Redundant text in the diagram did not affect posttest accuracy or difficulty ratings¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Performance was not affected by whether the frequency information in the diagram was also presented redundantly in the text. → Clinton 2016

Evidence¶

Clinton 2016¶

Clinton, V., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2016). Learning About Posterior Probability: Do Diagrams and Elaborative Interrogation Help? The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 579-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed-effects model comparing diagram-with-redundant-text and diagram-without-redundant-text conditions (N = 198) found no main effect and no interaction with questioning condition. Equivalence was not tested; the null is reported as detected-no-effect.

"There was no main effect of diagram condition, Wald χ2(2, N = 198) = .78, p = .44 and no interaction with questioning condition, Wald χ2(4, N = 198) = 1.30, p = .52"

Discussion¶

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
• Diagrams improved posttest accuracy only in the read-twice condition, not in the questioning conditions — related
• Expertise Reversal Guidance Hurts Experts — related
• Redundancy Effect Impairs Learning — related