Claims

No significant differences in learning among sub-titling conditions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1952 · 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? No significant differences in learning were found between the sub-titling conditions. → Miller 1952

Evidence

Miller 1952

Miller, J., Levine, S., and Kanner, J. (1952). A Study of the Effects of Different Types of Review and of Structuring Sub-Titles on the Amount Learned from a Training Film. Memo Report No. 17, Human Resources Research Laboratories, Bolling Air Force Base. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED063741

q2 · i? · causal · r1

In the same 1263-subject training-film experiment, three sub-titling treatments (none, five major, five major plus 21 minor) showed "no significant differences" in learning.

"(a) No significant differences were obtained between the levels of learning using the different sub-titling conditions."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id no-significant-subtitling-differences
title No significant differences in learning among sub-titling conditions
description No significant differences in learning among sub-titling conditions
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 1952
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-28
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — miller-1952

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