High-density text takes longer to complete than low-density text in self-paced lessons¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1988 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Completion times were significantly longer for high-density (M = 26.5 min) than low-density text (M = 21.0 min), F(1,144) = 8.60, p < .01. → Ross 1988

Evidence¶

Ross 1988¶

Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O'Dell, J. K. (1988). Obtaining More out of Less Text in CBI: Effects of Varied Text Density Levels as a Function of Learner Characteristics and Control Strategy. Educational Communication and Technology, 36(3), 131-142. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30218252

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Univariate ANOVA on completion time excluding LC treatments, from the same randomized experiment. The density effect remained significant after subtracting estimated paging times: "the significant density condition effect was maintained, F (1,44) = 5.12, p < .05."

"completion times were longer for CBI (M = 25.8 min.) than for print (M = 21.5), F (1,144) = 4.45, p < .05, and for high-density (M = 26.5) than for low-density text (M = 21.0), F (1,144) = 8.60, p < .01."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Low-density text is as effective as high-density text for achievement in expository CBI and print lessons
• Students generally prefer low-density text, selecting it on about 65 percent of learner-control choices
• High-variability passages receive longer study times than low-variability passages
• Reading comprehension strongly predicts achievement from high-density microtext, unlike other density conditions