Temporal contiguity of simultaneous visual, spoken, and signed events may be unfavorable for DHH students¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Some respondents suggested that simultaneous timing of events across visual, spoken, and signed channels may be unfavorable, as it forces consecutive processing and risks missing information. → 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
Some respondents suggested that the simultaneous timing of events across visual, spoken, and signed channels may not be a favorable approach, as it can force consecutive processing and lead to missing information.
"Some of the respondents in this study sug- gested that this may not be a favorable approach based on their comments."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Access — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
Related Claims¶
- Presentation slide visuals were the feature most cited by DHH students for facilitating learning — related
- DHH students suggest applying spatial contiguity between interpreter and visuals to reduce split attention — related
- A narrative review cites one study in which simultaneous notes, worked example and explanation aided understanding, and another in which temporally contiguous instruction lowered perceived cognitive load — reports the opposite
- Split Attention Effect Degrades Learning — related
- On-screen text that duplicates the narration of a diagram can hurt learning, but spoken–written redundancy is not harmful on average and helps over spoken-only presentation in some conditions — related
- Redundant on-screen text impairs learning when it competes with a visualization, though written text duplicating narration alone can help — related
- Contiguity effects show no statistically reliable difference between static and dynamic presentation of visual information — related
- Temporal cueing of event boundaries, such as adding key frames to dynamic visualizations, improves posttest performance — related
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.