Claims

DHH students suggest applying spatial contiguity between interpreter and visuals to reduce split attention

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-28 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Respondent comments suggested applying spatial contiguity to the interpreter and visuals, such as overlaying the signing with the presentation slides, to mitigate unproductive scanning between concurrent visual inputs. → Gehret 2025

Evidence

Gehret 2025

Gehret, A. U., & Elliot, L. B. (2025). Perceptions of e-learning by deaf and hard of hearing students using asynchronous multimedia tutorials. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-025-10476-z

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

A few student comments indicated a preference to overlay the signing with the visuals, touching on the notion of contiguity invoked in CTML by both spatial and temporal considerations.

"A few student comments indicated a preference to overlay the signing with the visuals; these comments touch on the notion of contiguity which is invoked in CTML by both spatial and temporal considerations."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.