17 -14-

EFFECTS OF TYPOGRAPHICAL VARIABLES A. Readability Readability refers to thecontent and grammatical style of a text rather than to Its formator legibility. For a general review of experimental studies, the readershould consult Coleman (1968).

Some of the "stimulus dimensions"Coleman discuses include: word length, word frequency,phonics regularity, phoneme selection, phonics blending, content words,clause structure) and grammatical transformationli.

"Readability formulas," as developedby Flesch (1958), have greatly Influenced later work inthis field.By applying that formulas to text materials, thereadability of a text passage can be measured. Klare, Mabry and Gustafson(1955) tested the formulas of Flesch (1948) and Dale andChaU (1948) on 989 Air Force tr s. They found that an "easier styleof writing" in technical mater al (as measured by these formulas) Jedto higher retention, more rapid reading, and more "accepts*preference judgements by the subjects. Kare et al. founda gh 'relationship between judgements of material as easier to react andmore pleasant to read" (p. 295).

True tests of readability,howevtr, must measure contentas well as the number of syllablesand the average number of wordsper sentence in a 100-word textsample (the Flesch formula). One criticism Flesdles work can be found In McLaughlin'sTemptations of the Flesch (1974).

Rothkopf (1972) concludes that"clear experimental tests of the hypothesis that learning and readingease are related are scarce." One reason he gives for theInadequacy of many readability and learning studies is that they"have confounded subject matter difficulty or Informationcontent .1th readability". Pointing out that it is extremely difficult to control verbalcontent In readability experiments, he adds that "it Is hard to findstudies in which content is held constant while readability,or the factors that determine it, are varied" (p. 318).

Furthermore, the level of integrationwe most need to study to r ake readability research more useful, is preciselythe most difficult one to examine. Coleman (1968) pointsout that:

(1. 18 -15-

There is not much of an experimentalnature to say here. Surely most of us believe that the majordeterminers of readability for adults lie at this level- -lie in the associa- tions between clauses andparagraphs, in_ the overall organization - -but psychologists havenot yet refined the experimental techniques to investigate thislevel and linguists are not yet able to describeit." (o. 177) B. iiity 1. Type Size and TxWast The practice often followed inexperiments that compared typefaces and/or type sizes hasbeen to base comparisonson point size. Spencer (1969) cautionedabout a potential for error with this practice. He cited Cohn andRubencamp (1903), who drew attention t the Importance of measuringtype in visual, not body, size in order to make valid comparisons. The' problem with using point sizeas a 6 4 comparative measure is explained byZachrisson (1965): This measure does not giveexact inforrristion about the actual height or width of the letters.It is merely a measure of the boid of the type, not Its design.There are instances where heights of type faces having thesame body, or point, size varyas much as 25%. (p. 42) Typeface differences and their effecton the legibility of text material have been investigatedby Paterson and Tinker (1940), Burt, Cooper,andMartin (1955)0, Tinker (1963), andSalcedo,Read, Evans, and Kon.g(19 The results from these and. earlierstudies were weli summarized by Burt Cooper, and Martin(1935), who stated that "with adult readers enjoying normalvisions, wide variations in design... seem permissible without greatlyaffecting-efficiency-of-reeing" (p. 43).Working with students in gradesone and four in Sweden, Zachriston (1965) found that changingtypeface under various conditions made no significant differencein either legibility or visibility. His study therefore confirms forchildren what Burt and others found for adults.

O 19 -16-

Poulton (1939), in a study with scientists, didclaim that one typeface (11 point Modern Extended No. 1)was superior to others for the main body of a scientificpaper. Poulton's focus on special reader groups has been recommended by Salcedo et al. (1972).They conclude that "the human variable in legibilitystudies Invites further inquiry. and that "subject type might be manipulatedas part of the research design" (p. 293).

As noted earlier, when typefaces'are compared, point size does not necessarily equate toan equivalent actual size.This has been taken into account by careftilinvestigators of "Ideal" 'type Size. Thus Patella) and Tinker (1940) and Tinker (1963) havedefined the most legible type sizes to be either 9, 10,11, or 12 point depending on the typeface in question. Burt et al. (1933)recommend "type having an x-height of abdut,060 Inch,e.g., 10 point Times New Roman or 11-point Inprint or Modern 7" (p. 45). As summarized by Rehe (1974), theconsensus of research findings is that "for text mattera type size of 9, 10, 11 or 12 point should be selected. For type facesof a small x-height, 11 or 12 point should be used; while for type faces ofa large x-height, a 9 or 10 point size might be most appropriate" (p. 2?).

2.---LeadinkandLine Width Hartley, Burnhill, and Davis (1978) hadgra. ,school children read four pages from MacLean's Masterof Mor: The text was set up as a single column about 7w e or in 1"1. e columns, each about 3 3/8" wide, with variations Inleading to Indicate new paragraphs.The amount read in ten minuteswas measured, then subjects were asked to "scan" foranother ten minutes.Scanning (Poulton, 1967) Involves giving subjectsphrases taken from their reading, each with a missing word, andasking that they scan quickly, find, and write down as many missing wordsas they can.

Neither line -width norea mg valdat Ignillse cant differences in reading speed. Hartleyet al. point out that since the students did not exoerience great difficultywith the single-column layout, "if it is necessary touse this extreme line-length (because of the nature of the texthen this can be done without placing undue strain on the reader" (p. 194).

C.-

20 -17-

Earlier research on line length (Burt,Cooper, and Martin, 1955; Paterson and Tinker, 1940a,' 1940h, 1942; Tinkerand Paterson, 1949) confirms that a linelengthof 3 to 5Incheswith about 60 to 70 characters is optimal for type sizes inthe 9 to 12 point range, with narrower line widths for smaller type sizes.Thus line widths may vary considerably without creating problems.Paterson and Tinker (1940a, 1943) found, however, thatvery short lines slowed 'perception and Increased the number of fixationpauses. Very long lines greatly increased the number of regressionsand caused inaccuracy in locat- ing the beginning of eachpew line.

If type Is set solid, without interlinearspacing, -the printed lines will be too close togetherfor effective reading because the descenders °In one line interferewith the ascenders in the next line. Leading between the lines solves theproblem. The measure used is the point, where 1/72 ofan Inch is one point (Burn, 1949, p. 216).

Paterson and Tinker began checking the effectof leading on the legibility of type In the early1930's.This task seemed to be a relatively simple job at first, but theyfound that "one experiment 1,4, to another until 11 studieswere completed rticil over 11,000 readers served as subjects" (Tinker,1963, p. 90). commoner type sizes (9 to 12 point) the most effectiveamount o ading ranged from one to four points, dependingon the type face- and line width (Tinker, 1963).

Luckiesh and Moss (1938) found theoptimum for 10 point type was 3 points of leading, but Burt et al. (1955,p. 35) reported that 2 points of leading "appreciablyIncreased the ease of reading (3 and 9 point type)... but little seemedto be gained by 3 point leading. Four point leading usually diminishedlegibility." 3. Ink and Paper Colot Tinker (1963) reviews the work ofearlier investigators who compared the legibility and readabilityof conventional black print on a white background with the same test usingwhite letters on a black background. Taylor (1934), Patersonand Tinker (1931), and Starch (1923) all found that blackprint on white paperwa! significantly more readable then white printon black paper. A review of exOrtments with coloredinks led Tinker (1963) to conclude that"the brightness contrast between letterand background appeared to be one factor determining the perceptibility of the letters" (p.143).

21 -18-

Prince(1957)reinforces this observation, Indicatingthat maximum paper reflectancepromotes maximum reading efficiency because It provides thegreatest contrast between background and Image. Comparative studies ofblack print on papers of various tints by Lucklesch and Moss (1938)and Stanton and Burtt (1933) showedno significant difference in speed ofreading due to paper tints.

The effect on reading speedof colored print on coloredpaper in various combinations has alsobeen studied.Tinker and Paterson (1931) used bled( inkon white paper as a norm and tested the' readability of 10 ink/paper combinations.Black on white was most readable, and the remainingcombinations In order of legibilitywere: (I) green on white, (2) blueon white, (3) black gn yellow, (4) redon yellow, (3) re/ on white, (6)green on red, (7) orange on black, (8) orange on white, (9) redon green, and (10) black on purple. Paterson and Tinker concludethat combinations 7 through 10are very illegible and should not be-used. Combinations3 and 6 should not be used where speed of readingis important. 4. Aesthetics Tinker and Paterson (1942)carried out a e-tnprehensive study of the "pleas: tress" of various typographical arrangements. "Pleas- ingness" is their term for readerpreference. As they stated, "Weare now in a position to determine the extentto which judged legibility and judged pleasingnessagree or disagree with one another" (p. 39). They compared ordinary printingwith bold face, lowercase versus caps, styles of tipefaces, andnumerous other arrangements. Their conclusions are quite definite:"In all cases judged legibility, and ple showed remarkable agreement. Weare warranted in -- ; conaCsangssthatjudged legibility (clay be acceptedas pleasingness" (p. 40).

Burt, Cooper, and Martin (1953)conducted a study of typography which Included aestheticpreferences. One part of their study correlated legibility and readerpreference Ir much thesame way as Tiliker and Paterson haddone in 1942. Although Burt tet at.make no reference to this earlier work,the conclusions they driware remarkably similar. Accordingto Burt, "we obtained a Fartial correlation between ease of reading andpreferelce amounting to .33--fully significant with the number tested" (p.44). -19-

7.achrisson (1965) reviewed severalearlier studies related to aesthetics as a background for his experimenton the "congeniality" of types and typography. HeIdentifies Ovink (1938) as:

The pioneer in, scientific workon congeniality. Ovink . elicited judgmentson the appropriateness of 30 book and display types for 8 literary subjectsand 8 ideas.The analysis brought forward cluitersof type faces which were judged to express the atmosphere withinthree categories: luxury-refinement, economy-precision, and strength. (p.in)

With respect to hisown experiment on congeniality, Zachrisson concludes that:

In studies of aestheticappreciation, the perceptual and artistic ability of the subject should,beof Interest. We have failed to take this intofull consideration in our congeniality experimetits. Only by separatkngour subjects into interest groups havewe to some extent been able to relate the individual to the taskIn a meaningful way. (p. !PO C

It appears that most of the researchon aesthetics has been exploratory and inconclusive. Theobservations of Rehe (1974) seem especially germane:

By and large research Into thecongeniality of type face Is in an initial stage.Results of investigations have only shown the value of certainmethods of investigation. Eventually, however, results fromcareful investigations ::Info the congeniality oftype face may become an important determinant In the selectionof type faces for typographic design.(p. 35)

C. Standard Typographical Conventions 1. Justification All typed 'pages normally haveIrregular margins. When they are typeset for production; theunevenness is often eliminated by a process called justification. This process involves changingthe

23 -20-

spacing' between lettersor words so that every line is the same length, with a minimum numberof words being hyphenated into syllable fragments. Justificationwas first used for purely aesthetic reasons.

The technique is of more than theoreticalInterest.Justifying typeset lines is a very' expensive and time consumingprocess.If it has no effect on readingrate or comprehension, it may be desirable to produce, unjustified texts ata significantly lower cost. Macdonald- Ross and Waller (1975,p. 20) found that corrections required at the proof stage for Open Universitytexts ran to 30 percent In some cases.To correct justified text required6.3 percent of the total print cost In One year,or 22,000 pounds sterling.Justification is often done solely for cosmeticpurposes, and there is some disagree- ment in the literature over whether ithas any positive effect on legibility.

Fabrizio, Kaplan, and Teal (1967) concludedfrom their study of 216 Navy personnel thatirregular margins, irregular margins witha printed guideline, and straight (justified)margins all gave "essentially equal scores" on reading speed, level ofcomprehension, and speed of comprehension.

Gregory and Poulton (1970)on the other hand, found significant differences in the rate ofcomprehension between justified and unjustified text, but discoveredthat the length of the line and the subjects' level of reading abilitywere a major factor in the effects of justification.Their study found that when linelengths averaged seven words, poorer readers did significantlyworse on comprehension tests on justified texts.Good readers did equally wellon either margin format. When line lengthwas increased to 12 words, this disadvantage of poorer readers usingjustified texts disappeared. They concluded that the "variationin interverbal spacing" was most critical for shorter lines, and thatwhen line length was increased, the "variation in spacing is barely noticeableand so It is not surprising that the disadvantages ofjustification should disappear" (p. 433). They also criticized the experimentsby Fabrizio et al. (1967), claiming that the reasonno differences were found between the two styles of margins_ was_that theirsubjects were mostly high school graduates a n d therefore prem.T-1'mby ers;fabrizie-et-ah _ made no attempt to divide theirsubjects into groups of good or bad readers (p. 42S). Gregory and Poulton's resultsconfirmed earlier studies by Powers (1962) and Zachriss On (1963).Powers, using newspaper text of four to five wordsper line, found that an-unjustified stylewas an advantage for slow readets (althoughhe performed no, statistical tests to establish the significanceof this result).He found that justification slowed the readingrate but led to better comprehension overall:

Zachrisson measured reading time,comprehension, eye fixa- tions, and regressions. Herecorded eye movements usinga text with a line width of about nine words (10 cm).Hehalio discovered that poor readers read significantly fasterwith the typical unjustified style. No significant differenceswere found between texts with even or uneven left hand margins. Forright hand margins, poor readers required longer reading timesfor justified text. Gill (1934,4.88),as quoted in Wiggins (1967,p.8)rconcluded that "even spacing Is of more importance typographically thaneve_n line length. Even spacing is a great assistanceto easy reading."

Hartley and Buinfilli (1971),using volunteers from psychology classes, tested three ,l'ormats:standard unjustified textversus text with line endings determinedby syntactic or grammaticalconsidera- tions, standard unjustifiedversus unjustified text with about 33 percent of the lines hyphenated',and unjustified one colunm versus two column texts of varying lengths.No significant differenceswere found for any of' thesecomparisons. They concluded that:"These experiments taken together wouldseem to indicate that unjustified text is robust; that is, It can. bequite markedly manipulated without affecting reading speedor comprehension" (p. 277).Since their subjects were college studentsand probably relatively skilledreaders, this experimentmay have overlooked the negative effects ofjustification on poor readers that otherresearchers have found. Davenport and Smith (1963)conducted a study with 408 adialt subjects.About half of themwere high school graduates, and the other half had at Fast sol-necollege level education.They stated: "Hyphenation, justification, andtype size do -sot affect how much, how quickly, or how accuratelynewspapers are read" (p. 388). Wiggins (1967) found that: "Theusb of space bands to give even rigtit_miug and constant spacing by theuse of thin spaces to provide uneven ilghtmargina_was not significant" (p.17). He

e 25 -22-

cautions that test specimens should beset "line for line" to prevent Introducing other variables, suchas hyphenation and differences between texts in the total number of lines.

c. As Hartley and Bunihi 11 (1911)summarize: "There is, in,fact, little--apart from tradition - -to justify jesfified text" (p. 265). The 0 empirical evidence would indicate thatfor beginning readers, and poor readers in general, the _use of unjustifiedtext forMat is recommended.

2. Cuing-- Headings, an d Questions The process In which format and layoutassist the reader is often referred to in the literatureas "cuing."Sucti variables as headings and underlining, typesize, indentation,and paragraph structure all act to cue the readeron where he is in relation to the overall organization of the text, and what is ofgreatest Importance on that page.

The use of headings and uiaderliningserves to accentuate selected elements in printed text with theexpectation of Iinproving learner acquisition and retention.Both are used to draw a learner's attention to Informationan author considers important for the, learning task at hand.

Branford and Johnson (1973) foundthat headings (which they call "titles") Influenceda subject's Intsrpretation of the subsequent text and resulted -in increasedcomprehension and recall. .They concluded that improved testscores were due to the organizational schemata provided by headings.Their findings also indicated the need for careful consideration whenconstructing headings because they Influence a reader's perceptionof the text that follows. They note that their subjects could not correctly interpreta sentence when they found a discontinuity between itand the preceding heading. In addition, subjects wasted time in "creativeattempts" to rationalize this Incongruity.- 'Theconverse proved equally true; presentinga context cue tended to make difficult textual materialmore compre- hensible. Many subjects in groupsthat were given material without headings "attempted to findor generate information that would make sense of the materials" (p. 409). These findingsare consistent with those of Fowler .and Barker (1974)who examined used college textbooks and found thatover 90 percent of the students had used some form bf self produced typographical cuing.

26 -23- .4

Swarts, Flower, and Hayes(1980) tend to support Branfordand 3ohnson (1973) with theobservation that headingscan mislead end -seriously irnpai.their understanding.However, their findings also suggest thatclearly , written textcan substantially overcome this problem when used withadult learners conversant with the content of the printed material.

Holley (1980) suggests thatheadings may be more valuableas aids for retrieval than forretention. He examined:

The utility of intact(i.e. appropriately positionedwithin the text)headingsas processing aids with non-narrative text . . The major result of this Investigation was that students. provided withtextcontainingintactand embedded headings significantlyout-performed students whose text aid notcon ..ain these processing aids. . . the text-with-headings studentsre,miled,approximately 11% more Information at immediate testingand 44% more information at delayedtesting than the text-without- heading students. ,-(p. 4)

Underlining Is a traditionalpractice used by many authorsto call attention to Importantconcepts. It may not achieve the desired effect or, if successfulIn aiding retention, itmay, in some cases, do so by ereating a condition wherenon-underlined information isnot recalleu. Wendt and Wedierle (1972)found that underlining "keywords" in referencework did not aid recognitionwith 10- to 12-year-old pupils. Cashienand Leicht (1970) found thatunderlined material increased thescores of college freshmen but notat the expense, of Information thatwas not underlined. In a summation of the literature relatedto underlining, Glynn-(1978) statesthat: The research reviewedsuggeststhat experimenter- provided underlining has littleor no effect on overall retention of text propositions.Apparently, learners were .7 unable to exceed the overall.capacity limitations of their information-processing systems.HOwever, the provision of underlining did affectlearner's allotation of 'attention to certain subsets oftext propositions. underlined (intentional) propositionswere best recalled albeit at the expenseofnonunderllned(incidental)propos4ions. Underlining provided nonverbalcues which readers used to

ro a

27 -24- 14,

help define their decision criteria.In this way, the typographical cue exerted controlover which Items in the text were encoded, rehearsed, and thereby, learned. (p.9) Schnell and Rocdtio (1974) concludedthat a structured method of preparing students proved beneficial.As with other forms of cuing, the amount of Instruction givento the student about the underlining may affect the resu.P."1. 4 Another form of cuing treated In the literatureis the form and placement of queatIons in thetext, and their use as "organizers" of text content. Lack ot space precludesa discussion of the issue, but the Interested reader will findMorasky and Wilcox (1970), Svenson and Kulhavy (1973), Sagarla andDIVesta (1978), Grotelueschen and McGraw. A1973), and Allen (19701a useful introduction to the problem of questions.

3. Paragraphs and Column Format Educational texts are usually set Ina one or two column format with various styles of paragraphdenotation. The use of paragraphs in written or printed materials Isan invention of the Middle Ages. Spencer (1969, p. 42) says that: "Inthe late Middle Ages It became, the practiceto_ begina new paragraph on a new line." Prior to this, amm' paragraph mark was used to designateparagraphs In a continuously written or typeset text. Now, ofcourse, It Is a universal convention to separate paragraphs, which Patersonand Tinker (1940b). call "thought Wisp" by indenting thifirst line of each new paragraph,or by separating paragraphs byone of more lines of blank space. The Invention of this new paragraphformat may owe something to the pr artistic tastes of the late MiddleAges.Printers were :ttingght and space- Into printedtext, as the architects and craftsmen were lettln& itInto the gothiccathedrals.

Little research has been doneon the usefulness of. paragraph structure. It originated as an artistic conventionand became accepted as the basic textual formal. withno accompanying empirical evidence to support It.

The best experiments in thisarea are those of Paterson and Tinker (1940b) and Hartley, BurnhIll,and Davis (1978).Paterson and Tinker used 30 paragraphs with 30 wordsper paragraph. They called

28 -25-

these 30-word paragraphs "thought units."They made up an alternate version of the same text, typesetas six paragraphs of five "thought units" each. Using 180 college studentsas subjects, they found that the 6-paragraph page was read 7.3percen. more slowly. They also claimed that: "The equivalence of thetwo test forms was maintained in the 6 paragraph arrangement andthat the reliability remained consistently high" (Tinker, 1963,p. 122). Spencer (1969), however, criticizes their interpretationof the experimental results. Heavers that:"It would, perhaps, be more reasonable to regard this result simplyas confirming what one would expect--that unrelated 'thought units'are more difficult to read if strung together in a single paragraph than ifset out separately, as logic demands" (p. 44).

Hartley, Burnhill and Davis (1978)set paragraphs in one of four ways:

1. New line of text after aone line space, with no Indent; 2. New lineplus indent, but no linespace (the traditional method); 3. New line, but no Went andno line space; 4. No indentation:(i.e., the text was setas a solid (p. 184)

Five-hundred school children, grades sixand seven, were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions, i.e.,each of the four paragraph formats above set in eitherone or two column layout. The "scanning" technique (Poulton, 1%7)was used to test layout legibility.The average scores were very close together. The only significant differences between paragraph formatswere between system (1) and either (3) or (4).System (1) was superior to thesetwo, but not to system (2).

In the same experiment, they found thatthere was a significant, difference in favor of a two column layout. The difference was very, small,however,and theyreportthat"our readersdidno*, seem to experience any great difficulty in handling the single-column layout" (p. 194).

29 -26-

Poster (1970) reported -similarresults from his study of the British Psychological Socletz Bulletin.Using the one column layout that the Bulletin's supplement is printedin, he compared it to the two colun .iyornt o the Bulletinitself.Both use the same page size, typeface and type size. He foundthat "The single-column layout significantly diminished legibility"(p. 114).Poulton (1939) found that single-ccuarnn layoutswere read more rapidly than double- column, but he varied the type size,typeface, and leading to produce the experimental texts.

Burl:hill, Hartley and Young (1976)conducted a study with 340 school chilcken who usedtext that was complicated by tables and diagrams. They concluded that,at least where paragraphs are separated by a line ofspace, "a single-column structure,... is probably better thana two-column structure for text which is continually broken by tables, diagrams,graphs, etc."(p. 69). They maintain however, that "atwo-column layout is probably preferable -to a single-columnone for the setting of straightforwardprose, although the actual datasuggests that the differences are very small" (Hartley 1980a, p. 141).

Tinker (1963) claims that: "The problemreduces Itself to one involving legibility of particularsizes of type with optimal line widths and leading.In addition, printing practice andreader preferences are involved" (p. 116). Hartley (1980a,pe 141' cautions that, given the complexity of instructional text, "decisions concerningthe column structure of a page should not be decided bya simple concern for line length alone but should also take Intoaccount the structural requirements of the text and Its non-textual components."

Differences betweenone and two columnlayout are much more pronounced when examined interms of reader preference. Paterson and Tinker (1940b)report on a study with 241 college students,using bothsingle-anddouble- columnformatsof Psycholoidcal Abstracts. They foundthat 60.5 percent preferred the two column arrangement. They repeated the study with 38 typography experts and printers,and, once again 60.5 percent preferred the double-columnarrangement.

30 -27-

Perhaps the preference for double-columnformat,_ and its Implied effect on the motivation ofreaders, is sufficient to override the small experimental differencesbetween one and two column prose text. More complex textmay require a single-column format to be most. effective. The decisionto use one or two column format should (*ably be based on reader preferencesand the cost of except where complex interrupted textor relatively poor readers are concerned.

D. Vertical Typography and Segmentation Two currentexperimentalvariationsofstandardtext arrangements are vertical spacing andsegmentation, or "chunking." Vertical spacing refers to the arrangementof text matter :rom the top down:

Itlooks like this. Sometimes with Indentations, sometimes with justified left margins, and sometimes

(e.g., see Hartley, 1978)

with vertical space separations to group items hierarchically.

Segmentation, or chunking, In typographyrefers to the spatial separation of textual content Intomeaningful segments. The following example shows standardtext from a technical manual and segmentation of that text (Prase and Schwartz,1979, p. 199). Standard text versions

The carrier facilitymay be developed from single or mixed gauge, PIC or pulp (paper)Insulated, copper or aluminum conductor cables with standardsheaths.The cable may be air-coreor waterproof design; however, in the case of burled air-core PICcables, the double sheath types are recommended.

31 -28-

Typographically segmented version withoutidentation: The carrier facility may be developedfrom single or mixed glu* PIC or pulp (paper) I:misted, copper or aluminum conductor cables with standard sheaths. The Cable may be air-core or waterproof design; however, in the case of burled air -core PIC cables the double sheath typesare recommended. ' A variant of vertical typographysuggested by Andrews (1949) and studied by Nakinsky (1956)is called "square span."It arranges material in double-line blocksas follows: This of the style of an example square-span presentation.(p. 37) The preceding example showssegmentation arranged in vertical typography. Sevimitation has alsobeen studied in horizontal format, which Is similar to standardformat except additional spacing has been placed between each segment as shown here. This format is often referredto ail *spaced units." While there is considerablesupport (as will be shown later) for segmentation as an aid to reading,understanding, and remembering text material, there isno general agreement on how segmentation should best be accomplished.Several approaches appear in the literature.Klare, Nichols, and Shufford (1957)suggest that when creating segments one should:(1) place modifiers with wordsthey modify, (2) separate clausesand. phrases frotn the rest of the sentence, (3) ignore the right hand margin insofaras justification is concerned, and (4)never use existing punctuation withina thought unit (p..42).

The approach used by 3ohnson (1970)was to have college students divide prose Into "pauseacceptability units."The 23 students were told thatpause urlits -might be for taking a breath, giving emphasis, or enhancing meaning.The locations in the story

32 -29-

which were considered acceptablefor pausing by a majority of the students were hypothesizedto be the functional boundaries used In encoding and decoding the narrative(p. 13).

Frase and Schwartz (1979)produced units- by segmenting sentences into major phrases, withnoun phrases and modified noun phrases used to begindifferent lines.They did not eliminate punctuation marks or makeany other changes from the original text. Hartley (1980b), in an extendedcommentary on the paper by Frase and Schwartz, advocatesan alternative that he and Peter Burnhill had developed earlier. AsHartley puts it, they founda "different and ,our view) simpler way of organizingtext which is structually complex." They proposed that lineendings be determined by "syntactic boundaries" andthat space "be used systematicallynot only to separate items fromone another, but also to group the items hierarchically by employingone, two or four units of linespace between groupsas the content of information dictates"(Hartley, 1978, p. 23-24).For a further discussion,see Hartley's (19S0a) presentation of his Ideason vertical' segmentation and total layout with several case studyIllustrations.

As reviewed by Carver (1970),research on recall showed that there was an improvement inshort-term memory when information was grouped Into meaningful units,or "chunked." In that case, why not pre-organize textual materialto facilitate comprehension and retention?This question has beenstudied under varying conditions with mixed results.

Favorable studies include those byNorth and Jenkins (1931), who found spaced-unitssuperior to bothsquare-pan and ,standard by in terms of reading speedand comprehension. Nahinsky (1936), on the otherhand, found that "thesquare-pan style yielded comprehension spans significantlysuperior to both of the other styles conventional and spaced units)Investigated" (p. 39). Coleman and Kim (1961) studied theeffects of vertical,square-span, spaced units, And conventionalarrangement presented onpaper and -via a tactditoscope. In the tachistoscope seriesthree experimental styles--vertical, spaced, andsquare span--were all significantly superior, vertical beingmost superior. Frase and Schwartz (1970,p. 203) found that technicaldocuments with meaningfully segmented text resulted in 14 to 18percent -faster response time than standard text. Hartley and Burnhill (1976, 1977)recommended segmentation

33 -307

to reduce errors in finding information in documentspublished by the British Psychological Society. 3ohnsOn (1970)tested the recall of a prose passage by various samples of learners immediatelyafter reading and at intervals ofup to 63 days.He found that "the structual importance of the linguisticunits was shown to be related to their recall" (p. 17).

Two studies foundno icant, difference between learners tislnisegmented text andstandardtext. Kiare, Nichols, and Shuford (1957) used standard text,square span, and horizontally segmented "thought units" to test retention*efficiency of reading, and the, acceptability of technical material byadults. They concludedthat while the experimental typographicarrangements ism possess certain advantages over the usualarrangement... the a&ifitages.. . are best described as potential, since they Interfere with strongly developed reeding habits* (p. 43LCarver (1970) tested the effect of chunked typogreplryonthe r tading rate and comprehension of college students. He concluded that "the spatial separationof reading =tidal (e.g., textbooks) Intomeaningful related groups of words will probably not improve thereading efficiency of nttqure readers, reading at their normal rate,no matter what method [Le., vertical or horizontal segmentation] is usedto separate the mate 'lal" (p. 296). Kinross (1979), ina critical review of Hartley's InstructionalText,pointsout some Important pre an ems Concerning Hkrtley's proposals for a vertical typography. Coleman and Hahn (1966) comparedthe reading speed of second and third graders when readingstandard text with their speed when reading vertical text presentedone word at a time. They found that "conventional typography was read significantlyfaster than vertical" (p. 433).

E. Format and Layout

All of the variableswe have discussed, both pictorial and typographical, are involved In the formatand layout of instructional tot.In addition, the designersor evaluators of such texts must consider many other factors suchas page size and paper composition,

34 -31-

size of margins, and themanner in which the text, pictures, charts, figures, questions, and otherelements are "laid out" on the page. The juxtaposition of these various elements isknown as "layout."The overall organization andarrangement of the text, including Its physical form and layout, is referredto as "format." It is difficult to experimentallymeasure the effectlieness of format and layout.As Poulton (1959) remindsus"The few experiments in which twoor more variables were manipulated simultaneously show that the variablesinteract with each other" (p. 3).

Generally, there areno well-determined rules to follow in textbook design or evaluation.As we. have seen, the empirical evidence is often contradictory.It frequently suggests guidelines and rarely offers established rules.Some useful general discussions of such guidelines are Hartley andBurnhill (1977c), Hartley (1978), Spencer (1969), Le May (1978),and Rehe (1974).Examples of criticism of printed text, Which illustratesome basic shortcomings of poor design, can be found in Hartley (1978) andMacdonald-Ross and Waller (1975a). A brief anduseful discussion of some of the major factors affecting format andlayout, together with recommendations for their use, Is found inHartley and Burnhlll's "Fifty Guidelines for Improving Instructional Text" (1977b). Naturally, we would notwant to have Instructional text designers slavishly followinga set fortnula for determining format and layout. As Cheetham, Poulton,and Grimbly (1963) remindus: Again, It must be emphasized thatthe last thing that is wanted is a rigid set of rules whichwould make every page of every book, magazine or paper look thesame; what is needed isa guide to the way in which readers search for their information, anda guide to the more effective ways in which suchsearches could be most readily assisted. (p. 50)

Hartley (1978) and most otherresearchers recommend the use of a "reference grid." A "basic" grid resemblesa sheet of unnumbered_ graph paper.From -this,a *ma-SWF-grid; or set of grids, can be drawn up for a particular text, to insureconsistency in text layout. Hartley claims that:

35 -32-

The principal weakness in thetypography of many instructional materials is-a lack of consistency in the positioning of functionally relatedparts.... This ties that layout decisions have been madeduring the process of assembling the image (type and illustrations) prior to the process of itsmultiplication by printing. In the world-of building thiswould be equivahmt to erecting a house without reference toa formal specification or plan. When it is consideredthat the cost of producing a book may equal that of erectinga building, then some idea may be gained of thewastage and cost of muddling through in this way. (p. 13)

Macdonald-Ross and Wailer (1973a)take issue with the use of inflexible reference grids.They state that: Our view Is that the grid isa useful tool, but no substitute for the taste, skill, intuition,and creative judgement of the designer. A grid which istoo strict or inflexible can

the designer from taking opersonal ility for a job.... ft must allow the designer to Judgementandskillwithinadisciplined (. 3) The generoususe of space in instructional texts isan absolute necessity for aiding comprehensionas Hartley and Barnhill have repeatedly stated.Logic would tell, us that increaseduse of space would also increase thesize and, therefore, the cost of thetext. However, as Hartley andBurnhill (1976, 1977d) demonstratedwith documents published by theBritish Psychological Society, such re-design can oftensave money in the long run by makingthe document more comprehensibleand its Important featuresmore obvious.Hartley (19110a) also remindsus that "it is difficult to measure the costs to theuser ol,bacily designed documents" (p. 137).

Burnhill, Hartley, Fraser,and Young (1975) suggestsome ways in which the increasedcost of the correct use ofspace in texts can be minimized through modemprinting Methods and the simpllfication of various-typographicprocedures.

Designers should also avoid whatHartley and Barnhill (1977c) call the:

OM. -33-

Tendency to apply the bilateral mode ofsymmetry to layout; that is, to 'balance' the partsabout the central axis of the page.... It couldjustifiably be termed 'illiterate' for, clearly, the componentparts of a text are not mere objects of varying shapes andsizes to be displayed like ornamentson a mantel shelf or pictures on a wall.. In addition, this approach is uneconomicalfrpm the point of view of print production. (p.237)

One other common pitfall in _textdesign is the excessive use of varying type sizes and typefacesto convey meaning, emphasis, and structure. Macdonald -Ross and Waller (1973a)examined One Open University nit- which containedno less than 1S different type variations. Ha. y and Burnhill (1977c) also criticize the "excessive variety in the sizes, styles, andweights of typeface chosen to code heading levels'. (p. 237).

If either format or layout is poorlydone or too complex, It can actually distract the reader from themost important information on a given page. Hershberger and.Terry (1965)discovered this to be the case in a study using 1111 eighth gradestudents. They manipulated ink color, upperor lower case type, and underlining, to create both typographically simple and typographicallycomplex formats for a lesson plan.The texts distinguished five levelsof importance of content (core versus enrichment), andeach was setin three typographical formats. Thetext formats differed in the number of levels of importance highlightedby "heterogeneous typography." They conclude that: Simple typographical cuing,distinguishing core from -- .enrichment lesson- content, significantlyenhances the ratio of important to unimportantcontent learned without' reducing the total amount learned....0n the other hand, complex typographical cuing distinguishingfive categories of lesson content does notappear to benefit the reader in the least,in the latter case, itseems likely that the complexity of the typographymay befuddle the reader sufficiently to offset any advantagederived from the cuing. (p. 59)

Hershberger and Terry (1963), Hershberger(1964), and Tinker and Paterson (1946) reach similar conclusions. -34-

.Clearly, it is necessary to choose fromamong a multitude of typographical variables in order to producea final layout and format. Most text contains a mixture ofboth acceptable and unacceptable practices in typography.Any text designer will need to findan optimal solution to the problem ofbalancing the effects of these variables. The experimentatliteratuthese variables singly, or h smallgroups, yet Instructional texts contain Several such variables, andno one can presently predict their total interaction. One experiment, however,indicates that this interaction can produce some unanticipated results. Tinker andPaterson (1948) studied the interaction of illuminationintensity, type form, and type size on reading. Thiy found thatalthough their three conditionswere onlymarginallydeleterious when considered separately,when operatingtogethertheyproducedastatisticallydetectable difference, a "nonoptimal" condition. 4 From this, and otherexperiments discussed in Tinker (1963), Tinker concludes that "theprinter should never combine either nonoptimal typographicalarrangements or marginal arrangements. Such practice will only diminishto a striking degree the legibility of print" (p. 169).

38 1

-35-

CONCLUSIONS A. illustrations "For over fifty years,researchershave examinedthe 4 Illustrations in textual materialsand arrived at widely vergent conclusions. Thislackof consistency,while notsurprising considering the /somber of variablesinvolved, Indicates a need for research before Illustrationscan be used with any predictable degree of success. In general,however, Itappears that illustrations can Improve learning and retention Ifthey are properly designed for the intended population.

Duchastel (1978) Indicates thatIllustrations may.'nof achieve their Intended purpose becausewe are more concerned wItkhow they look than how well theycontribute to the learningpurpose. He states that Illustrationsare most us.tful when their role is dearly defined . and they carefully designed to fulfillthat role. The appropriate roles 'bur to Illustrations are the attention role,where Ill tions are designed to attract andmotivate the learnk to reed and, have no other purpose; theexplicative role where picturis are,used to explainsome element of the topiewhich trinnot, be cjearly &scribed in thetext; And the retentions! 'role, In which ri pictuce that 'the student Isable to recall helps him remembersome essential elernnt of the textual material (p. 36-39). ti Dwyer concludes from hisimoserous studies tat the following generalizations \ sbould be -wrsiderk'ywhenIncorporating visual material in texts for collegelevel students:

1. For specific learning oLjectivesthe addition of color in certain types of visualsappear?- 4- be anImportant,instructionalvarlabie in Improving student achievement. 2. The use\ of visualizationto illustrate verbal Instructlin does .notautomatically Improve student Schlevernent of alltypes of learning objectives!. 3. Different 'typesof colored IllustratIoni differ In the effectiveness withwhich they facilitate student achievement of identicaleducational objectives.

39 , 11/11....ac i. -36-

4. Inc:ease in realism in a visual does not always cause a signt-increase In learning. There are _prwdcail limits beyond Which increased realism will not result in InCreased learning. (1972, p. 73) One wonders whether. Dwyer's cond could apply to materials used by elementary and secondary schOostudents as well. Future studied 'uatitAvyeria exp(sitikenttdprotedures could prove profitable in this arei.It is beComingMundt:Ally apparent that educators wilinioon have to justifyevery expense. Since illustrations add greatly to the coat otextswe will have to justify their use. B. intometrt: We haver "reviewed many significant 'stuck!:of the variables affecting the finished product of.typographical design- -the printed page. Many of the research studies have indlcatedpossijkle-guiclelifies for thosewho- must design and evaluateinstructional texts.This research, however, will be of littleuse if *a/aat results art not translated by practitiOners into -actualproduction methods. As Spencer states, in The Visible Words Despite the fact that idmarl respects they sliere a common objective, there has until now been remarkably little collaboration between theresearchers and the producers of print. Many designers and printers remain ignorant of the results of researchor via the whole notion of legibility research with suspicion.The problems of methodology, and definition,which have greatly exercised researchers, have tendedto obscure the significano for the designer ofmany results.(1%9, p. It is obvious that some solutionto' this dichotomy ,betWeen t and practice must be reached the research results are to 'aerve any purpose other than merelyacademic curiosity. Itnot at all obvious how this can best accomplished. Macdonald-AOSit and Waller (1973b) acknowledge this problem, andconclude that: We can, perhaps, 'speak ofa modern consensus between researchers and typographers.. Bothgroups have come to see the detects of the older literature, and would like to

40 5

-37-

remedy these defects. All are agreed (though maybe only in _a vague kind of way) that research shouldindeed mustin the 'future be of value to the practical designer Old The issue is, how to achieve this? (11. They suggest that,as a prelimins' measure, two readjustments are necessary.Nit, researchers must realize that "thepurpose of legibility research should be to Improve thequality of practical decisions.*Second, researehers shOuld learn to "value thepersonal skills of typographers and designers and take themas the starting point for more fruitful typographic research" (p.77). As we irantIoned in our introduction, artistic skillswere the sole guide for producers of texts for Mew centuries. Researchershave been too relaCtsrit to recognize the value ofexperience and sound artistic judgement, preferring tollinit themselvesto the results of empirical research and "book learning." r C. General Conclusions

Spencer (1969) states that future research ito typography must begin to address the effects of thenew 1puter information explosion It typographical research isto remai :vent. If future legibility research is to be of real significanceIt must, then, concern Itself with the realitiesof the later twentieth centUry since no amount of legibility research is alone going to enable Our societyto digest the current_ vast outpouring of printed information.... Thii means that legibility research must be concerned withthe requirements ofmachine, reading, cathode-ray tube composition, microfilming, electrostatic printing,and electronic video recording as wellas with the needs of the human reader. and conventional printingprocesses. (p. 9)' Many of the areas of researchwe haye reviewed have yielded conflicting results.The processes of perception, integration, and comprehension that are involved in readingare extremely difficult to Isolate and control.,Kinross (1979), in .her excellent review of Hartley's Des nine Instructional Text,suggests that perhaps we should not _become too concert-1e8 withconsistent experimental results:

41 -38-

One hopes in the future forresearch that produces notso much 'findings' as poksibilitiesthat stimulate designers of texts by suggesting alternatives.Rather thefeattempt to pass on -certainties, one hopes thatresearch work will foster a critical attitude indesigners and producers of texts. 'And one would liketo see a theory of typography that Slows what Iscommon and basic to all visual typographic languages--independent of pact composing and printing systems,and passing' by the old allegiances to !traditional'and to 'modern' typography. There is certainlya place, :and much work ahear.:. for typographic research. (p. 289)

We hope that future researchers,as Well as textbook designers and evaluators, will find thisreview a useful point of departurefor their own investigations.As Hartley, Branthwaite and Cook (1980) caution:

Thefinalreview,ofcourse,willstillbe like a portraits-painted atone point in time and, fromone particular perspective.And, like all portraits, it willbe perceived differently by differentpeople. .(p. 261),

42 -39-

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES CITED Allen, D. I. Some effects of advance organizers and levelof question on the learning and retention of written social studies material. journal of Educational Psychology, 1970,61 (5), 333-339.

-Andres's:R.B. Reading power unlimited. Texas Outlook 1949, 20-21. Baker, R. & Madell, T. 0.A continued investigation of susceptibility tit. distraction In-academically underachieving and achieving male college students. Journal of Educational, Psychology, 1965, 6 254-258.

Branford, 3., & Johnson, M.Consideration of some problems, of comprehension. In W. Chase(Ed.),Visualinformation processing. New Yorks Academic Press, 1973. Braun, C. Interest loading and rnociall,. ti effectson textual response acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 1969,1 428-444. Broadbent, D. E.Information processing in thenervous system. Science, 1965,150 (3692), 457-462. Broadbent, D. F,.Perception and communication.New York: Pergamon, 1933.

Brody,P., & Legenza,.. C.41pictorialattributes serve mathemagenic functions?Educational Communication and Techology Journal 1980,28 25-29.

Burnhill, P., Hartley, 3., & Young, M.Tables in text.Applied Ergonomics, 1976,1,13-18.

Burnhill, P., Hartley, 3., Young, M., & Fraser,S. The typography of college prospectuses A critique anda case history.In L. Evans, & 3. Leedham (Eds.), Aspects of educationaltechnology DC. London: Kogan Page, 1975., .

Burt, C., Cooper,,,W. F., & Martin, 3. L.A psychological study of typography. British Journal of Statistical Psyedology, 1955,1, 29-57.

43 Buret, H. E. Typography and readability.Elemenmt_ft&h, 1949, 212-221.

Carer, R. P. Effect of a "chunked" typographyon reading rate and comprehension. 1970, 24_ (3), 2i8-296.

Cashlen, Y., & Leicht, K. Role of theisolation-effect in in formal educational setting. of Educational Psychology, 1970, 4114-486.

Cheatham, D., lioulton, C., & Grimbly, B. Graphics:The case for research. rMsa, 190, (195), 41-51.

Cohn' H. L., Ian! of the eye in schools. LandauSIMpkin and Marahall,-

Cohn, H. L., & Rubencamp, R. Wie sollenBucher 'utod Zeitungen Brunswick: Vieweg & Sohn, 1903.

ColemanE.B.Experimental studies of readability.Eiementanr English, 1968, 423" 166 -178; 316-324.

Coleman E. B., & Mar, S. C. Failureto improve readability with a vertical typography. 3ournal of Applied_Psychology, 1966, 22, 434-436.

Coleman. E. B., & Kim, I.Comparison--of several styles of typog- 'ropily in English.3ournal of Applied Psychology,, 1961, Lol, 262 -267.

Coles, P.,,, do Foster, 3. Typography cueingas an aid to learning from typewritten text. Programmed Learning and Educational Tecimology, 1973, 12 (2), 103 -108.

Comenius, A. The orbus pictus of SohnAmos Comnius. (C. Hoole, trans.). Syracuse, New York: Boreen, 1887. (Originally published 1638.)

Creese, H.An evaluation and classification ofpictures used in geography texts from 1880-1930.Universityity of Pittsbur :bulleSe, November 15, 1933.

44 Dale, E.., & Chall, 3. S.A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. tionalResearch Bulletin(OhioState University), 194

Davenport, 3. S., & Smith, S. A. Effects-of hyphenationsjustifica- tion, and type she on readability. 3ournallsmQuarterly, 1963, 42 332-311S.

Donald, D. R. Effects of illustrationson reedy oral reeding accuracy, strategies and comprehension.British 3ournal of Educational Psvctsoloxvi 1979, (3), 282-289.

Duchastel, P. C. Illustrating instructional texts. Aducational Technology, 1978,11 (11), 36-39.

Duchastel, P. C.Research on illuitrations In text:Issues and perspectives. Educational Communication andTechnology 3ournal, 19110, g 211.21t.

in."""lty 'Iwr _ tate University, 1968 (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No.--ED 029 306).

Dwyer, P. M. The effect of questionson visual learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1910, 30 (1), 31-34.

Dwyer, P. M.Exploratory studies in the effectiveness of visual illustrations. AV Communication Review, 1970;18(3),233-249. Dwyer, F. M. Color asan instructional variable. AV Communication Review, 1971a, 19 (4), 399-416.

Dwyer, F. M. Effect of questionson visualized instruction. Journal of Psycholoxy, 1971d, a, 181-183. Dwyer, F. M.Ai experimental evaluation of the Instructional effectiveness of the black and white and colored Illustrations. Didakta Medica 1971b, 3 & 4 96-101.

45 -42-

Dwyer F. M.Questions as advanced organizers in visualized instruction.journal of Psycho ism 1971c, 71 261-264. Dwyer, F. M. A guide for improvis visualizedinstruction. State College, Penn.: Learning U.vices, 1972. Dwyer, F. M. Student perceptions of the instructionaleffectiveness of black and white and colored illustrations.3ournal of txperiments1 Education, 1972, 40 (1), 28-34. Fabrizio, R.,--Kaplan, I., & Teal, .G. keadabUltyas a function of the straightness u; right-hand margins.3ournal of Typographic Research, 1967, 1 (1), 90-95.

F_1esch, R. F. A new way to better English.. New York:Harper, im" 1938. Fiesch, R. F.A new readability yardstick.3ournal of Applied Psychology, 1948, 12j 221-233. Foster, 3. 3.Commentary: 'Psychological research into legibility. Journal of Typographic Research, 1965, 2 279482. Foster, 3. 3. A study of the legibiliv ofone and two column layout for BPS publications.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1970, 23, 113-114.

Fowler, R., & Barker, A. Effectiveness ofhighlighting for retention of text material.3ournal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 358-364.

Prase, L T. & Schwartz, B. 3.Typbgraphical cues that facilitate comprehension.3ouinal of Educational Psychology, t979, 71 (2), 197 -206.

Gill, E. An essay on typogra 122y (4th ed.)London: Sheed ac Ward, 1954.

Glynn, S.Capturing readers' attention bymeans of typographical cuing strategies. Educational Technology, 1978, 18 (11), 7-12.

46 -43-

Goodykoontz, B. -The relation of picturesto reading comprehension. Eterneritary English Review, 1936, 11, 125-130.

Gregory, M.,etPoulton, E. l.. Even versus uneven right-hand margins and rate of comprehension in reading.Ergonomics, 1970, .13, 427-434.

Gretelueschen, A., & McGraw, B. Shaping and/orreview functions of estions inrose material..Final report.Urbana:Illinois versity, )ocument Reproduction Service No. ED 095 520

Halbert, M. An experimental study ofchildren's 'understanding of instructional materials.Bulletin of School Service 1943,12, 7-60.

Halbert, M.The teaching value of illustrated books.American School Board 3ournal, 1944, 108 (5), 43-44.

Haring, M., & Fry, M. Effect of pictureson children's comprehension of written text.Educational Communication and Technology 111,Journal, 1979, 27, I85-190. Hartley, 3. Designing Instructionaltexts. New York: Nichols, 1978. Hartley, 3. *lace and structure in instructionaltext. In 3. Hartley (Ed.), Psychology of written communication:Selected readings. New Tot*: Nichols, 19g0a.

Hartley, 3.Spatial cues In text.Visible Language, 1980b, 14 (1), 62-79.

Hartley, 3., Branthwaite, A., & Cook,A.Writing reviews:Some problems of reviewing research in the socialsciences. In 3. Hartley(Ed.),PsychoiQgyof communication,: Selected readings. New York: Nichols, 1980.

Hartley, 3., 3: Burnhill, P. Experimentswith unjustified text. Visible Language, 1971, 1 265-278. Hartley, 3., & Burnhill, P. ExplorationsIn space: A critique of the typography of the BPS publications.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1976,22,97-107.

47 744-

Hartley, 3., & Bumhill, P.Fifty guide-lines for improving instructional text. Programmed Learningand Educational Technology, 1977b, 14 (1), 673.

Hartley, 3., & Barnhill, P. Spacerevisited: Or the BPS does it again! Bulletin of the BritishPsychological Society,1977d, 251.256.

Hartley, 3., & Burnhill, P.Textbook design:A practical guide. Paris: UNESCO, Division of Materialsand Techniques, 1977a. Hartley, 3., &Barnhill,P. Understanding instructionaltext: Typo- graphy, layout, and design.In M. Howe (Ed.), Adult learnin)g. London: Wiley, 1977c.

Hartley, 3., Burnhitt,P., ac Davis, L. The effects ofline length and paragraph denotation on the retrievalof Information from prose text. Visible Language, 1978, 12 (2),183-194. Hartley, 3., Fraser, S., & Burnhill,P.A selected bibliography of typographical research relevant to*theproduction of instructional materials. AV Communication Review,1974,22., 181-190.

Harzem, P., Lee, I., & Miles,T. R.The effects of pictureson learning to read.British Journal 6f Educational Psychology. 1976, 46 (3), 318-322.-

Hershberger, W.Self-evaluation responding andtypographical cueing:Techniques- for programming self-instructionalreading materials. Journal of EducationalPsychology,1964, 55, 288-296.

Hershberger, W. A., & Terry, D.F.Complexity of typographical cueing In programed and conventionaltexts.(AIR Tech. Rep. C28-12/63-Th7) Palo Alto,Cal.: American Institute for Research, December 1963.

Hershberger, W. A., & Terry,D. F. Typographical cueing inconven- tional and programmedtexts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49 55-60.

48 -45-

Higgins, L. C.Literalism in the young child's interpretation of pictures. Educational Communi;:ationand Technology Journal, 1980, 28 99 -119.

Holley, C.Employing intact and embedded headingsto facilitate long-term retention of text.Arlington, Va.: Data Design Laboratories, 1980. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 189 121)

Holiday, W. G.Critical analysis of pictorial researchrelated to science education. Science Education,1973, 57 (2), 201-214.

3avalt E. Hygiene de la lecture.Belletin de la Societe de Medecine Publique, 1878, p. 569.

Johnson, C. Old time schools andschool books. New York: Dover, 1963.

Johnson, R. E.Recall of prose as a function of thestructural importance of the linguistic units.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 2, 12-20.

Keir, G. The use of picturesas an aid to reading. Reading, 1970, 4 (1), 6-11.

Kinross,R.Review article: Designing instructionaltext, by James Hartley (1178). Instructional Science,1979, 8 (3), 275-289. Klare, G. R., Mabry, 3. E.,& Gustafson, L. M. The relationship of style difficulty to Immediate retentionand to acceptability of technical material.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1955, 46 287-295.

Klare, C. R., Nichols, W. H., doShuford, E. H. The relationship of typographic arrangment to the learning'of technic al training material. Journal of- AppliedPsychology, 1957, 41, 41-'5.

Koenke, K. The roles of pictures andreadability' in comprehension of the main idea ofa paragraph. 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 073 417)

49 -46-

Koenke, K. & Otto, W.Contributions -of pictures" to 'ch(ldrer.'s comprehension of the main idea in reading. Psychologyin the , ,chools 1969, 6, 298-302.

Legenza, A., & Knafle, 3.The effective coments of children's ictures.Chicago, University of is, 197 ERIC t Reproduction Service No. ED 163 134) Legenza, A., & Knafle3.How effective are pictures in basal readers?The Reading Teachers 1978, 32 (2), 170-173. LeMay, 3.Aesthetic kildelines to printed instructional materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educa- tional Research Association, Toronto, 1978.. (ERICDocument Reproductiai Service No. ED 159 694)

Levin, 3. F. On functions of picturesin_prose.Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1979. (ERit DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 186 847)

Lewerenz, A. S. Some results ofa visual edutation class in junior high school social studies taught with the aid of flatpictures. Educational Research Bulletin, LosAngeles City Schools, October, 1919. Litcher, 3. H., & Johnson D. W.Changes in attitudes towards Negroes of white elementary school students afteruse of multiethnic readers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60 148-152.

Ludciesh, M., & Moss, F. K. Effects of leadingon readability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1938, 22 140-160.

Lucklesh, M., & Moss, F. K.Visibility and readability of printon white and tinted papers. Sight-Saving Review,1938, 8, 123.-134.

Macdonald-Ross, M., & Smith, E. B. Moliography for textual communication: Publications relevant to researchon the desi n of texts for the adult learner.Mono ra h number three. Milton Keynes, England:Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, 1973.

50 -47-

Mac Donald-Rois, M., & Smith,E. B.Graphics in text: A bibliog- Milton Keynes, England:Institute ofEducational logy, Open University, 1977. MacDonald-Ross, M., & Waller, R.Criticism, alternatives and tests: A conceptual framework for improving typography. Programmed -Learning and EducationalTechnology, 1975b, 12 (2), 75-83.

Macdonald-Ross, M., & Waller, R.Open University texts: Criticism and alternatives. Milton Keynes,England: Institute of Educa- tional technology, Open University,1975a. MacLean, W.A comparison of colored anduncolored pictures. Educational Screen, 1930,9 (7),196-199. Marks, M. B.Improve reading through better format.3ournal of Educational Research, 1966,60147 -151.. \ McLaughlin, G. H. Temptations ofthe Flesch. Instructional Science, 1974,2(4) 367-383.

Miler, N. (Ed.). Graphic'communication and Crisis in education.AV Communication Review, 1957, 5(3), 1-120. Miller W. A. Reading withand without pictures. Elementary School !mg, /938,21 676-682.

Mitchell, W. A reporton the newly developed "impress"process. Audios?' 1 Instruction 1976,21 (6), 64-66. Morasky . L., & Willcox, H. H. Time required to process informa- t' asafunctionof "questionplacement. American ucational Research Journal, 1970,7 (4)?561-567.

Morison, S.First principles of typography.London:Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Myatt, B., & Carter, 3.Picture preferences of children andyoung adults.Educational Communication andTechnology journal, 1979,27 45-53.

51 -48-

Nartinsky, I. D. The Influence atcertain typographical arrangements upon the span of visual comprehension,Journal of Applied Psycho 14m, 1956; 111, 37-39. . North, 3. & 3enldris, L. B.Reading speed and comprehenilonas a function of typography.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1951, .31, 225-228.

Ovink, G. W. tatmo value and forms ofrintin U verstyo den,

Paterson, D. G., & Tinker,M. A. Studies of typographicalfactors influencing speed of reading: VI.Black type versus white type. Journal of Applied Psychology1931,11 241-247. Paterson, D. G., & Tinker, M. A.Howto make type readable. New York: Harper, 1940b. 'c Paterson, D. G., & Tinker, M.A.Influence of line widthon eye movements.Journal of Experimental Psychology,1940a, 27, 572-577.

Peeck, 3. Retention of pictorialand verbal content ofa text with . illustrations.Journal of Educational Psychology,1974, 66 880-888.

11. Peng, Chao-Ying, & Levin, 1.Pictures and children's story recall; Some questions of durability.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 1979, 27 39-44.

Peterson, V.The effects of colorvs. black and white learning materials on academic acilievement.1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 190 258)

Poulton, E. C. Effects ofrinti tes and formats on the comprehension of scientificournals. Cambridge: M RC Applied Psychology ResearchUnit Report #346, 1959.

Poulton, E. C. Skimming (scanning)news items printed in 8-point and 9-point letters. Ergonomics, 1967,10, 713-716.

52 Ar

-49-,

Powers, S. P. Theeffect of, thive typesettistyles on the speed of re:adintr,new contiOt. M. A.thesis, University of Florida; 1962.\

Pressley; M. Imagery and children'sleaping: Putting the picture In the deve tat -perspeCtive. ReviewofEducational- Reseal-eh, 19 47 (4), 585-622.

Prince, 3. H: Relati of reading types touncorrectable visual Amerkpn 3ournal of dtotornetry,1957, 2! j; 551-595.

Pyke, R. L.Report on the legibility ofprint.London:H. M. Stationery Office, 1926. s Rankin, E., & Culhane, 3. One plct*e equals 1000 words?Reading Improvement, 1970, 7 (2), 37-40:i Rehe, R. F. Typoera.phyt How tom ake it most le&Ible.Indianapolis: L DesignResearch Publications, 1974.

itothicopf, E. Z.Structural text fea and the control ofprocesses In learning from writtenmaters.In 3. B. Carroll & R. O. Freedle (Eds.), e and com F, rehension and the ac uisition of knowledge. rs,.s # 7 nston 13,97. Rudisill, M. Children'spreferences for colorversus other' qualities in illustrations. Elementary School3ournal, 1952, 32 444-451. Sagaria, S. 13., & DiVesta,F. 3.. Learhei expectationsinduced by adjunct questions and the retrievalof intentional and Incidental information. Journal of EducationalPc/y,holo 1978, ZO, 280-288. -

Salcedo, R. N., geed, H.,Evans, 3.. F., & Kong, A. C. Abroader look at legibility. Journalism Quarterly1972, 4J9 285-289. Samuels, S. 3.Relationship between fmal intralist similarity and the Von Restorff effect.Jo of Educational Ps chol 1968, 59 432-437. Samuels, S. 3. Effects of pictures on litarning to read,comprehension and attitudes.Review. of Educational Research,1970, 40, 397-407.

53 I

Schnell, T., & Rocchlo, D. A studyof the relative effectiveness of various under strat on Nadi km. Paper presen at f11410 egeisearch Association, Bethesda, Md. 1974. (ERICDocument Reproduc- tion ServiceNow EDQ99 321)

Sewell, L. H., 3r., & Moore R.\I.Cartoonembellishments in informative presentation:.Educe_ tIonal CommtricatIon and Technology 3ournal, 1980,111, 3,46. Smith, K., & S m i t h ; M.Cr prIn4let of Isar:41:nd educational des* Ristawit hand 1966.

Spaukling, S. Communicationpotential of pictorial Illustrations. AV Communication Review, 1956,4 (1),31-46. Spaulding, S. Researchon pictorial illustration., AV Communication * Rovieiv, 1953,3 (1), 33-43 .

Spencer, H.' The visible word. London:Llind Humphries, 1969. §tanton, F. N., ec'Burtt, H. E. Theinfluence Of- surface and tint of paper on speed of reading.3ournai t....4.Ap.1/...gibleK1Ps diol 1933, 12, 683-693.

Starch, D. Principlei Of advertising.Chicago: A. W. Shaw, 1923. Strang, A. M. A study )01 stains and lossesIn canceins as Inclicatedit stores after{ the addition ofillustratIbns to reavlrf or tat emp e Swarts, H., Flower, L., at Hayes,3. pow- headings in documentscan mislead readers.Techrlcal report #9.,Washington, D. C.: American Institutes' for Research,1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED.192 344)

Swenson, I., & Kulhavy, R. Retentionand item com rehensldin prose as a function of quest on p acementan pac empe, Az: Arizona State University,1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED-083' 551).

Q -51-

Taylor C. D.The relative legibility of black and whiteprint. journalof Educational Psychology, 1934, "5561-578. Thomas, 3. L.. The influence of pictorialillustrations with written text and previous achievementon the readingcomprehension of, fourth grade science Student!. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 1978,15 (5), 401-405..

Tinker, M. A. Cumulative effect of marginil conditioniupon rate of pe.eption in reading. Journa_21of A alieclftlogy,1:ho 1948, 32, 4 537-540.

Tinker, M. A. The of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1963.

Tinker, Experimental studies in the legibility of print:An annotated bibliography. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 1966, 1 (4), 67-118.

Tinker, M. A.,& Paterson, D. G.Stuciiesof typographical fac. ,rs influencing speed of reading: VII.Variations in color of p:, and background.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1931, 471-479.

Tinker, M. A., & Paterson, D. G.Readability of mhced type forms. 3ourna! of Applied Psychology, 1946,29631-637. Tinker, M. A., & Paterson, D. G. Speedof reading point type in relation to' line width and leading. 3o t ialof Applied Psychology, 1949,21

Travers, R. M. The transmission ofinformation to human receivers. AV Communication Review,1964,12,373-385. Travers, R. M. Essentials of learnirgi (2nded.). London: Macmillan, 1967.

Travers, R. M., &- Alvarado, V. Thedesign of pictures for teaching children in elementary school.AV Communication Review, 1970,18 (1), 47-64.

Vernon, M. D. The value of pictorialillustration.British Journal of Educational 1953,21, 180-187.

55 -52-

Vernon, M. D. The Instructionof children by pictorial illAtration. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 1954, 211,171-179. Vernon, M. D. -Commentson the article by Magne and Parknas. British Journal of Educational Psychology,1964, 34 204. Watts, 1.., & Nisbet, 3. ability in children's books: A reviewof research. Windsor;Engand: NPER, 1974. Weisberg, 3.- S.The use of visual advance organizersfor learning -earth science concepts.,3ournal of Research in Science Teaching, 1970, 7 (2), 161 -165.

Wendt, D., & Wockerle H.On effects of indentationi and underlining ,In reference work.Visible Language, 1972, §, 161-171. Wiggins, R. H. Effects of threetypographical variables orf speed of reading. 3ournisearch,1967, 1, 5 -18. Williamson,H,Method of book design (2nd ed.).Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Zachrisson, B. Le,nibility ofprinted 'text. Stockholm: Almquist and Wilcsell, 1965.