Decoding ability predicted retrieval, transfer, and retention, and interacted with modality so that video retention benefits were largest for children with weaker decoding¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Decoding ability improved retrieval from materials, transfer, and retention when controlling for modality (ΔR2mar = .169, .086, .098). → Haavisto 2025 q3 i? The modality-by-decoding interaction predicted retention (ΔR2mar = .013): videos were particularly beneficial for children with lower decoding abilities. → Haavisto 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Haavisto 2025¶

Haavisto, M., Lepola, J., & Jaakkola, T. (2025). The “simple” view of learning from illustrated texts and videos. Learning and Instruction, 100, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102200

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed-effects models with decoding as a fixed effect in the 109-child classroom experiment showed "decoding improved retrieval from materials, transfer, and retention with medium to large effect sizes (ΔR2mar = .169, .086, and .098, respectively)"; total variance explained rose minimally (ΔR2con < .011).

"When controlling for modality with a fixed effect, decoding improved retrieval from materials, transfer, and retention with medium to large effect sizes (ΔR2mar = .169, .086, and .098, respectively)."

Haavisto 2025 (2)¶

Haavisto, M., Lepola, J., & Jaakkola, T. (2025). The “simple” view of learning from illustrated texts and videos. Learning and Instruction, 100, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102200

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the modality-by-decoding mixed model for delayed retention, the interaction term was significant (B = .230, p = .026); children in the lowest 25% of decoding showed substantially higher retention in the video condition, while the difference was minimal for the highest 25%.

"Table 3 shows that the interaction predicted retention with a small effect size (ΔR2mar = .013): while videos improved retention overall, they were particularly beneficial for children with lower decoding abilities."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Decoding — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Decoding ability did not predict cognitive load directly or through interaction with modality, contradicting the hypothesis that weak decoding raises reading effort — reports the opposite
• Videos and illustrated texts showed no significant difference in retrieval from materials or transfer among fifth and sixth graders — related
• Reading comprehension predicted retrieval, transfer, and retention more strongly than decoding, with a weaker modality interaction favoring lower-comprehension children in retention — related
• Fifth and sixth graders showed higher delayed retention and lower cognitive load when learning science from videos than from illustrated texts — related