Modality effect sizes differ across fields of study, with social science effects negative and science effects largest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2005 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Effect sizes differed reliably between fields: science (d = 1.20) exceeded social science (d = -0.13), and maths/logic, engineering and English comprehension also differed from social science. → Ginns 2005

Evidence¶

Ginns 2005¶

Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Holm-adjusted Bonferroni pairwise comparisons between broad fields of study in the between-subjects moderator analysis. Table 2 reports science d = 1.20, engineering d = 0.87, maths/logic d = 0.58, social science d = -0.13, English comprehension d = 0.69.

"Significant differences were detected between science and social science, z contrast = 10.69, p < 0.001; between engineering and social science, z contrast = 6.14, p < 0.001; between maths and social science, zcontrast = 5.22, p < 0.001; and between maths/logic and science, z contrast = 4.58, p < 0.001."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Presentation pacing moderates the modality effect: large under system-paced conditions and not significant under self-paced conditions, where it may disappear or reverse — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Presenting words as spoken narration rather than on-screen text alongside graphics improves learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Social science students report higher job finding anxiety and AI anxiety than natural and applied field students, with small effect sizes — related
• No difference in intrinsic cognitive load between visual-only and audio-visual text conditions in VR — related