Decoding ability did not predict cognitive load directly or through interaction with modality, contradicting the hypothesis that weak decoding raises reading effort¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Decoding did not influence cognitive load when modality was controlled, and the modality-by-decoding interaction did not significantly predict cognitive load. → Haavisto 2025

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

In the mixed-effects cognitive load models (e.g., CL ~ MOD * DEC, interaction B = .005, p = .957), neither decoding nor its interaction with modality was significant, contradicting Hypothesis 3's prediction that better decoders would experience less effort reading texts.

"Decoding did not influence cognitive load when modality was controlled, nor did the interaction between modality and decoding significantly predict cognitive load."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Decoding — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension — a broader claim this one bears on
• Decoding ability predicted retrieval, transfer, and retention, and interacted with modality so that video retention benefits were largest for children with weaker decoding — reports the opposite
• Faster initial-pass studying rate predicted better retention, delayed retention, and transfer and lower cognitive load, but the effect was mostly due to modality — related