Spoken–written advantages are larger for second-language and nonfluent first-language readers and for low prior knowledge learners¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-10-15 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Moderate and large effect sizes were found for L2 (g = 0.58) and nonfluent L1 (g = 0.82) learners, but only a small effect for fluent L1 learners (g = 0.24). → Adesope 2012 q3 i? Studies with low prior knowledge learners found advantages for spoken–written presentations (g = 0.29), while studies with high prior knowledge learners did not (g = –0.05); the between-levels difference was marginally nonsignificant. → Adesope 2012

Evidence¶

Adesope 2012¶

Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal Redundancy in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026147

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r3

Meta-analytic moderator analysis of participant characteristics (Table 4): reading-fluency levels differed significantly (QB = 7.73, p = .02), with Hedges's g = 0.82 for nonfluent L1 and g = 0.58 for L2 readers versus g = 0.24 for fluent L1 readers. Prior-knowledge low g = 0.29 versus high g = –0.05 was marginally nonsignificant (QB = 8.12, p = .05).

"Although spoken–written presentations tended to benefit learners at all levels of reading fluency, we found moderate and large effect sizes for L2 ( g = 0.58) and nonfluent L1 ( g = 0.82) learners but only a small effect size for fluent L1 learners ( g = 0.24)."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Do instructional supports and programmes help English learners more, less or as much as their fluent peers? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 6 narrower claims that bear on it: 7 distinct studies (4 causal, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q2–q3, 3 of 7 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• English-Learner Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• Reading Fluency — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• 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 — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Nonsegmented spoken–written presentations show a larger advantage over spoken-only presentation than segmented ones — related
• Spoken–written advantages are larger for retention outcomes and multiple-choice test formats than for transfer or mixed formats — related
• Spoken–written presentations do not outperform written-only presentations but do outperform spoken-only presentations — related
• Verbal redundancy (spoken–written presentation) yields a small overall learning benefit with large between-study heterogeneity — a broader claim this one bears on
• VIP effects did not differ between English language learners and fluent English speakers in the study authors' analyses — related
• The A4L impact on grade 4 CCU outcomes differed significantly by ELL status in years 1 and 2, with substantially larger effects for ELL students, but not in year 3 — related
• Benefits of CCSPP community schools were largest for Black students, English learners, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students — related
• Linguistic simplification of math word problems can improve performance, particularly among English language learners and students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds — related
• Poorly fluent readers use context clues more heavily than fluent readers, as a compensatory device — related
• Sample characteristics (immigrant/minority status, L2 status, age) show no significant moderator effects, and several program and delivery features are also nonsignificant — related