Modality Principle

2020 ◽  
pp. 281-300
Keyword(s):  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4/5/6) ◽  
pp. 61-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khairuddin Nisa ◽  
Che Zalina Zulkifli ◽  
Nor Azah Abdul Aziz

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 245-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Schmidt-Weigand

Abstract.This study aimed to examine if the modality effect is amplified by the matter of animation. Visual dynamics are suspected to increase split attention affordances due to a higher salience and transience compared to static visuals. In two experiments students watched an instruction on the formation of lightning while their eye movements were recorded. Both experiments varied text presentation (spoken, written) and visualization format (dynamic, static) in a 2x2 design. Learning outcomes were measured with verbal retention, visual retention, and transfer tests. Experiment 1 (N = 50) revealed a modality effect (i. e. better performance in spoken text groups) for visual retention but not for verbal retention and transfer. Experiment 2 (N = 60) replicated Experiment 1 with a faster presentation pace, expecting faster presentation to enlarge modality effects. In contrast, Experiment 2 revealed no modality effects in learning outcomes. In both experiments participants spent less time viewing visualizations when text was written. Within written text conditions text was read first and gained more visual attention than visualizations. Viewing time did not significantly vary between dynamic and static visualizations. Thus, animation did neither affect viewing behavior nor learning outcome. Moreover, the lack of effects in a standard manipulation of text modality cast doubts on the reliability of modality effects and, hence, on the validity of a general modality principle.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huib K. Tabbers ◽  
Wilco van der Spoel

Abstract.The modality principle claims that animations are more effective with narration than with on-screen text. However, the cognitive mechanisms that explain the effect are not entirely clear yet. Two issues were investigated in the current study. Experiment 1 focused on the different channel assumption that narration and on-screen text tax working memory differently. Sixty participants studied an animation on the formation of lightning ( Mayer & Moreno, 1998 ; Moreno & Mayer, 1999 ) with either narrated text or on-screen text. Afterwards, mental effort, retention and transfer were measured. Also, half the participants got a counting task that taxed the phonological loop in working memory. The hypothesis was that the counting task would affect learning in the narrated condition more than in the on-screen text condition. The results did not show such an interaction, with the loading task affecting both conditions equally. Surprisingly, no main effect of modality was found either. Nevertheless, the results do not support the different channel assumption as an explanation for the modality effect. The second experiment tested whether the modality effect could be the result of split attention in the on-screen text condition, aggrevated by a lack of time to integrate screen text and animation. Seventy participants studied the same animation as in Experiment 1, but this time both modality of text and speed of animation were varied. We expected the strongest modality effect in the fast conditions, and a less strong effect in the slow conditions. However, no differences were found on any of the dependent measures. The double failure to replicate the modality effect and the lack of evidence for the different channels explanation raises doubt on its theoretical rationale and limits its practical use as a design principle.


2012 ◽  
pp. 200-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard E. Mayer
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Jesse S. Zolna

The modality principle suggests that presenting words via audio-narration rather than visual-text can improve learning (Mayer, 2001). However, the use of narrations when verbal materials are lengthy can have cognitive costs, and learning from text can be improved when materials are self-paced or provide ample study time. Therefore, there might be circumstances under which using text would actually be better than using narration. In this experiment we compare learning from diagrams that accompany text or narration; we manipulated available study time while also providing learners control over the pace of presentation. The results show that under these conditions, using narration instead of text does not improve learning. Some additional study time improves learning from both narration and text. However, even greater amounts of study time improve learning from narrations but not text. Implications about when to apply the modality principle to multimedia instructional design are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document