Low-density text is as effective as high-density text for achievement in expository CBI and print 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? None of the comparisons between high- and low-density achievement means was significant across Knowledge, Calculation, Transfer, and delayed posttest measures. → 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

Randomized experiment with 221 undergraduates assigned to a 2 (presentation mode) x 3 (density) design plus full LC; MANOVA and univariate follow-ups on four achievement measures. The article reports that "None of the comparisons between high- and low-density means was significant."

"None of the comparisons between high- and low-density means was significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• High-density text takes longer to complete than low-density text in self-paced lessons
• Reading comprehension strongly predicts achievement from high-density microtext, unlike other density conditions
• Students generally prefer low-density text, selecting it on about 65 percent of learner-control choices
• Less skilled readers are more likely to select high-density text under learner control — related
• CBI subjects outperform print subjects on the delayed posttest only — related