Cross-Representational Signaling and Cohesion Support Inferential Comprehension of Text-Picture Documents.

The difference for local inferences questions was only a marginally significant trend, F (1, 85) = 1.92, p = 0.072, η 2 p = 0.038.

also in 26,082 other papers

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the participants in the CRS condition had higher scores to the comprehension questions than the participants in the no signaling condition ( Table 2 ); however, the differences did not reach statistical significance, V = 0.033, F (3, 42) = 0.47, p = 0.703, failing to replicate the results of Experiment 1.

also in 111,027 other papers

As shown in Table 1 , there was no significant advantage of high cohesion, V = 0.084, F (3, 83) = 2.53, p = 0.063, η 2 p = 0.084, but there was a significant trend in local inferences questions for those who learned with a highly cohesive text ( M = 1.36, SD = 0.91) compared to those who learned with low cohesive text ( M = 1.02, SD = 0.75), F (1, 85) = 6.29, p = 0.014, η 2 p = 0.069.

also in 9,775 other papers

The results showed a trend in favor of high cohesion, but with no significant effect, a significant positive effect of cross-representational signaling (CRS) on comprehension from local inferences, and no interaction effect.

also in 53,322 other papers