Less skilled readers are more likely to select high-density text under learner control¶

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? Reading rate was the only significant stepwise predictor of low-density selections (R2 = .08, p < .01); as reading skills decreased, tendency to select low-density material also decreased. → 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

Stepwise regression of low-density selections on four pretask predictors (attitudes, pretest, reading comprehension, reading rate) in the LC treatments. The discussion states less skilled readers chose high textual support while better readers chose low support.

"Again, only reading rate was identified as a significant predictor, R2 = .08, p <.01. As reading skills decreased, the tendency to select low-density material also decreased."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Low-density text is as effective as high-density text for achievement in expository CBI and print lessons — related