System 55 (2015) 63e73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Input modality and working memory: Effects on second

language text comprehension in a multimedia learning
environment
Kadir Kozan a, *, Gülcan Erçetin a, Jennifer C. Richardson b
a
aziçi Üniversitesi, 34342 Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey
Faculty of Education, Bog
b
College of Education, Purdue University, 100 N. Street, 47907 West Lafayette, IN, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigated the modality effect in relation to verbal working memory capacity
Received 21 January 2014 and time of testing within a computerized second language multimedia learning envi-
Received in revised form 23 August 2015 ronment. Twenty-nine advanced learners of English with Turkish as the first language
Accepted 4 September 2015
were randomly assigned to audiovisual or visual-only presentations about an unfamiliar
Available online xxx
topic and completed immediate and delayed tests to assess retention and transfer of in-
formation performance. They also completed a reading span test as a measure of working
Keywords:
memory capacity. Results revealed a significant combined effect of time, input modality
L2 multimedia learning
Working memory
and working memory capacity on participants' retention performance while the only
Visual-only presentation significant effect observed on transfer performance was that of time. Analyses on the
Audiovisual presentation significant three-way interaction revealed that although input modality and working
Input modality memory capacity play some role in retention performance, their effects emerged depen-
dent upon one other and time of testing.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A fundamental question regarding multimedia instruction is how to effectively present verbal and visual information to
promote learning in multimedia environments. One answer to this question comes from the modality effect of cognitive load
theory (e.g., Mousavi, Low, & Sweller, 1995; Sweller, 2005, 2010; Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011; Sweller, van Merrie €nboer, &
Paas, 1998) or the modality principle of cognitive/generative theory of multimedia learning (e.g., Mayer, 2005, 2009; Mayer &
Moreno, 2003). The modality effect or principle assumes that when written verbal information accompanies visual infor-
mation (i.e., visual-only presentation), they, at least initially, compete for the same resources in the visual channel of working
memory (WM), thereby possibly overloading it. Therefore, it would be better to present verbal information through the
auditory channel in the presence of corresponding visual information (i.e., audiovisual presentation).
Most of the cognitive load theory (CLT) and cognitive theory of multimedia learning research on audiovisual presentation
has used one's first language (L1) as the medium of instruction. From a second language (L2) learning perspective, the hy-
pothesis of audiovisual presentation (e.g., a listening text with corresponding pictures) leading to enhanced performance
compared to visual-only presentation (e.g., a reading text with corresponding pictures) is counterintuitive as L2 learners,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 542 490 8131.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (K. Kozan), [email protected] (G. Erçetin), [email protected] (J.C. Richardson).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.09.001
0346-251X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
64 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73

especially those with lower levels of proficiency, typically consider listening to be a more difficult skill to master (Vandergrift,
2007). Previous L2 research generally compared comprehension performance and processes in reading-only versus listening-
only conditions (e.g., Lund, 1991; Park, 2004) without considering the effects of visuals. These studies have shown that what
readers and listeners recall from the text is qualitatively different in that readers recalled more information from text but they
mainly recalled details while the listeners recalled main ideas (Lund, 1991). Moreover, listeners also performed better on
global comprehension questions that required inferencing and synthesizing while readers performed better on local factual
questions (Park, 2004).
To our knowledge, there has been little attempt to compare the effects of an entire computerized L2 reading text along
with corresponding visuals (i.e., visual-only presentation) to its identical listening version along with corresponding visuals
(i.e., audiovisual presentation). Thus, the purpose of the current study is to compare L2 reading and listening in the presence
of corresponding visuals that would typically be the case in multimedia presentations. Specifically, this study investigated
whether the modality effect holds for L2 text comprehension by comparing audiovisual and visual-only presentations. In
addition, the role of WM is investigated in order to determine whether WM capacity moderates the effects of input modality
as the modality effect assumes that the visual-only presentation would impose more WM load than the audiovisual
presentation.

2. Background

2.1. Working memory

WM simultaneously stores and manipulates information for a short term prior to information becoming stored in long-
term memory (Baddeley, 1992). WM consists of three domain-specific short-term storage subcomponents, namely the
phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer as well as a domain-general attention mechanism
controlling these sub-systems called the central executive (e.g., Baddeley, 2000, 2003).
The phonological loop that stores speech-based verbal information plays a crucial role in language learning, particularly
phonological processing, speech development and vocabulary learning while the visuospatial sketchpad that stores visual
and spatial information is not essentially associated with language learning (Dehn, 2008). However, regarding the sketchpad,
Baddeley (2003) suggests: “the system will be involved in everyday reading tasks, where it may be involved in maintaining a
representation of the page and its layout that will remain stable and facilitate tasks such as moving the eyes accurately from
the end of one line to the beginning of the next” (p. 200). Since learning with multimedia involves presentation of information
both verbally and visually, the sketchpad also plays an important role in multimedia learning (Gyselinck, Jamet, & Dubois,
2008). The episodic buffer combines information from long-term memory (LTM) with the information from short-term
storage systems. Finally, the central executive is a domain-general limited-capacity attention system that controls the
short-term storage systems.
Research has shown that both the central executive and the phonological loop have central roles in L1 (e.g., Bowey, 2001;
Daneman & Hannon, 2007; Engle, 2002) and L2 language processing (e.g., O'Brien, Segalowitz, Collentine, & Freed, 2006;
Service, 1992). The role of WM in L1 (Daneman & Carpenter, 1983; Daneman & Merikle, 1996) and L2 reading (Harrington
& Sawyer, 1992; Leeser, 2007; Walter, 2004) as well as L1 (Ivanova & Hallowell, 2014; McInnes, Humphries, Hogg-
Johnson, & Tannock, 2003) and L2 listening (Kormos & Sa fa
r, 2008; Shanshan & Tongshun, 2007) has also been demonstrated.

2.2. Cognitive load theory

CLT assumes that learning occurs through a limited WM that temporarily manipulates and stores information as well as an
unlimited LTM that functions as storage for what is learned (Sweller et al., 2011). Mayer (2009) stated: “The central work of
multimedia learning takes place in working memory” (p. 62). Likewise, Sweller et al. (2011) argued that selecting, organizing
and integrating visual and auditory information occurs in WM. As such, cognitive load (CL) refers to the load imposed on WM
resources when a specific task is performed (Sweller et al., 1998).
CLT has identified three types of CL: intrinsic, germane, and extraneous (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003).
Stemming from the inherent complexity of learning materials, intrinsic load is dependent on the number of interacting in-
formation elements a learning material contains (Sweller et al., 2011). An information element is one information unit that
can be individually processed by WM (Leahy, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003). Intrinsic load also depends on prior knowledge or
existing schemas (McCrudden, Schraw, Hartley, & Kiewra, 2004; Paas et al., 2003). CLT assumes that WM can become limited
especially when dealing with novel information because it needs to be organized in LTM (Sweller, 2004). Thus, prior or
familiar knowledge may facilitate learning by decreasing possible WM load since multiple information pieces organized as a
schema in LTM are managed as a single unit by WM (Antonenko, Paas, Grabner, & van Gog, 2010; Kalyuga, Chandler, &
Sweller, 1999; van Gog & Paas, 2008). In essence, familiar information imposes less intrinsic load than unfamiliar informa-
tion (McCrudden et al., 2004).
Given that germane load emanates from the amount of WM resources used to deal with intrinsic load (Kalyuga, 2011;
Sweller et al., 2011), it is reasonable to assume that as the level of intrinsic load increases due to a higher level of inner
complexity and lower level of prior knowledge, learners need to invest more germane or effective load for learning to occur.
Accordingly, intrinsic load relates to both learning materials and learning goals thereby covering germane load as the effective
 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73 65

load leading to learning (Kalyuga, 2011). Further, extraneous or ineffective load stems from unnecessary information pro-
cessing due to ineffective presentation or instructional design (Sweller, 2010). An example would be presenting textual in-
formation in a written format, instead of an auditory format, in addition to corresponding pictures thus potentially
overloading visual WM resources.
In the case of high element interactivity and learners with low prior knowledge, instructional materials should not impose
extraneous load due to inappropriate design so that more WM resources can be allocated for the learning task and con-
structing schemas, i.e., germane load (Paas, van Gog, & Sweller, 2010). Consequently, CLT suggested instructional design
principles such as the modality effect that aim at decreasing extraneous load thereby increasing the chances that more WM
capacity can be invested in dealing with intrinsic load.

2.3. The modality effect

The modality effect encourages presenting instructional materials in an audiovisual manner that includes listening while
viewing corresponding visuals. An audiovisual presentation employs both of the limited channels (auditory and visual) of
WM. Mayer and Moreno (2003), and Mayer (2009) described this as off-loading the visual channel. Additionally, Tabbers
(2002) claimed that the superiority of audiovisual presentation over visual-only presentation may stem from decreased
visual search, and more efficient use of time-on-task as the visual and auditory information can be processed simultaneously.
Research has demonstrated the advantages of audiovisual presentation. For instance, audiovisual presentation may result
in less time invested in problem solving (Jeung, Chandler, & Sweller, 1997; Mousavi et al., 1995) and quicker reaction times on
a visual secondary task (Brünken, Steinbacher, Plass, & Leutner, 2002) as well as lower CL ratings by both experienced and
inexperienced learners and better performance on a multiple-choice test for inexperienced learners (Kalyuga, Chandler, &
Sweller, 2000). Audiovisual presentation also enhanced: (a) knowledge acquisition (Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2004); (b)
performance on retention, transfer, and matching tests (Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Moreno & Mayer, 1999); and (c) performance
in answering questions based on a given graph (Leahy et al., 2003).
However, several studies found no modality effect in different contexts (e.g., De Westelinck, Valcke, De Craene, &
Kirschner, 2005; Goolkasian, 2000), and in some cases even showed the reverse modality effect (e.g., Tabbers, Martens, &
van Merrie €nboer, 2004) suggesting that there can be some boundary conditions. For instance, research suggested that the
modality effect is observed when intrinsic load is high (e.g., Sweller, 2010; Sweller & Chandler, 1994; Tindall-Ford, Chandler, &
Sweller, 1997).
Moreover, despite modality studies favoring system-pacing over learner-pacing (e.g., Ginns, 2005; Tabbers, 2002), the
reverse modality effect (e.g., Tabbers et al., 2004) and no modality effect under self-pacing (e.g., Wouters, Paas, & van
Merrie €nboer, 2009), other studies either replicated the modality effect in self-paced learning environments (e.g.,
Harskamp, Mayer, & Suhre, 2007) or found almost no difference between system-pacing and self-pacing as to learning
outcomes (e.g., Schmidt-Weigand, Kohnert, & Glowalla, 2010). While accepting that the modality effect may disappear under
self-paced instruction, Sweller et al. (2011) asserted that the reverse modality effect can emanate from “lengthy, complex,
auditory” information (p. 137). Supporting this claim, Leahy and Sweller (2011) reached the reverse modality effect with
longer textual information while the modality effect recovered through shorter information segments.
It should be noted that most of the available studies employed instruction in participants' L1 (mostly English). They used
immediate tests only as the measure of comprehension (e.g., Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Moreno & Mayer, 1999) with a few
exceptions (e.g., Segers, Verhoeven, & Hulstijn-Hendrikse, 2008; Witteman & Segers, 2010). Additionally, most of them were
conducted in controlled laboratory settings where participants were engaged in a one-time brief learning experience
(Moreno, 2006; Tabbers, 2002); instructions employed were either system-paced or paper-based and were limited to the
total duration of the narration (Tabbers, 2002); and included learning materials from exact sciences (Tabbers, 2002).
Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that the results obtained so far are limited to short-term learning outcomes and to L1
learning contexts to a great extent.
Consequently, of particular concern for the present study was to examine the possible interaction effect of time (imme-
diate, delayed), input modality (visual-only, audiovisual), and WM capacity (high, low) on retention and transfer of infor-
mation. Based on (a) the modality effect studies that favor audiovisual presentation over visual-only presentation (e.g.,
Kalyuga et al., 2000; Leahy et al., 2003), and that point to the modality effect in self-paced learning environments (e.g.,
Harskamp et al., 2007); (b) the beneficial effects of WM capacity on language comprehension and other higher-level cognitive
skills (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993; Hambrick & Engle, 2002; Hambrick & Oswald, 2005;
Harrington & Sawyer, 1992; Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Miyake & Friedman, 1998; Walter, 2004) as well as the relationship
between multimedia learning and WM (e.g., Austin, 2009; Brunye, Taylor, Rapp, & Spiro, 2006; Gyselinck, Cornoldi, Dubois,
De Beni, & Ehrlich, 2002; Gyselinck et al., 2008; Schüler, Scheiter, & van Genuchten, 2011; Tardieu & Gyselinck, 2003); (c)
previous research pointing to the deteriorating effect of time (e.g., Banikowski & Mehring, 1999; Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted,
& Pashler, 2008), a significant interaction effect of time, input modality, and WM capacity was expected in terms of both
retention and transfer of information.
Specifically, the audiovisual presentation was hypothesized to lead to less performance decrease over time especially for
high-WM capacity participants. Given the assumed superiority of audiovisual presentation over visual-only presentation in
66 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73

terms of reducing extraneous load, thereby making it possible to reserve more WM resources for dealing with intrinsic load,
WM was expected to foster comprehension especially in the audiovisual presentation rather than the visual-only one over
time. Finally, given the relationship between WM capacity and processing oral L2 input (e.g., Erlam, 2005; Mackey, Adams,
Stafford, & Winke, 2010; Mackey, Philp, Fujii, Egi, & Tatsumi, 2002), it is reasonable to assume that the more challenging
nature of L2 listening compared to L2 reading can be addressed more effectively by higher WM capacity. Overall, this study
addressed the following research question:
What are the immediate and delayed effects of input modality and L2 verbal WM capacity on retention and transfer of
information from an expository multimedia text in the L2?

3. Method

3.1. Participants

There were 29 university students (27 females and two males; M ¼ 20.31 years, SD ¼ 1) who participated in the exper-
iment. The participants were given partial course points for their contribution. They were enrolled in the department of
foreign language education at a public university where English is the medium of education. The participants were considered
to be advanced English learners as they had all passed the English proficiency test of the university with a minimum score of
C, which is considered to be equivalent to seven on the IELTS or 550 on the TOEFL.

3.2. Materials

The treatment used was an expository text in English on tornado formation. The text with corresponding pictures was an
authentic text taken from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) science and natural disasters webpage. It consisted of
254 words and 26 affirmative sentences and was delivered through a multimedia presentation in the form of a webpage. With
seven interacting elements, the text carried high intrinsic CL on the basis of Ginns (2005) who suggested that six to eight
interacting elements lead to high load while one to two lead to low load. The number of interacting elements (seven) refers to
the number of the tornado formation steps some of which were stated in more than one sentence, and was determined by
following Sweller and Chandler (1994). Using the same content, two experimental conditions were created: visual-only and
audiovisual presentations.
The visual-only presentation included an on-screen text with corresponding static pictures. The text was bold and rep-
resented in 12-font size using Times New Roman. The text appeared sentence by sentence on the screen along with the
corresponding pictures. The size of each picture and that of the space between each sentence and its picture were the same.
The pictures were placed right above the corresponding sentences and did not include any textual information or cues. This
spatial separation of textual information and their corresponding pictures violates the spatial contiguity principle to some
extent in that textual information and corresponding pictorial information were not placed next to each other (please see the
link included in the reference item entitled How a tornado is formed). The reason was to establish “informational equiva-
lence” (Brunye et al., 2006, p. 937) by exposing all the participants to as similar visual information as possible.
For the audiovisual presentation, pictures were presented on the same webpage layout along with audio narration that
was embedded. The duration of the narration was one minute and fifty-five seconds. An American adult native speaker of
English was hired to read the text and do the recording at a pace of approximately 251 syllables per minute compared to a
combined approximate pace of “260” syllables per minute “for reading tasks” reported by earlier research done with “adult
speakers of American English” (Robb, Maclagan, & Chen, 2004, p. 2).
Both presentations were learner-controlled and included the same content, and the participants were asked to read or
listen to the treatment text with an intention of learning. They were also informed that they would get comprehension tests
after reading or listening to the passage. Moreover, general supportive information was provided at the beginning of the
presentations so that the participants could construct a schema as suggested by van Merrie €nboer, Kirschner, and Kester
(2003). Specifically, there was a pre-reading section on interesting information and myths about tornadoes. In addition,
the participants watched a one-minute and twenty-two second-long National Geographic video of a real tornado.

3.3. Procedures

Instruments were piloted with 22 advanced Turkish learners of English before actual data collection to determine the
comprehensibility of the text and comprehension tests in terms of vocabulary, accent, speed, volume, wording, difficulty of
the concepts or ideas. Consequently, the wording of a question was changed only and there was no floor effect.
The data were collected in three sessions over three weeks. The participants first took the computerized reading span test
(RST) in a computer lab. In the next session, one week later, they completed the participant profile and then took the prior
knowledge test. Next, participants read or listened to the text, answered the comprehension tests, and completed Paas's
(1992) cognitive load scale respectively. Follow-up tests were administered two weeks later.
 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73 67

3.4. Instruments

3.4.1. Working memory test

A computerized RST in English (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2009) functioned as the verbal WM test.1 The test consisted of seventy
affirmative sentences that were shown on the computer screen, one at a time, for seven seconds each. The participants were
asked to (a) read each sentence and decide whether it was grammatically correct; and (b) try to remember the last word of
each sentence. The sentences were divided into sets having different sizes ranging from two to five sentences. After viewing
all the sentences in a particular set, the participants were prompted to recall and write the sentence-final words in a box
shown on the screen in the order they remembered. Total numbers of the correct grammaticality judgments and the last word
recollections were transferred into standardized values (z-scores). A composite score consisting of the mean of the z-scores
was calculated as the WM index.
Then, high-WM and low-WM groups were formed based on a median split procedure. To determine whether this refers to
true WM capacity differences, the mean z-scores were analyzed through a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with WM
grouping as the independent variable. There was a significant composite z-score difference between the groups (F (1,
27) ¼ 64.40, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .705).

3.4.2. Prior knowledge test

The first part of the test asked the participants (a) to indicate whether they had experienced a real tornado; and (b) to write
down everything they knew about tornadoes. The responses to the former question revealed that none of the participants had
experienced a real tornado before the experiment. The responses to the latter question were scored based on the seven steps
of tornado formation given in the treatment text (seven points). The second part of the test included four open-ended
conceptual questions. Each acceptable answer was given one point with the second question being worth two points.
Thus, the maximum possible score on the test was 12. 62% (18) of the participants received zero (mode), and only 3.4% (one)
received four (maximum). (M ¼ .72, SD ¼ 1.16). Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that participants had “very low” or “no”
prior knowledge before the treatment.

3.4.3. Retention test

The retention test required reproduction or recognition of the presented information. First, participants were asked to
write down how a tornado forms (Please write down an explanation of how a tornado forms. Pretend that you are writing to
someone who does not know much about tornadoes); the number of the key steps provided in the answer was counted (one
point for each step; seven points possible). The second question (Match the example damages on the right with their cor-
responding damage scale) required matching of sample damages with their corresponding damage scales (one point for each
correct match; six points possible). The third (What is the damage scale of a tornado moving with a speed of 117e180 kms?)
and fourth (What is the damage scale of a tornado that has an F4 damage scale level?) questions were multiple-choice items
(with four choices) each of which was worth one point if answered correctly. Retention performance was expressed as a raw
score out of a total of 15. Using Spearman's rank-order correlation, the inter-rater reliability was found to be .934 for the
immediate retention test and .803 for the delayed retention test.

3.4.4. Transfer test

The first question (What cause(s) a tornado?) was a conceptual question about the causes of a tornado that was worth up
to three points. The second question (Suppose you see a storm together with rain, thunder and lightning but no tornado. Why/
How can this happen?) was a troubleshooting question that presented participants with a possible unexpected scenario and
asked why that would be the case. The answer consisted of two alternatives given one point in the case of each correct answer
(two points). The third question (What could you do to be safe at home during a tornado with a level of severe damage?) was a
redesign question that required participants to find a solution to a specific problem. There were two complementary steps to
answer this question (two points). The fourth question (How is air temperature related with a tornado?) was a prediction
question asking for a solution to a process of tornado formation that was not explicitly stated in the treatment passage; with
four possible predictions (four points). The fifth question (What determine(s) the duration and the strength of a tornado?)
was a conceptual question asking for the factors impacting the duration and strength of a tornado; with two possible answers
(two points). The last question (List any number of environmental clues to watch out for a tornado), a conceptual question,
asked participants to list the environmental clues to watch for that may result in a tornado; with seven clues (seven points).
Hence, the transfer scores were calculated out of 20. Using Spearman's rank-order correlation, the correlation between the
two raters' scores was .845 for the immediate transfer test and .912 for the delayed transfer test.
The content validity of the both retention and transfer comprehension tests was endorsed by an academician from the
university with a specialization in L2 testing. The expert was asked to revise the test items, which were prepared mainly based

1
High internal consistency reliability has been reported for the test (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2009, 2010, 2011). In addition, the RST scores in English were
found to correlate with RST scores in the L1 (Alptekin & Erçetin, 2010), in line with previous research indicating that WM capacity is independent of
particular languages (Osaka & Osaka, 1992; Osaka, Osaka, & Groner, 1993). The test scores were also found to correlate with reading comprehension scores
(Alptekin & Erçetin, 2011), providing evidence for the predictive validity of the test.
68 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73

on the questions Mayer (2009) presented, in terms of content, wording, and design. The tests were administered immediately
after and two weeks following the treatment. Immediate and delayed comprehension tests were scored by one of the re-
searchers and an independent rater. Disagreements were resolved either by consensus or taking the average of the marks
given. Finally, there was a high positive correlation between the immediate and delayed retention test scores (r ¼ .559,
p < .05) and between the immediate and delayed transfer test scores (r ¼ .555, p < .01).

3.4.5. Paas's (1992) subjective cognitive load scale

Paas's (1992) scale has nine points arranged from very, very low mental effort (1) to very, very high mental effort (9). Paas,
van Merrie €nboer, and Adam (1994) showed the reliability and sensitivity of the scale, and that one-dimensional scales have
sensitivity with respect to cognitive load differences, and such scales are valid, reliable, and unintrusive.
Paas's (1992) scale was applied immediately after the comprehension tests. Overall cognitive load ratings of the partici-
pants varied from 1 to 8 (M ¼ 5, SD ¼ 2). In order to rule out the possibility that performance differences may have resulted
from the differences between the amount of mental effort spent by the participants, a two-way ANOVA with WM capacity
(high, low) and input modality (audiovisual, visual-only) on mental effort ratings was conducted. Due to violation of the
normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions, “reflect and logarithm” (Pallant, 2001, p. 79) transformation was
conducted. The results showed a non-significant interaction between WM and input modality (F (1, 25) ¼ .184, p > .05). Nor
were there significant main effects for input modality (F (1, 25) ¼ 2.333, p > .05) or WM capacity (F (1, 25) ¼ .115, p > .05).

4. Results

There were four experimental groups in the present study: high-WM participants in the visual-only group (n ¼ 6), low-
WM participants in the audiovisual group (n ¼ 6), high-WM participants in the audiovisual group (n ¼ 9) and low-WM
participants in the visual-only group (n ¼ 8). Participants were randomly assigned to the treatment groups.
In order to determine the effects of input modality and WM capacity on text comprehension over time, two mixed-design
ANOVAs with WM (high, low) and input modality (audiovisual, visual-only) as the between-participants factors, and time
(immediate, delayed) as the within-participants factor were conducted on immediate and delayed retention and transfer
scores. The assumptions of the ANOVA (normality, homogeneity, independence of observations, absence of outliers) were
checked (ps > .05) as well as Box's M statistics (ps > .05).

4.1. Retention performance

Retention scores on immediate and delayed tests are displayed in Table 1. As expected, the scores on the delayed test were
lower for all groups.
2 (WM: high, low)  2 (Modality: audiovisual, visual-only)  2 (Time: immediate, delayed) mixed ANOVA results indicated
a significant combined effect of time, input modality, and WM on retention comprehension over time, F (1, 25) ¼ 5.66,
p ¼ .025, partial h2 ¼ .18 and a significant main effect of time, F (1, 25) ¼ 29.73, p < .001, partial h2 ¼ .54. On the other hand, the
following effects were non-significant: (a) the interaction between time and WM, F (1, 25) ¼ .59, p ¼ .450; (b) the interaction
between time and input modality, F (1, 25) ¼ 2 85, p ¼ .104; (c) the interaction between input modality and WM, F (1,
25) ¼ .090, p ¼ .770; (d) the main effect for input modality, F (1, 25) ¼ .031, p ¼ .861; and (e) the main effect for WM, F (1,
25) ¼ .090, p ¼ .770. The significant effect of time suggested that the participants achieved significantly higher scores on the
immediate test (M ¼ 7.10, SD ¼ 2.20) compared to the delayed test (M ¼ 5.31, SD ¼ 2). The significant three-way interaction
points to retention score differences over time across the experimental groups.
In order to determine the source of the significant three-way interaction, planned contrasts were conducted on retention
difference scores since all groups got lower scores on the delayed retention test. Table 2 presents these contrasts:
These contrasts suggest that the facilitative effect of WM on retention of information over time can be observed under
audiovisual presentation but not visual-only presentation. In other words, audiovisual presentation enhanced retention
performance of participants with high WM capacity only suggesting that the effect of input modality depends on the learners'

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for retention tests.

Groups Retention tests Retention difference scores

Immediate Delayed (Immediate)  (Delayed)

Presentation mode WM M SD M SD M SD
Audiovisual Low 7.17 2.32 4.67 1.50 2.50 1.40
High 6.44 1.67 6.22 2.22 0.22 2.00
Visual-only Low 7.25 2.87 5.25 1.91 2.00 1.70
High 7.83 2.14 4.67 1.75 3.16 2.56
 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73 69

Table 2
Planned contrasts between the experimental groups.

Contrast T df SE
1. Audiovisual presentation: High-WM vs. Low-WM 2.25a 25 1.01
2. Visual-only presentation: High-WM vs. Low-WM 1.13 25 1.03
3. Low-WM participants: Audiovisual vs. Visual-only 0.483 25 1.03
4. High-WM participants: Audiovisual vs. Visual-only 2.914b 25 1.01
a
p ¼ .033, bp ¼ .007.

WM capacity. Specifically, those with high WM capacity benefit more from audiovisual presentation over time compared to
those with low WM capacity.

4.2. Transfer performance

Table 3 provides transfer scores on immediate and delayed administrations. As expected, all groups obtained lower
delayed test scores.
A 2 (WM: high, low)  2 (Modality: audiovisual, visual-only)  2 (Time: immediate, delayed) mixed ANOVA was con-
ducted to determine whether the differences were significant. The results revealed a significant deteriorating effect of time on
transfer performance, F (1, 25) ¼ 4.60, p < .05, partial h2 ¼ .15, suggesting that the participants achieved significantly higher
scores on the immediate test (M ¼ 7.70, SD ¼ 2.25) than the delayed test (M ¼ 6.83, SD ¼ 2.16). However, the following effects
were non-significant: (a) the interaction between time and input modality, F (1, 25) ¼ .819, p ¼ .374; (b) the interaction
between time and WM, F (1, 25) ¼ .487, p ¼ .492; (c) the combined effect of time, input modality and WM, F (1, 25) ¼ .081,
p ¼ .780; (d) the main effect for input modality, F (1, 25) ¼ .245, p ¼ .625; (e) the main effect for WM, F (1, 25) ¼ .072, p ¼ .80;
and (f) the interaction between input modality and WM, F (1, 25) ¼ .457, p ¼ .505.
To sum, the results point to a modality effect for the high-WM group in the audiovisual condition in that the time of testing
had a significantly less deteriorating effect on retention performance of this group compared to the high-WM group in the
visual-only presentation. However, the low-WM participants in the audiovisual condition lost almost the same amount of
retention scores over time as their counterparts in the visual-only condition. The interaction effect of time, input modality,
and WM capacity on transfer performance was not confirmed.

5. Discussion

This study investigated the immediate and delayed effects of input modality (audiovisual, visual-only) and WM capacity
(high, low) on retention and transfer of information from an expository L2 text. The purpose was to determine to what extent
previous modality effect findings could be extended to a self-paced L2 multimedia learning context under the condition of
low prior knowledge or high intrinsic load.
Findings revealed a significant deteriorating effect of time on both retention and transfer performance. In addition, an
interaction between WM capacity and input modality was found in terms of retention performance in that high-WM capacity
learners were able to retain more information over time with audiovisual presentation. The fact that this interaction was
observed in the absence of prior knowledge may suggest that low-WM participants spend so much of their WM capacity on
trying to select and hold information that the remaining cognitive capacity may not be sufficient to organize and integrate
verbal and pictorial models (i.e., Mayer's (2009) essential and generative processing). However, high-WM participants could
more easily select and hold presented information in WM, leaving more germane resources to integrate verbal and visual
representations.
In a multimedia environment where visual and written verbal information are presented simultaneously with a potential
split-attention effect, one could argue that high-WM participants should be more capable of processing and storing infor-
mation from two sources of visual information, thus compensating for the split of attention (Seufert, Schütze, & Brünken,
2009). The lack of a significant contribution of WM capacity in the visual-only condition may seem counterintuitive given

Table 3
Descriptive statistics for transfer tests.

Groups Transfer tests Transfer difference scores

Immediate Delayed (Immediate)  (Delayed)

Presentation mode WM M SD M SD M SD
Audiovisual Low 7.00 0.90 6.33 2.73 0.67 2.60
High 7.56 2.74 7.22 2.22 0.34 1.41
Visual-only Low 8.38 2.33 6.75 2.00 1.63 1.20
High 7.67 2.60 6.83 2.14 0.84 3.31
70 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73

the studies that have shown the facilitating effects of WM capacity on L2 reading comprehension (e.g., Alptekin & Erçetin,
€
2010, 2011; Alptekin, Erçetin, & Ozemir, 2014; Erçetin & Alptekin, 2012; Leeser, 2007; Walter, 2004). This could be attrib-
uted to text length and self-paced presentation. In other words, the length of the text being much shorter in the current study
compared to the previous studies (e.g., Alptekin & Erçetin, 2011) and the self-paced nature of the task might have increased
the chances of reviewing for the reading groups thereby balancing both their performance levels and their perceived amounts
of cognitive load. Such an assumption appears to be plausible given that the modality effect may disappear under self-pacing
(e.g., Sweller et al., 2011; Wouters et al., 2009). Thus, it is possible that WM capacity was not excessively loaded as indicated by
similar cognitive load ratings between the high- and low-WM groups exposed to the visual-only presentation. Additionally, in
the visual-only condition, the presence of visual support along with verbal information might have contributed to the
elimination of the effects of WM capacity. In other words, the pictures might have helped the learners to form an adequate
mental representation of the text, leading to better comprehension as demonstrated by Eitel, Scheiter, and Schüler (2013).
Most previous research on the effect of WM capacity on reading comprehension in the L2 did not employ visuals and they
involved learning with just text.
The current findings indicate that, under audiovisual presentation, WM has a significant effect on information retention. In
other words, these findings suggest that WM has an important role in listening rather than reading. This finding supports
Ellis' (2012) conclusion, based on a review of classroom-based studies, that WM is likely to play a more significant role in
instruction that requires learners to process oral input rather than written input.
The findings of the present study contradict those of previous research most of which had system-paced instructions
where time-on-task depended on the total time of the narration (e.g., Kalyuga et al., 1999; Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Moreno &
Mayer, 1999). The present results partially support instructional pacing (system-versus self-paced) as a boundary condition
for the modality effect (Mayer, 2009; Tabbers, 2002; Tabbers et al., 2004). Therefore, it can be concluded that even though the
modality effect may disappear in learner-paced instructions in the short-term, there may be a recovery of the effect in the
long term in terms of less forgetting of retained information.
These results should be read cautiously for several reasons: One argument could be that the observed performance dif-
ferences might have stemmed from possible mental effort differences. If this had been the case, we would expect mental
effort rating differences among the experimental groups. In contrast, neither the main effect of input modality and that of WM
capacity nor the combined effect on mental effort turned out to be significant. However, mental effort rating was employed
after completing the comprehension tests. Such measures addressing the learning phase and testing phase yield different
insights (van Gog & Paas, 2008). Additionally, Sweller et al. (2011) referred to the importance of determining efficiency during
both learning and testing phases. Therefore, future research may need to employ these measures separately for the learning
phase and testing phase.
Second, Harskamp et al. (2007) replicated the modality effect when less time is spent on learning in a self-paced
multimedia learning environment. It is also possible that audiovisual participants spent more time on task or learning in
the present study. However, time-on-task was not under experimental control thereby warranting future research on
whether it would calibrate the modality effect in L2 multimedia learning environments. Furthermore, results should be
approached with caution given the low power indexes (<.80) for most of the effects obtained. However, Leahy et al. (2003)
stated: “Obtaining significant effects using small sample sizes is difficult and only possible with very large effects” (p. 414). As
a result, the significant effects of the present study may refer to large effects as indicated by eta-squared statistics as well. Still
though, results warrant further research with larger sample sizes.
Third, the reading span test used in the present study is a complex WM test and it is assumed to tap the central executive
(CE) component of WM as well as the phonological loop (Schüler et al., 2011). So, this test does not tap visuospatial sketchpad
even though the learning material included static pictures as well. Schüler et al. (2011) warned that while addressing CE, a
minimum of two complex span tests (one tapping CE and phonological loop, and the second one tapping CE and visuospatial
sketchpad) need to be employed in order to interpret data more unambiguously. This point clearly warrants further research
in order to get more precise insights into WM involvement in audiovisual information processing in L2 multimedia
comprehension. Interestingly though, the pictorial material used in the present study mostly consisted of nameable elements
such as the sun, clouds and rain. Baddeley (1992) stated that subvocal rehearsal employed by the phonological loop can also
process “words and nameable pictures” (p. 558) and put them in the phonological store. As a result, most of the pictorial
information used in the present study might have been processed mainly by the phonological loop. Therefore, future research
should consider characteristics of the pictorial information while interpreting data concerning the involvement of WM
components in multimedia learning.

6. Conclusions

The present results show that individual differences such as WM capacity may have effects on L2 multimedia compre-
hension in interaction with input modality, time of testing, and type of comprehension. In other words, the modality effect
may hold true for high-WM participants in self-paced L2 multimedia learning environments regarding retention of infor-
mation over time. Thus, this study shows that individual WM differences may mediate the effects of multimedia design
principles under certain conditions, suggesting that these principles may not work effectively for all types of learners. These
also support Plass and Jones' (2005) claim that some multimedia learning principles may not apply to L2 learning exactly, and
that we need research examining applicability of such principles to L2 learning. Additionally, current results imply that even
 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73 71

though educational technology or, particularly, computer technology can strongly support multimedia learning and cognitive
processes accompanying it, effectiveness of such technology on language learning may be moderated by the design of
learning materials and individual learner differences. All these warrant further technology-based language learning studies
focusing on the role of different technologies, instructional design, and learner characteristics in L2 learning.

Acknowledgments

The data were collected at the computer laboratory of the Department of Foreign Language Education, Bogazici University,
Turkey. We are thankful to them. We also thank the three reviewers for their constructive feedback.

References

Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Assessing the relationship of working memory to L2 reading: does the nature of comprehension process and reading span
task make a difference? System, 37(4), 627e639.
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2010). The role of L1 and L2 working memory in literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. Journal of Research in
Reading, 33(2), 206e219.
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2011). The effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading.
TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 235e266.
€
Alptekin, C., Erçetin, G., & Ozemir, O. (2014). Effects of variations in reading-span task design on the relationship between working memory capacity and
second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 536e552.
Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4),
425e438.
Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning
modules. Computers & Education, 53, 1339e1354.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556e559.
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417e423.
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189e208.
Banikowski, A. K., & Mehring, T. A. (1999). Strategies to enhance memory based on brain-research. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(2), 1e16.
Bowey, J. A. (2001). Nonword repetition and young children's receptive vocabulary: a longitudinal study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 441e469.
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2006, Sept. 8). How a tornado is formed. Retrieved from (a) http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/spl/hi/sci-nat/
06/tornado/pdf/how_tornado_is_formed.pdf, (b) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5324984.stm.
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: auditory load and modality
effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115e132.
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental
Psychology, 49(2), 109e119.
Brunye, T. T., Taylor, H. A., Rapp, D. N., & Spiro, A. B. (2006). Learning procedures: the role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20, 917e940.
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095e1102.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450e466.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561e584.
Daneman, M., & Hannon, B. (2007). What do working memory span tasks like reading span really measure? In N. Osaka, R. H. Logie, & M. D'Esposito (Eds.),
The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 21e42). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: a meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422e433.
De Westelinck, K., Valcke, M., De Craene, B., & Kirschner, P. (2005). Multimedia learning in social sciences: limitations of external graphical representations.
Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 555e573.
Dehn, M. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention. New Jersey: Wiley.
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27,
451e461.
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19e23.
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9,
147e172.
Erçetin, G., & Alptekin, C. (2012). The explicit/implicit knowledge distinction and working memory: implications for L2 reading comprehension. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 34, 727e753.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313e331.
van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 16e26.
Goolkasian, P. (2000). Pictures, words, and sounds: from which format are we best able to reason? The Journal of General Psychology, 127(4), 439e459.
Gyselinck, V., Cornoldi, C., Dubois, V., De Beni, R., & Ehrlich, M. F. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in learning from multimedia. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 16, 665e685.
Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22,
353e374.
Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: an investigation of the
knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 339e387.
Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2005). Does domain knowledge moderate involvement of working memory capacity in higher-level cognition? A test of
three models. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 377e397.
Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25e38.
Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction,
17(5), 465e477.
Ivanova, M. V., & Hallowell, B. (2014). A new modified listening span task to enhance validity of working memory assessment for people with and without
aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 52, 78e98.
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329e343.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 44(2), 137e166.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1e19.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351e371.
72 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92, 126e136.
Kormos, J., & Sa  f
ar, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261e271.
Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401e418.
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation, and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25,
943e951.
Leeser, M. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: topic familiarity and working memory. Language
Learning, 52(2), 229e270.
Lund, R. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75, 196e204.
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language
Learning, 60, 501e533.
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Fujii, A., Egi, T., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development.
In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181e208). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31e48). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 312e320.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43e52.
McCrudden, M., Schraw, G., Hartley, K., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). The influence of presentation, organization, and example context on text learning. The Journal
of Experimental Education, 72(4), 289e306.
McInnes, A., Humphries, T., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Tannock, R. (2003). Listening comprehension and working memory are impaired in attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder irrespective of language impairment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 427e443.
van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 5e13.
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy, & L. E.
Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 339e364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 22, 149e158.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
358e368.
Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
319e334.
National Geographic. (2007, May 29). Tornado destruction [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼43VoMesUd2Q.
Osaka, M., & Osaka, N. (1992). Language-independent working memory as measured by Japanese and English reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 30(4), 287e289.
Osaka, M., Osaka, N., & Groner, R. (1993). Language-independent working memory: evidence from German and French reading span tests. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 31(2), 117e118.
O'Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second language oral
production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377e402.
Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,
429e434.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 63e71.
Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational
Psychology Review, 22, 115e121.
Paas, F., van Merrie €nboer, J. J., & Adam, J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419e430.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. UK: Open University Press.
Park, G. (2004). Comparison of L2 listening and reading comprehension by university students learning English in Korea. Foreign Language Annals, 37,
448e458.
Plass, J. L., & Jones, L. C. (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.
467e488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Robb, M. P., Maclagan, M. A., & Chen, Y. (2004). Speaking rates of American and New Zealand varieties of English. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 18(1), 1e15.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning.
Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100e110.
Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & van Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working memory in multimedia instruction: is working memory working during learning
from text and pictures? Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 389e411.
Segers, E., Verhoeven, L., & Hulstijn-Hendrikse, N. (2008). Cognitive processes in children's multimedia text learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22,
375e387.
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 21e50.
Seufert, T., Schütze, M., & Brünken, R. (2009). Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: an aptitude-treatment-interaction study.
Learning & Instruction, 19, 28e42.
Shanshan, G., & Tongshun, W. (2007). Study on the relationship between working memory and EFL listening comprehension. CELEA Journal, 30, 46e56.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional
Science, 32, 9e31.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.
19e30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123e138.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn? Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185e233.
Sweller, J., van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251e296.
Tabbers, H. K. (2002). The modality of texts in multimedia instructions: Refining the design guidelines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Heerlen: Open
University of the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1025.
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71e81.
Tardieu, H., & Gyselinck, V. (2003). Working memory constraints in the integration and comprehension of information in a multimedia context. In H. van
Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognition in a digital world (pp. 3e24). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 K. Kozan et al. / System 55 (2015) 63e73 73

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257e287.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191e210.
Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics,
25(3), 315e339.
Witteman, M. J., & Segers, E. (2010). The modality effect tested in children in a user-paced multimedia environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
26, 132e142.
Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merrie €nboer, J. J. G. (2009). Observational learning from animated models: effects of modality and reflection on transfer.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 1e8.