Reading comprehension predicted retrieval, transfer, and retention more strongly than decoding, with a weaker modality interaction favoring lower-comprehension children in retention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Reading comprehension improved retrieval, transfer, and retention with larger effect sizes than decoding (ΔR2mar = .222, .115, .276; p < .004). → Haavisto 2025 q3 i? Reading comprehension interacted weakly with modality for retention (ΔR2mar = .009, p = .036), with videos benefiting lowest-quartile comprehenders most. → Haavisto 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Haavisto 2025¶

Haavisto, M., Lepola, J., & Jaakkola, T. (2025). The “simple” view of learning from illustrated texts and videos. Learning and Instruction, 100, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102200

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed-effects models reanalyzed with reading comprehension replacing decoding showed "improved retrieval from materials, transfer, and retention with medium to large effect sizes (ΔR2mar = .222, .115, and .276, respectively; p-values <.004)", repeating decoding's patterns with greater magnitudes.

"After controlling for modality, reading compre- hension improved retrieval from materials, transfer, and retention with medium to large effect sizes (ΔR2mar = .222, .115, and .276, respectively; p-values <.004)."

Haavisto 2025 (2)¶

Haavisto, M., Lepola, J., & Jaakkola, T. (2025). The “simple” view of learning from illustrated texts and videos. Learning and Instruction, 100, 102200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102200

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the modality-by-reading-comprehension model for delayed retention, the interaction was significant but weaker than for decoding; Fig. 5 shows videos especially benefited children in the lowest 25% of reading comprehension, with smaller differences at higher levels.

"Like decoding, reading comprehension interacted with modality, though the interaction was weaker: the retention benefits of video were more pronounced among children with lower reading comprehension (ΔR2mar = .009, p = .036)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Decoding — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Videos and illustrated texts showed no significant difference in retrieval from materials or transfer among fifth and sixth graders — related
• Decoding ability predicted retrieval, transfer, and retention, and interacted with modality so that video retention benefits were largest for children with weaker decoding — related
• L2 oral language proficiency predicts reading comprehension more strongly than decoding skills — related