Spoken text modality does not significantly differ from signaled written text modality, or from signaled written plus spoken text, for either abstract or concrete animation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 6 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Sp-A versus Sg-A and Sp-C versus Sg-C comparisons were not significant. → Kutbay 2020 q2 i? Spoken text versus signaled written plus spoken text, and written+spoken versus signaled written+spoken, showed no significant differences in either representation. → Kutbay 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Kutbay 2020¶

Kutbay, E. & Akpınar, Y. (2020). Investigating modality, redundancy and signaling principles with abstract and concrete representation. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 8(2), 131-145. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1255527

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Independent-sample t-test in the quasi-experiment comparing spoken text with signaled written text under abstract animation. No significant difference: "t (178) = .47, p = .967"; the Sp-C versus Sg-C test was likewise not significant (p = .385).

"there was not a significant difference between the mean achievement scores of the Sp-A group and of the Sg-A group; t (178) = .47, p = .967"

Kutbay 2020 (2)¶

Kutbay, E. & Akpınar, Y. (2020). Investigating modality, redundancy and signaling principles with abstract and concrete representation. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 8(2), 131-145. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1255527

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Independent-sample t-test comparing signaled written plus spoken text versus written plus spoken text with abstract animation. No significant difference: "t (158) = .76, p = .441"; the concrete-representation counterpart was also not significant (p = .911).

"there was not a significant difference between the mean achievement scores of Sg+Sp-A group and of the W+Sp-A group; t (158) = .76, p = .441"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Signaling Improves Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Abstract and concrete animation representations do not differ significantly in middle school students' electricity achievement under any of the five text-representation conditions — related
• In one middle-school quasi-experiment on electricity, spoken-text groups outperform written-text groups with both abstract and concrete animation (d = .35) — related
• In one middle-school quasi-experiment, adding written text to spoken narration makes no significant difference to achievement with either abstract or concrete animation — related
• The signaling effect holds only for abstract animation representations: signaling significantly improved achievement over written text with abstract animation but not with concrete animation — related
• Presenting words as spoken narration rather than on-screen text alongside graphics improves learning — a broader claim this one bears on
• Combining more modalities does not always improve detection of learner mental states — related
• Modality principle: graphics with spoken text beat graphics with printed text for transfer — related
• Verbal redundancy does not facilitate learning when materials include images or animation — related
• Signaling with on-screen text, color, contrast, or symbols improves retention and transfer from animations and video — related