















































International Journal Educational Psychology 

Volume 00, Issue 0, August, 14th, 2023, Pages 1-14 

 Annika Ohle-Peters, Nele McElvany & Mark Ullrich 2023 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11558  

Students Reading Text-Picture-Material: The Role of 

Teacher Competence and Instructional Quality 
Annika Ohle-Peters1, Nele McElvany1, & Mark Ullrich2

1) TU Dortmund University, Center for Research on Education and School Development (IFS)

2) Goethe University Frankfurt

Abstract 

Learning material often consists of texts and instructional pictures, meaning the reader must extract and 

integrate information from two sources. Research shows that students’ skills in integrating texts and pictures 

already vary in early secondary school. Teachers’ professional competence and quality of instruction are 

important influences on the development of student’s skills. Therefore, this study examines teachers’ 

professional competence in teaching with texts, instructional pictures, and instructional quality as predictors 

for developing students’ text-picture-integration skills. Data from 136 fourth-grade teachers were collected in 

Germany. A subsample of 34 teachers and 646 fourth graders participated in a video study investigating 

instructional quality. In a longitudinal study, we assessed teachers’ competence in teaching with texts and 

instructional pictures via questionnaires and tested students’ text-picture-integration-skills. In between, three 

lessons involving texts and instructional pictures were videotaped and analysed. Multilevel regression models 

showed a small positive direct effect of teachers’ knowledge about student abilities on students’ text-picture-

integration-skills. Furthermore, aspects of teachers’ competence were positively related to instructional 

quality, whereas “clarity and structure” positively predicted students’ text-picture-integration-skills. The 

presented paper contributes to research on text-picture-integration in primary school and how teachers and 

instruction can facilitate it. 

Key words 

Text-picture-integration, instructional quality, teacher competence, longitudinal multilevel analysis, 
video study 

To cite this article: Ohle-Peters, A., McElvany, N., & Ullrich, M. (2023). Students Reading Text-

Picture-Material: The Role of Teacher Competence and Instructional Quality. International 

Journal of Educational Psychology, August, 14th, 2023, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11558
Corresponding author(s): Annika Ohle-Peters ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-7942 - 

Nele McElvany ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8649-5523 - Mark Ullrich ORCID: 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4484-1023 

Contact address: annika.ohle-peters@tu-dortmund.de 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11558
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11558
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-7942
https://orcid.org/
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4484-1023
mailto:annika.ohle-peters@tu-dortmund.de


International Journal Educational Psychology 

Volumen 00, Número 0, Agosto, 14, 2023, Páginas 1-14 

  Annika Ohle-Peters, Nele McElvany & Mark Ullrich 2023 

http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11558  

La Lectura de Texto-Imagen en Estudiantes: El Papel 

de la Competencia del Maestro y la Calidad de la 

instrucción 

Annika Ohle-Peters1, Nele McElvany1, & Mark Ullrich2 

1) TU Dortmund University, Center for Research on Education and School Development (IFS)

2) Goethe University Frankfurt

Resumen 

El material de aprendizaje consiste frecuentemente en textos e imágenes instructivas, lo que significa que el lector debe 

extraer e integrar información de dos fuentes. La investigación muestra que las habilidades de los estudiantes para integrar 

textos e imágenes ya varían en la escuela secundaria temprana. Por su parte, la competencia profesional de los maestros 

y la calidad de la instrucción son influencias importantes en el desarrollo de las habilidades de integración de texto e 

imagen de los estudiantes. Por lo tanto, este estudio examina la competencia profesional de los maestros en la enseñanza 

con textos, imágenes instructivas y la calidad de la instrucción como predictores para el desarrollo de las habilidades de 

integración de texto e imagen de los estudiantes. Se recopilaron datos de 136 profesores de cuarto grado de primaria en 

Alemania. Una submuestra de 34 maestros y 646 alumnos de cuarto grado participaron en un estudio de video que 

investigó la calidad de la instrucción. El presente estudio longitudinal, evaluó la competencia de los maestros en la 

enseñanza con textos e imágenes instructivas a través de cuestionarios y se probó las habilidades de integración de texto 

e imagen de los estudiantes. Específicamente, se grabaron y analizaron tres lecciones que involucraban textos e imágenes 

instructivas. Los modelos de regresión multinivel mostraron un pequeño efecto positivo directo del conocimiento de los 

maestros sobre las habilidades de los estudiantes en las habilidades de integración de texto e imagen de los alumnos. 

Además, algunos aspectos de la competencia de los maestros se relacionaron positivamente con la calidad de la 

instrucción, mientras que claridad y estructura predijeron positivamente las habilidades de integración de texto e imagen 

de los estudiantes. El presente artículo contribuye a la investigación sobre la integración de texto e imagen en la escuela 

primaria y cómo los maestros y la instrucción pueden facilitarla. 

Palabras clave 

Texto-imagen-integración, calidad instruccional, competencia docente, análisis longitudinal multinivel, 
estudio de vídeo 

Cómo citar este artículo: Ohle-Peters, A., McElvany, N., & Ullrich, M. (2023). La Lectura de Texto-

Imagen en Estudiantes: El Papel de la Competencia del Maestro y la Calidad de la instrucción. 

International Journal of Educational Psychology, Agosto, 14, 2023, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/
ijep.11558  Correspondencia Autores(s): Annika Ohle-Peters ORCID: https://

orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-7942 - Nele McElvany ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8649-5523 - Mark 

Ullrich ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4484-1023 

Dirección de contacto: annika.ohle-peters@tu-dortmund.de  

http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijep.11558
http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/rise.XXXXX


IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 00(0)  3 

tudents’ skills in reading and understanding learning materials are essential for their academic

success. Often, learning materials consist not only of texts but also of instructional pictures such as

graphs, charts, or maps (e.g., Hochpöchler et al., 2013), requiring the reader to integrate information 

from the text and picture (text-picture-integration; TPI). Although access to information from two different 

sources has several advantages, these materials also impose cognitive challenges on students (e.g., Ayres & 

Sweller, 2005)—especially on young learners in primary school, who have little experience with this kind of 

material. Teachers must be aware of the cognitive potential and challenges of this kind of learning material if 

they are to provide their students with adequate instruction and learning opportunities. Even though texts and 

instructional pictures (text-picture-material; TPM) are frequently used in classroom instruction, teachers often 

have not received any systematic training at university on how to help students process them (McElvany et al., 

2012). 

Studies have shown the importance of teachers’ professional competence for instructional quality and 

students’ competence development in various domains and countries (e.g., Chung et al., 2022; Darling-

Hammond, 2021). However, there is little research on how these relations transfer to teaching and learning 

with cognitively demanding materials such as TPM. Hence, the present study addresses this research gap and 

aims to identify the links between teachers’ competence, instruction, and students’ TPI-skills. Focusing on 

teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, their attitudes towards the importance of working with TPM, and 

their motivational orientations, we first tested for a potential direct effect of teachers’ TPM-related competence 

on their students’ TPI-skills. In a second step, we analysed videos from 34 primary school classes in which 

teachers explicitly used TPM in their instruction, and tested a mediation effect of instructional quality between 

teachers’ competence and students’ TPI-skills. Thus, the presented study provides new evidence for the role 

of teachers’ competence for student learning in the context of teaching and learning with TPM while also 

advancing instructional quality research in primary school classes. 

Text-Picture-Integration in Learning Materials 

School textbooks and learning materials often contain combinations of texts and instructional pictures designed 

to help students understand complex content, especially in natural science domains (Opfermann et al., 2017;

Peterson et al., 2021). Even in primary school, information is often delivered as a written text with an associated 

pictorial medium such as a map, diagram, or graph. International research has produced well-established 

theories on teaching and learning with multiple modes of representation such as TPM. According to dual-

coding theory, for example, presenting information in the form of texts and instructional pictures addresses 

two different symbolic systems: the verbal and nonverbal. Hence, students have to use separate subsystems 

when processing written language vs. nonverbal (Paivio, 1990). Based on cognitive load theory, Brunken et 

al. (2003) describe a dual-task approach in multimedia learning. Integrating information from two different 

sources is cognitively demanding for students due to the need to split cognitive resources because information 

is (a) presented in different modes (here, verbal and pictorial: dual-code assumption) and (b) received through 

different channels (here, written text and visual representation: dual-channel assumption) (Brunken et al., 

2003). The theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2014) states that students select relevant information from 

both sources and organize it into a coherent mental model. Then, the new information is integrated into already 

existing mental models. Based on this theory, Schnotz and Bannert (2003) proposed an integrated model of 

text and picture comprehension describing how students select, organize, and integrate descriptive (text) and 

depictive (picture) information from different sources by applying parallel cognitive processes. Readers use 

semantic processing to grasp the texts’ verbal organization and construct a propositional representation of the 

written information. Simultaneously, they perceive the visual structure of the picture and construct a 

corresponding mental model. Accordingly, relevant information is extracted from the text through symbolic 

processing and from the picture through analogue processing—with a person’s propositional representations 

and mental models assumed to interact continuously during the processes of model construction and 

inspection.

Theories and empirical research also indicate ways of facilitating these complex cognitive processes for 

students in school. Concerning the presentation of texts and pictures, the multimedia principle states that 

students learn better from texts and pictures than from pictures alone (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014) as long as 

teachers adhere to basic principles of multimedia learning such as avoiding redundant information in the text 

S 
orem 

ipsum

dolor sit

amet, 

consect

etur 

adipisci

ng elit,

sed do 

eiusmo

d 

tempor

incididu

nt ut

labore

et 

dolore

magna

aliqua. 



Ohle-Peters, McElvany & Ullrich – Students Reading Text-Picture-Material  4 

and picture and ensuring spatial and temporal contiguity (Mayer, 2014). According to the DeFT framework 

(Design, Functions, Tasks), teachers need to consider the design and pedagogical function of learning materials 

as well as the cognitive tasks students need to complete when learning with multi-representational materials 

(Ainsworth, 2006). Some useful instructional strategies to support students’ mental integration processes 

include providing directive help—explicitly pointing out relevant elements and relations—or nondirective 

help—supporting learners in identifying relevant aspects based on their prior knowledge of content or using 

visual cues such as colours, labels, legends, or prompts (e.g., Shah & Hoeffner, 2002). Therefore, teachers 

need to be aware of potential challenges associated with TPM and teaching strategies to foster students’ TPI-

skills. 

Role of Teachers’ Professional Competence for Instruction and Students’ TPM Reading 

According to empirically supported models of the relations between teachers’ competences and students’ 

achievement (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2021), teachers need both cognitive and affective competence if they 

are to initiate successful learning processes. One widely established model of teachers’ professional 

competence by Baumert and Kunter (2013) includes cognitive and affective aspects. In this model, pedagogical 

content knowledge (PCK) is one facet of teachers’ professional knowledge (Shulman, 1986). It has been 

identified as a relevant predictor of instructional quality and student achievement (e.g., Gess-Newsome et al., 

2019). PCK is the kind of knowledge that matters for teaching and involves an understanding of how students 

learn a specific topic and what factors facilitate or complicate their learning processes (Shulman, 1986). 

Operationalisations of PCK since then are diverse, but knowledge about student understanding is a relevant 

component of most of them (Park & Oliver, 2008). This encompasses knowledge about student abilities, which 

is essential for students’ understanding specific content such as texts and integrated pictures. 

Teachers’ beliefs are regarded as an important basis for their decisions in the classroom. Teachers’ beliefs 

include subjective theories about student learning (e.g., beliefs about the importance of practice reading TPM) 

and goal orientations (Pajares, 1992). Both have been shown to influence teachers’ behaviour in the classroom 

(e.g., Leuchter et al., 2020; Pamuk et al., 2017).  

Teachers’ motivational orientations are another facet of professional competence. According to the theory 

of self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2020), intrinsic motivation is crucial for human actions in general. 

However, research has also provided strong evidence for the importance of teacher motivation for instruction 

and student outcomes (e.g., Han & Yin, 2016). Therefore, teachers’ intrinsic motivation to use TPM in their 

lessons should impact their teaching. Teachers’ engagement can be described as a motivational concept that 

reflects their voluntary allocation of personal resources to a certain task. Thus, engagement in fostering 

students’ TPI-skills can be understood as part of teachers’ cognitive engagement (Klassen et al., 2013).  

Empirical evidence shows that in general, all of the aforementioned aspects of teachers’ professional 

competence are relevant for teaching and student outcomes. However, few studies have investigated teachers’ 

competence and its relation to instruction and learning in the context of TPI. Previous studies in the secondary 

school context uncovered moderate relations between teachers’ beliefs about reading routines and students’ 

self-reported engagement (Schroeder et al., 2011). Thus, the question of potential effects of teachers’ TPM-

related professional competence on primary school student learning and instructional quality must still be 

answered. 

Instructional Quality in Teaching with TPM 

Teachers’ professional competence plays an essential role for instructional quality, which itself impacts 

students’ learning processes (Darling-Hammond, 2021). Various studies have demonstrated relations between 

instructional quality and multicriterial student outcomes, such as subject-related competence and motivational 

and affective outcomes (e.g., Kyriakides et al., 2013). For secondary school, there is empirical evidence that 

students’ TPI-skills benefit from frequent use of texts and instructional pictures and the explicit discussion of 

TPM (Oerke et al., 2019). The frequency is just one quantitative aspect of instructional quality. There are 

several frameworks systematizing characteristics of teaching quality (for an overview of classroom observation 

frameworks for instructional quality, see Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018). This research was guided by a 

three-dimensional framework encompassing (a) cognitive activation and deep content; (b) classroom 

management, clarity, and structure; and (c) supportive climate. A previous study based on this framework 



IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 00(0)  5 

adapted measures of instructional quality to teaching with TPM, describing three instructional characteristics 

(Ohle & McElvany, 2016).  

Cognitive demand (basic dimension a) includes aspects of cognitive activation and instruction on 

processing information from texts and instructional pictures and includes facets like “extracting information 

from text and picture” or “reciprocal use of text and picture”. Clarity and structure (basic dimension b) refers 

to the structure of learning processes in a lesson and includes facets such as “introducing the lesson’s topic” 

and “clarity of tasks”. Motivational support (basic dimension c) describes teachers’ behaviour designed to 

motivate students and includes facets like “positive error culture” and “positive teacher-student interactions”. 

An overview of all facets and their corresponding indicators is provided in the supplement file (Appendix A). 

Based on the theoretically assumed functional chain of teacher-instruction-achievement, we investigated 

whether teachers’ professional competence offers a suitable explanation for differences in instructional quality 

between classes, and whether these characteristics of instructional quality have predictive potential for 

students’ TPI-skills.  

Research Questions 

To investigate the functional chain between teachers’ competence, instructional quality, and students’ TPI-

skills, the present study addressed two main research questions (RQ) and according hypotheses (H): 

RQ1: How do aspects of teachers’ TPM-related competence relate to students’ TPI-skills? 

Assuming that teachers’ professional competence is essential for successful learning processes, we expect 

positive direct effects of (i) teachers’ knowledge about student abilities, (ii) their beliefs about the importance 

of practice, (iii) their intrinsic motivation to teach with TPM, and (iv) their engagement to foster all students’ 

understanding on students’ TPI-skills (Hypothesis H1). 

RQ2: Are the relations between aspects of teachers’ TPM-related competence and students’ TPM-reading 

skills mediated by instructional quality? 

In terms of empirical evidence for the theoretically postulated functional chain from teacher competence to 

instructional quality and on to student outcomes, we expect positive relations between aspects of teachers’ 

TPI-related competence and instructional quality (Hypothesis H2a) as well as a mediating effect of 

instructional quality on the relation between teacher competence and students’ TPI-skills (Hypothesis H2b). 

Methods 

Participants 

Data was gathered as part of the project (blinded for review) funded by the German Research Foundation 

(DFG). Data from N = 65 primary school teachers (Mage = 43.98 years [SD = 11.96]; Mteaching experience = 17.10 

years [SD = 10.81]; 86.2% female) and their classes (N = 1.165 students, Mage = 10.45 years [SD = 0.59], 

48.3% female, mean Highest International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (HISEI) MHISEI = 

51.02 [SD = 20.17]) was assessed. Among teachers, 34.1% were qualified to teach primary school only and 

63.3% were qualified to teach both primary and lower secondary school. Participants were recruited in both 

rural and urban areas. Although, the data basis was not representative, due to sample size, the sample 

demographics are comparable to those of a representative sample of primary school teachers in Germany from 

the PIRLS 2011 survey. In PIRLS 2011, 40% of all students were taught by teachers above age 50, 91.2% of 

teachers were female, 78.2% had studied German as one of their subjects at university (59.9% in our sample) 

and 90.5% held a teaching qualification for primary school or above (Tarelli et al., 2012). In our study, a 

subsample of n = 34 teachers (Mage = 43.71 years [SD = 11.56], Mteaching experience = 17.85 years [SD = 11.07], 

85.3% female) participated in an additional video study element along with their classes (n = 646 students, 

Mage = 10.41 years [SD = 0.58], 50.2% female, MHISEI = 51.87 [SD = 20.13]). The class sizes varied between 

N = 15 and N = 27 students, the mean class size was Mclass size = 19.00. Teachers and students participated 

voluntarily and gave informed consent. For the video study, we asked teachers from the total sample, if they 

were willing to teach three lessons with TPM, provided by the research team, and to have those lessons 

recorded. Again, participation in the video study was voluntarily and we collected video-specific informed 

consent from teachers and students. At the time of data collection, it was not prescribed by law to get a protocol 

approval of an ethics committee. 



Ohle-Peters, McElvany & Ullrich – Students Reading Text-Picture-Material  6 

Measures 

Teacher competence. Aspects of teacher competence were operationalised for teaching with TPM and 

corresponding instruments were developed and evaluated on secondary school teachers in a preceding project 

phase (McElvany et al., 2012; for an overview, see Ohle et al., 2017). Teachers’ knowledge about students’ 

abilities was assessed with 11 statements capturing the frequency of practicing reading strategies for TPM, 

which varied in their relevance for fostering students’ reading skills (e.g., “Please think about your everyday 

practice in your subject and state how often you practice the following abilities: …relate information from two 

different sources [text/picture]”). Teachers answered these items on a 6-point rating scale ranging from 1 

(never) to 6 (very often). Teachers’ responses were compared with expert ratings on the relevance of these 

strategies for students’ TPM skills (2 points = “strategy rated same as experts”, 1 point = “strategy was not 

rated worse than a strategy preferred by the experts”, and 0 points = “rating contrary to expert rating”). 

Altogether, 38 comparisons of strategies were used to assess teachers’ knowledge about the importance of 

students’ abilities. In the optimised version (according to internal consistency), 28 comparisons remained; the 

reliability is reported in Table 1. 

Aspects of teachers’ motivational-affective competence were assessed with items rated on 4-point scales 

ranging from 1 (does not apply) to 4 (applies completely). Teachers’ beliefs about the importance of explicitly 

practicing reading TPM in order to help students learn how to successfully obtain information from text and 

integrated pictures was evaluated with items such as: “Reading and understanding texts with embedded 

pictures has to be practiced continuously.” The scale for intrinsic motivation to use TPM in lessons and to 

discuss it with students contained items such as: “I enjoy discussing lesson content by means of pictures that 

are integrated into school textbooks or other learning materials.” Finally, teachers’ engagement to foster all 

students’ understanding of TPM was assessed with items such as: “I put a lot of effort into ensuring that all 

students understand the text and the picture.” Table 1 provides an overview of the teacher competence scales 

and their reliabilities. 

Table 1  

Teacher Competence Scales for Total Sample (N = 65) / Video Subsample (n = 34) 

Scale Cronbach’s α 

Knowledge about student abilities N = 28 comparisons .82/.79 

Beliefs about importance of practice N = 4 items .74/.68 

Intrinsic motivation  N = 3 items .89/.88 

Engagement N = 4 items .88/.87 

Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the superiority of a three-factor model (total sample: χ² = 57.66; df = 

40; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .08/video subsample: χ ² = 62.29; df = 40; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .13) for the 

motivational-affective competence aspects compared to a general-factor model (χ ² = 332.21; df = 44; CFI = 

.31; RMSEA = .32/video subsample: χ ² = 189.62; df = 44; CFI = .31; RMSEA = .31). 
Instructional Quality. We evaluated instructional quality by analysing videos of 99 lessons (three lessons 

per class, except for three classes with one missing lesson each). All lessons were rated in terms of three 
dimensions of instructional quality: (i) cognitive demand of tasks, (ii) clarity and structure, and (iii) 
motivational support (Ohle & McElvany, 2016); each dimension contained three to five facets, which were 
aggregated into a single measure for each dimension. A description of the coding manual can be found in the 
supplement file (Appendix A). The instructional quality measures were rated on a 4-point scale: 

0 = Indicators of a facet did not occur in a lesson, facet was performed poorly  

1 = Indicators of a facet only occurred seldomly in a lesson, facet was performed rather poorly 

2 = Indicators of a facet occurred often in a lesson, facet was performed well 

3 = Indicators of a facet occurred very often in a lesson, facet was performed very well 

Two independent raters were trained according to a coding manual and double-rated 10% of the video 

material, achieving a satisfactory interrater reliability of .80 < g-coefficient < 1.00. Ratings for all facets were 

more stable within classes (.12 < ICC < .28) than within lessons (.01 < ICC .17). Therefore, the ratings for 

each class were aggregated and the instructional quality measures were based on the mean scores for each 

facet. The three missing class means were estimated using multiple imputations in SPSS 22.  

Student measures. Students’ skills in reading and understanding TPM were assessed with multiple-choice 

tests at t1 and t2. This test was also developed in a previous project phase, focusing on secondary school 



IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 00(0)  7 

students. Based on data of 48 classes in grade 5 (first year of secondary school; Ohle et al., 2017), the easiest 

items were selected to assess TPI-skills of students at the end of primary school. Students received three texts 

that were linked to corresponding instructional pictures via colour coding, letters and/or symbols. For each 

combination of text and picture, students had to answer six items requiring TPI. An item example is provided 

in the supplement file (Appendix B). In the end, each test consisted of 18 items and the two tests (t1 and t2) 

were linked via six anchor items. The tests were analysed with item response theory using ConQuest 

(Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], 2007) and showed acceptable fit criteria (Bond & Fox, 

2007) at both t1 (EAP/PV reliability = .87; 0.91 < MNSQ < 1.13; -4.1 < T < 4.1) and t2 (EAP/PV reliability = 

.84; 0.75 < MNSQ < 1.11; -6.3 < T < 2.6). The intraclass correlation of ICC = .13 revealed large heterogeneity 

within classes, indicating that just 13% of the variance in students’ TPI-skills could be explained by classroom-

level factors. Students’ figural cognitive abilities served as a control variable and were assessed using Subtest 

3 of the KFT 4-12R (Heller & Perleth, 2000) at t1. Students’ socio-economic background was measured via 

Highest International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (HISEI, Ganzeboom, et al., 1992). 

Procedure 

Students’ TPI-skills were assessed a few weeks into Grade 4 (t1) and at the end of the school year (t2). Teachers 

completed a questionnaire on aspects of their professional competence at t1. A few weeks prior to t2, we 

videotaped three lessons per class. The lesson topic was “South America”, which is part of the 4th-grade 

curriculum in Germany, but rarely taught. As a result, students’ prior content knowledge, as a factor that 

influences students’ TPM understanding (Shah & Hoeffner, 2002), should have been rather low and constant 

between classes. Teachers were provided with TPM for each lesson to maintain consistent content between 

classes. The materials consisted of one text per lesson that was linked to an instructional picture via visual cues 

such as colours, legends, and letters (Shah & Hoeffner, 2002). In the first lesson, students read a text about 

countries in South America and were given a map that was linked to the text by colour-coding. In the second 

lesson, students received informational texts about animals living in different regions of South America; again, 

the regions were linked to this second map via colours and letters. In the third lesson, students read texts about 

people living in different countries in South America and connected information from the texts to graphs via 

symbols. Teachers were allowed to plan their lessons independently in terms of the surface structure (methods) 

and deep structure (learning goals and processes) of instruction. They did not receive any guidelines on how 

to help students understand the material, in order to identify potential differences between teachers’ TPM-

related teaching practices. 

Data Analysis 

To answer the first research question – direct effects of teachers’ TPM-related competence on students’ TPI-

skills – we specified distinct multilevel regression models for each aspect of teachers’ competence using Mplus 

7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). On the between level, aspects of teachers’ TPM-related competence were 

specified as predictors. On the within level, students TPI-skills at t1, age, gender, socio-economic background 

(HISEI) and cognitive abilities were used as predictor variables for students’ TPI-skills at t2. To answer the 

second research question – relations between teachers’ competence and instructional quality and a potential 

mediation effect – we specified a multilevel path model using teachers’ TPM competence aspects as predictors 

of instructional quality, which was itself specified as a predictor variable for students’ TPI-skills at t2 on the 

between level. We also specified indirect paths between the aspects of teachers’ competence, instruction, and 

students’ skills. On the within level, the same predictors were specified as in Research Question 1. We used 

the full information maximum likelihood estimator (MLR algorithm) in the analyses in Mplus to handle 

missing values. Due to the small sample size, we report results with a significance level of p < .10. Descriptive 

analyses were conducted with SPSS 22 (IBM Corp., 2013). 



Ohle-Peters, McElvany & Ullrich – Students Reading Text-Picture-Material  8 

Results 

Descriptive Results 

Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations of teachers’ TPM-related competence. 

Table 2 

Descriptive Results for Teachers’ TPRM-related Competence for Total 

Sample (N = 65) / Video Subsample (n = 34) 

Scale M (SD) 

Knowledge about student abilities 1.28 (0.26) /1.25 (0.24) 

Beliefs about importance of practice 3.64 (0.39) /3.68 (0.38) 

Intrinsic motivation  3.22 (0.51) /3.22 (0.52) 

Engagement 3.17 (0.49) /3.09 (0.50) 

Descriptive results from the video analysis showed that relevant activities for reading TPRM (cognitive 

demand) occurred only rarely in the lessons (MCognitive demand = 0.96 [SD = 0.16]). Clarity and structure were 

occurred slightly more frequently in the videotaped lessons (MClarity and structure = 1.77 [SD = 0.19]), indicating 

that teachers ensured that the tasks and lesson topic were transparent for the students. Motivational support 

was also positively rated (MMotivational support = 1.65 [SD = 0.17]), indicating a positive learning climate. 

Table 3 provides an overview of students’ TPI-skills at both measurement points, their cognitive abilities and 

the corresponding bivariate correlations. 

Table 3  

Students’ TPI-skill at t1 and t2, their Cognitive Abilities, and Bivariate 

Correlations for Total Sample (N = 1.165) / Video Subsample (N = 646) 

M SD 1 2 3 

1 TPI-skill 

t1 

0.03/-0.02 1.04/1.03 -- 

2 TPI-skill 

t2 

0.31/0.29 1.07/1.06 .72**/.71** -- 

3 Cognitive 

abilities 

47.20/47.01 10.96/10.78 .42**/.43** .39**/.37*

* 

-- 

Note. ** p < .01 

The low correlations between students’ TPI-skills and their cognitive abilities indicate the discriminant validity 

of the TPI-test. 

Direct Effects of Teachers’ Competence on Students’ TPI-skills 

Multilevel regression models revealed no statistically significant relations between teacher competences and 

students’ TPI-skills (Hypothesis 1) on the between-level. In the video sample, we found medium-sized 

relations, which failed to reach statistical significance, possibly due to the small sample size. So, on a 

descriptive level, there was a positive relation between teachers’ knowledge about student abilities and 

students’ TPI-skills at t2 and negative relations between teachers’ a) beliefs about importance to practice 

reading TPM and b) teachers’ engagement to foster all students’ TPI-skills and students’ TPI-skills the end of 

the school year. On the within level, students’ TPI-skills at the beginning of the school year, age, socio-

economic background and cognitive abilities were positive predictors for their TPI-skills at the end of Grade 

4. Detailed results are displayed in Table 4.



IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 00(0)  9 

Table 4 

Direct Effects of Teachers’ TPM-related Competence on Students’ TPI-skill at 

t2 for Total Sample and Video Sample 

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 

total 

sample 

video 

sample 

total 

sample 

video 

sample 

total 

sample 

video 

sample 

total 

sample 

video 

sample 

Within 

level 

TPI-skill 

(t1) 
.64* .61* .64* .61* .64* .61* .64* .61* 

Age -.06* -.07* -.06* -.07* -.06* -.07* -.06* -.07* 

Gender -.02 -.05 -.02 -.04 -.02 -.05 -.02 -.05 

HISEI .08* .10* .08* .10* .08* .10* .08* .09* 

Cognitive 

abilities 
.09* .09* .09* .09* .09* .08* .09* .08* 

R² .52* .49* .52 .49 .52 .49 .52 .49 

Between 

level 

Knowledge 

about 

student 

abilities 

.05 .47 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Beliefs 

about 

importance 

of practice 

-- -- -.06 -.31 -- -- -- -- 

Intrinsic 

motivation 
-- -- -- -- -.12 -.05 -- -- 

Engagement -- -- -- -- -- -- -.27 -.43 

R² .00 .22 .00 .10 .01 .00 .08 .18 

Note. * p < .05; standardized coefficients are reported in this table. 

On the individual level, around half of the variance in students’ TPI-skills at t2 was explained by their age, 

gender, socio-economic background, and cognitive abilities. In the video subsample, 22% of the variance in 

students’ TPI-skills between classes could be explained by teachers’ knowledge. 

Relations between Teachers’ Competence, Instructional Quality, and Students’ TPI-skills 

On the between level, relations between aspects of teachers’ TPM-related competence and cognitive demand 

were found (Hypothesis 2a). The better teachers were in differentiating between strategies to foster students’ 

TPI-skills and the more they believed that practicing reading TPM is essential for students’ TPI-skills, the 

more cognitively demanding their lessons were. Higher cognitive demand meant that teachers explicitly 

thematised the information provided by the text and picture and how to integrate information from both 

sources. Clarity and structure was not related to teachers’ competence; instead, it exhibited a medium positive 

relation to students’ TPI-skills. This means that students were better in integrating texts and pictures when the 

tasks and lesson topic were clear and previous knowledge was activated at the beginning of a lesson. 

Motivational support was not related to teachers’ competence nor to students’ TPI-skills. In this model, there 

were no indirect effects of teachers’ TPM-related competence on students’ TPI-skills (Hypothesis 2b). The 

full model is displayed in Figure 1. 



Ohle-Peters, McElvany & Ullrich – Students Reading Text-Picture-Material  10 

Figure 1 

Multilevel Mediation Model of Teachers’ TPM-related Competence, Instructional Quality and Students’ TPI-

skills 

Altogether, 49% of the variance in students’ TPI-skills at t2 on the individual level could be explained by their 

individual predictors. Furthermore, 18% of the variance in students’ TPI-skills at t2 between classes was 

explained by the clarity of tasks and topics in the lesson.  

Discussion 

This study aimed to investigate the role of teachers’ competence and instructional quality for the development 

of students’ TPI-skills during Grade 4 in primary school. TPM plays an essential role in learning materials, 

especially in science classes (Opfermann et al., 2017). Hence, students’ TPI-skills should already be fostered 

before they enter secondary school. Multilevel regression models no statistically significant direct effects of 

teachers’ competences on students’ TPI-skills at the end of primary school. In the video sub-sample, teachers’ 

knowledge about student strategies is the strongest predictor on the between level, but – probably due to the 

small sample size – this effect is not statistically significant. Anyway, this result is in line with research results 

from other domains highlighting the relevance of teachers’ PCK for student outcomes and instruction (e.g., 

Kunter et al., 2013). Teachers should be familiar with strategies to foster students’ TPI-skills and be able to 

compare the relevance of the strategies they use in the classroom. Teachers’ TPM-related competences also 

predicted the amount of cognitive demand in their lessons. Because the measures of teachers’ competence 

specifically focused on teaching with TPM, it seems reasonable that they explained the largest amount of 

variance in the TPM-specific measure of instructional quality. This finding underpins the importance of 

teachers’ knowledge and beliefs for instruction. Regarding the initial question, whether findings on relations 

between teacher competences and student’s outcomes from other domains are transferable to the context of 

teaching and learning with TPM, the presented results precautiously suggest that functional chains are similar 

between domains.   



IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 00(0)  11 

Concerning the relations between instructional quality and student outcomes, clarity and structure was a 

positive predictor of students’ TPI-skills on the classroom level. This aspect of instructional quality has also 

been identified as relevant for student learning in several other studies (Titsworth et al., 2015). We 

unexpectedly found no significant effect of cognitive demand, which explicitly includes TPM instruction, on 

students’ TPI-skills. One possible explanation is the rather low level of cognitive demand found in the 

videotaped lessons overall. This can be problematic, especially for learners with low domain-specific prior 

knowledge, because it is these students in particular who benefit from teachers explicitly pointing out text–

picture relations (Richter et al., 2018). On individual level, similar to findings in other studies, students’ skills 

at the beginning of the school year were the strongest predictor for their skills at the end of grade 4. Since the 

variables on class level, used in this study, only explained 18% of variance in students’ TPI-skills at t2, other 

(individual) factors contribute more to students’ TPI-skills. Regarding the growing importance of digital media 

in school and students’ private lives, playing educational games and using different channels for learning might 

bear potential to foster students’ TPI-skills. 

Limitations 

Although the present study provides new empirical evidence on teaching and learning with TPM in primary 

school classes, it also has its limitations. One strength of the study was asking external observers to assess 

instructional quality during lessons involving the use of TPM and linking these measures with students’ skills, 

but the rather small sample size is a common limitation of video studies. Altogether, 34 teachers and their 

classes participated in the video study, which limits the number of predictors of students’ outcomes that can 

be included on the classroom level. Furthermore, only large effects can be identified with an acceptable level 

of statistical significance.  

Further Perspectives and Conclusion 

Regarding the assessment of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, future studies could improve the PCK 

test by focusing on teachers’ evaluations of students’ abilities and their relevance for successfully working 

with TPM. Furthermore, qualitative studies analysing individual teacher–student interactions could provide 

useful information on how to foster students’ TPI-skills. Moreover, the collected video material could also be 

used to investigate the fit between teachers’ learning offers and students’ uptake of these offers or to investigate 

differentiated and personalised instruction.  

Reading TPM is relevant for students’ outcomes throughout their school careers, since TPM is used in 

various domains and contexts. Analysing the functional chain between teacher competence, instruction, and 

student outcomes in this specific context extends the empirical evidence on the importance of teacher 

competence for instructional quality. Furthermore, this is—to the best of our knowledge—the first 

investigation of instructional quality specifically focusing on teaching and learning with TPM in primary 

school that applies video analysis. The results showed that teachers’ knowledge about students’ abilities in 

reading TPM and their belief in the need to practice the use of TPM relate positively to TPI-related quality 

aspects in their instruction. In accordance with the competence approach that professional knowledge can be 

promoted at university, teaching with TPM should be addressed in teacher education, possibly in courses on 

teaching methods. This would be a promising possibility to promote teachers’ professional knowledge in a 

context that is relevant for multiple school subjects and school types. It would also raise awareness for the 

challenges TPM poses for students and could encourage (future) teachers to address reading TPM explicitly 

in their classes.  



Ohle-Peters, McElvany & Ullrich – Students Reading Text-Picture-Material  12 

References 

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations: 

A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and 

Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001 

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2007). ConQuest [Computer software]. 

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), 

The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.009 

Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV Model of Teachers’ Professional Competence. In M. 

Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Mathematics teacher 

education: v. 8. Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of 

teachers: Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 25–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-

4614-5149-5_2 

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human 

sciences (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.  

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct Measurement of Cognitive Load in Multimedia 

Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7 

Chung, H., Kim, J.-I., Jung, E., & Park, S [Soyoung] (2022). An International Comparison Study Exploring 

the Influential Variables Affecting Students’ Reading Literacy and Life Satisfaction. International 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 11(3), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.8924 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher 

Education, 44(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080 

Ganzeboom, H. B. G., de Graaf, P. M. , & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic 

index of occupational status. Social Science Research : A Quarterly Journal of Social Science 

Methodology and Quantitative Research(21), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017-B 

Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). 

Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of 

Science Education, 41(7), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158 

Han, J., & Yin, H. (2016). Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for 

teachers. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1217819. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819 

Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). KFT 4-12+ R: Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision 

[KFT 4-12+R: Cognitive Ability Test for Grades 4-12, Revision]. Hogrefe.  

Hochpöchler, U., Schnotz, W., Rasch, T., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., McElvany, N., & Baumert, J. (2013). 

Dynamics of mental model construction from text and graphics. European Journal of Psychology of 

Education, 28(4), 1105–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0156-z 

IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. IBM Corp.  

Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T. L. (2013). Measuring Teacher Engagement: Development of the 

Engaged Teachers Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1(2), 33–52. 

https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v1i2.44 

Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional 

competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583 

Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2013). What matters for student learning outcomes: 

A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: 

An International Journal of Research and Studies, 36, 143–152. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010 

Leuchter, M., Saalbach, H., Studhalter, U., & Tettenborn, A. (2020). Teaching for conceptual change in 

preschool science: relations among teachers’ professional beliefs, knowledge, and instructional 

practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(12), 1941–1967. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1805137 

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369 

Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning: 

Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles. In R. E. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.009
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_2
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_2
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7
https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.8924
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080
https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(92)90017-B
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0156-z
https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v1i2.44
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1805137
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369


IJEP – International Journal Educational Psychology, 00(0)   

 
 

13 

Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 279–315). Cambridge 

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.015 

McElvany, N., Schroeder, S., Baumert, J., Schnotz, W., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. (2012). Cognitively 

demanding learning materials with texts and instructional pictures: teachers’ diagnostic skills, 

pedagogical beliefs and motivation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(3), 403–420. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0078-1 

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Version 7. Muthén & Muthén.  

Oerke, B., McElvany, N., Ohle-Peters, A., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. (2019). The impact of instruction and 

student characteristics on the development of students’ ability to read texts with instructional 

pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(2), 375–395. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0375-z 

Ohle, A., & McElvany, N. (2016). Erfassung von Unterrichtsqualität in der Grundschule: Kognitiver 

Anspruch, Strukturierung und Motivierungsqualität [Assessment of Instructional Quality in Primary 

School: Cognitive Demand, Structure, and Quality of Motivation]. In N. McElvany, W. Bos, H. G. 

Holtappels, M. Gebauer, & F. Schwabe (Eds.), Dortmunder Symposium der Empirischen 

Bildungsforschung: Vol. 1. Bedingungen und Effekte guten Unterrichts (pp. 117–134). Waxmann. 

Ohle, A., McElvany, N., Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., Horz, H., Ullrich, M., & Baumert, J. (2017). Development 

and Evaluation of a Competency Model for Teaching Integrative Processing of Texts and Pictures 

(BiTe). In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence Assessment in 

Education - Research, Models and Instruments (pp. 167–180). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

3-319-50030-0_11 

Opfermann, M., Schmeck, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2017). Multiple Representations in Physics and Science 

Education – Why should we use them? In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & H. E. Fischer (Eds.), Multiple 

Representations in Physics Education (pp. 1–22). Springer International Publishing. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_1 

Paivio, A. (1990). Mental Representations. Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001 

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of 

Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 

Pamuk, S., Sungur, S., & Oztekin, C. (2017). A Multilevel Analysis of Students’ Science Achievements in 

Relation to their Self-Regulation, Epistemological Beliefs, Learning Environment Perceptions, and 

Teachers’ Personal Characteristics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 

15(8), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9761-7 

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): 

PCK as a conceptual tool to Understand Teachers as Professionals. Research in Science Education, 

38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6 

Peterson, M., Delgado, C., Tang, K.-S., Bordas, C., & Norville, K. (2021). A taxonomy of cognitive image 

functions for science curriculum materials: identifying and creating ‘performative’ visual displays. 

International Journal of Science Education, 43(2), 314–343. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1868609 

Praetorius, A.-K., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2018). Classroom observation frameworks for studying 

instructional quality: looking back and looking forward. ZDM, 50(3), 535–553. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0 

Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2018). Signaling text–picture relations in multimedia learning: The 

influence of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(4), 544–560. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000220 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory 

perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational 

Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. 

Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8 

Schroeder, S., Richter, T., McElvany, N., Hachfeld, A., Baumert, J., Schnotz, W., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. 

(2011). Teachers’ beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students’ engagement in learning from texts 

with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 403–415. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.001 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.015
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0078-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0375-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50030-0_11
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50030-0_11
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58914-5_1
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9761-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1868609
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000220
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.06.001


Ohle-Peters, McElvany & Ullrich – Students Reading Text-Picture-Material   

 

 

14 

Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. 

Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013180410169 

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching: Knowledge growth in 

teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 

Tarelli, I., Valtin, R., Bos, W., Bremerich Vos, A., & Schwippert, K. (2012). IGLU 2011: Wichtige 

Ergebnisse im Uberblick [PIRLS 2011: Overview of Major Results]. In W. Bos, I. Tarelli, A. 

Bremerich Vos, & K. Schwippert (Eds.), IGLU 2011: Lesekompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in 

Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (S 11-25). 

Titsworth, S., Mazer, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan, S., & Myers, S. A. (2015). Two Meta-analyses 

Exploring the Relationship between Teacher Clarity and Student Learning. Communication 

Education, 64(4), 385–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998 

 

  

 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013180410169
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998

