Spoken–written presentations do not outperform written-only presentations but do outperform spoken-only presentations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Students did not learn more from spoken–written than from written-only presentations (g = –0.04), but spoken–written presentations enhanced learning compared with spoken-only presentations (g = 0.29). → Adesope 2012 q3 i? Effect sizes differ significantly between comparison treatments (QB(1) = 22.77, p < .001), with spoken-only comparisons yielding larger effects than written-only comparisons. → 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 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Weighted mean analysis of comparison treatments in the meta-analysis: against text-only controls g = –0.04 (k = 23, CI crossing zero) and against audio-only controls g = 0.29 (k = 34), a small effect size, with a significant between-levels difference, QB(1) = 22.77, p < .001.

"Table 2 shows that there is variability in the magnitude of effect sizes across comparison treatments, ranging from – 0.04 to 0.29. Prior to conducting moderator analyses, we examined the effect of learning with spoken–written presentations in comparison with written-only or spoken-only presentations. Table 2 shows that students did not learn more from spoken–written than written-only presentations. However, spoken–written presentations were found to enhance learning when compared with spoken-only presentations."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading and listening yield similar proportions of incidental vocabulary learning, with reading ahead only on some immediate posttests — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In one middle-school quasi-experiment on electricity, spoken-text groups outperform written-text groups with both abstract and concrete animation (d = .35) — related
• Spoken–written advantages are larger for second-language and nonfluent first-language readers and for low prior knowledge learners — 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 spoken–written advantage over spoken-only presentation appears for system-paced but not learner-paced materials — related
• Verbal redundancy (spoken–written presentation) yields a small overall learning benefit with large between-study heterogeneity — a broader claim this one bears on