The role of illustrations during children’s reading

Feathers, Karen M., & Arya, Poonam. (2012). The role of illustrations during children’s reading. Journal of Children’s Literature, 38(1), 36-43.


Feathers and Arya observed third graders’ eye movements and fixations as they read and retold two different versions of the same children’s picture story book. Although at first the article seems to be mainly aimed at describing the general role illustrations play in children’s readings of such texts, which is in itself a fascinating aspect of the reading process, it becomes clear early in this article that Feathers and Arya have an agenda beyond mere description. By comparing the eye movements of children reading an original, authentic text to those of children reading adapted forms of the same text found in a published reading program anthology, Feathers and Arya clearly intend to make the case for using only authentic children’s picture story books for reading instruction. Their agenda goes even one step beyond that as they make the case for NOT using published reading programs whose anthologies contain adapted versions of picture story books.

Feathers and Arya’s agenda reflects a clear theoretical orientation toward holistic views of the reading process. Within this orientation, authentic texts are seen as far superior to published, adapted texts which, though they utilize the works of well-known children’s authors these days (instead of the stilted, controlled-vocabulary texts of the Dick and Jane era) are still not entirely authentic texts. Published texts are made with an eye toward profit and the marketplace, and thus are often noticeably altered from their original forms. In the article here, alterations in illustrations are the focus, but if one closely examines the printed texts found in today’s purportedly more “literature-based” reading series, one finds that the printed texts themselves may also be altered from their original forms. Because Feathers and Arya’s agenda is to discourage the use of published programs, that agenda becomes unavoidably political, because published literacy programs are a profitable enterprise for big business. Large publishing companies make a lot of money from the sales of published reading programs in public school districts. Further, because reading standards and performance on standardized reading tests are important in those public school districts, the publishing business and government are inextricably linked, forming a powerful force that drives reading instruction in the U.S. Clearly, Feathers and Arya assembled their evidence as a way of at chipping away at the power of publishers and government to control what children read in public schools. I do not point this agenda out because I disagree with what Feathers and Arya are trying to do; in fact, quite the contrary. I agree that authentic text is best. I also take exception with the modification of authors’ and illustrators’ work and consider it an offensive form of censorship, even if the authors and illustrators consent to the modifications. However, I also believe that when there is a political agenda, whether it is something I myself agree with or not, that agenda, and the fact that it represents a particular theoretical and political stance, needs to be transparently owned as such from the first words of an article. It is not that I think the authors were trying to bury their agenda; that agenda is clear to any reader who is familiar with the various stances swirling around literacy instruction today. I guess I do wish the agenda had been owned and stated at the outset of the article, though, instead of only implied until it was more explicitly stated at the very end of the article. If we really believe that authentic texts are best, and that these published programs are harmful and should be discontinued, and if we believe in the soundness of our evidence, and that what we believe is right for children should be supported, then why not state that proudly up front? I believe the evidence here is compelling enough to stand up to the scrutiny that a strong, frankly embraced agenda might produce.

Feathers and Arya maintain that because the adapted versions in the published programs omit illustrations, and may even change the sequence of illustrations from that found in the original versions, children’s text comprehension can be affected negatively. They explain how illustrations in a picture story book serve a number of functions in the process of reading and making sense of the story. Illustrations can help children read unknown words by providing additional clues (though some illustrations provide better clues than others). Illustrations can help children confirm what they are reading, serving as evidence that the hypotheses and predictions that readers make as they read are indeed accurate. Illustrations can provide contexts for reading that help readers make sense of a story, as well as additional information about characters, settings, and plot that often go beyond what is given in a story’s print text. In the adapted texts, some of that information and support may be lost, or the changes may even confuse readers and cause meaning to be disrupted. Several examples of how this happened in Feathers and Arya’s research are given. Perhaps the most striking example of this was where several illustrations in the original story clearly showed the passage of time, but those several illustrations were condensed to one illustration in the adapted story in the published program’s anthology. The retellings of children who read the original story showed that those children comprehended the time frame of the story. The children who read the adapted version missed that aspect of the story altogether in their retellings.

Although the evidence here comes from observations of only six third graders (three for the authentic text and three for the adapted text), it is done with “cutting edge” eye movement tracking devices and represents in-depth observations. I would have liked to read more about the children observed and the processes of data analysis that were employed, but even without all that, this research has a feeling of authenticity and a sense of scientific rigor. Eye movement tracking is a fascinating research area that could provide us with a better picture of the reading process than we have had up to now. In reading research, this research thread is akin to the development of the MRI in medical research, and has the potential to provide us with a much more concrete, direct window on reading processes than the admittedly indirect assessments afforded researchers in the past. Whether or not you agree with the findings or with the agenda presented here, this research is now and will in the future be fascinating.