| Title |
Does the Modality Effect Exist? and if So, Which Modality Effect?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10936-011-9180-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joachim Reinwein |
| Abstract |
The modality effect is a central issue in multimedia learning [see Mayer (Cambridge University Press, 2005a), for a review]. Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), for example, presumes that an illustrated text is better understood when presented visually rather than orally. The predictive power of CLT lies in how it links in to Baddeley's (1986) model of working memory and Penney's (Mem Cognit 17:398-442, 1989) Separate-Streams Hypothesis. Ginns's (Learn Instr 4:313-331, 2005) recent meta-analysis also supports the modality effect (d = 0.72, based on 43 independent effects). This article replicates the meta-analysis of the modality effect based on 86 independent effects (with within-study subgroups as the unit of analysis and with mean of the outcomes as the dependent measure), with results showing a reduction of the overall effect size by almost half (d = 0.38), and even more when Duval and Tweedie's Trim and Fill method is used to correct publication bias (d = 0.20). This article also widens the scope of the analysis of moderator variables (e.g. Pace of presentation, Type of visualization, Research group) as well as their potentially confounded effects. Finally, it is argued that, for theoretical reasons, the so-called modality effect cannot be based on Penney's or Baddeley's theories and must be explained in a different way. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 25% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 21% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 9% |
| Linguistics | 8 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2013.
All research outputs
#7,454,066
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#70
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,066
of 136,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 136,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them