Know the facts

UDL Guidelines - Version 2.0: Research Evidence

Checkpoint 1.2: Offer alternatives for auditory information

I. Provide Multiple Means of Representation



The experimental studies listed below are focused on the benefits, for learning, of providing alternatives for information that is primarily presented auditorily. The majority of the experiments illustrate the advantages of captioning and bimodal presentation of information. The scholarly reviews and opinion pieces provide more classroom-based perspectives on the advantages of alternatives to auditory information.

udlcenter [at] cast [dot] org (Do you have )udlcenter [at] cast [dot] org (additional )udlcenter [at] cast [dot] org (evidence to support this Checkpoint? Tell us! )

Experimental and Quantitative Evidence:

Brunken, 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(1), 115-132.

Dalton, B., Schleper, D., Kennedy, M., Lutz, L., & Strangman, N. (2005). A universally designed digital strategic reading environment for adolescents who are deaf and hard of hearing. Final Report to Gallaudet University. Wakefield, MA: CAST.

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Stoner, M. (2006). Using a visual tool to increase adjectives in the written language of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(2), 95-109.

Furnham, A., De Siena, S., & Gunter, B. (2002). Children's and adults' recall of children's news stories in both print and audio-visual presentation modalities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 191-210.

Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403.

Hayes, D. S., Kelley, S. B., & Mandel, M. (1986). Media differences in children's story synopses: Radio and television contrasted. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 341-346.

Jensema, C. J., Danturthi, R. S., & Burch, R. (2000). Time spent viewing captions in television programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 464-468.

Jensema, C. J., & El Sharkawy, S. (2000). Eye movement patterns of captioned television viewers. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(3), 275-285.

John, D., & Boucouvalas, A. (2002). User performance with audio: The effect of subjects' cognitive styles. Educational Psychology, 22(2), 133-147.

Linebarger, D. L. (2001). Learning to read from television: The effects of using captions and narration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 288-298.

Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 271-279.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156.

Nugent, G. C. (1982). Pictures, audio, and print: Symbolic representation and effect on learning. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 30(3), 163-174.

Nugent, G. C. (1983). Deaf students' learning from captioned instruction: The relationship between the visual and caption display. Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 227-234.

Sinatra, G. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 115-130.

Thorn, F., & Thorn, S. (1996). Television captions for hearing-impaired people: A study of key factors that affect reading. Human Factors, 38(3), 452.

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257-287.

Xiaowen, F., Shuang, X., Brzezinski, J., & Chan, S. S. (2006). A study of the feasibility and effectiveness of dual-modal information presentations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 20(1), 3-17.

Scholarly reviews and expert opinions:

Brinck, T. (2005). Return on goodwill: Return on investment for accessibility. In R. G. Bias, & D. J. Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability (2nd ed., pp. 385-414). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Easterbrooks, S. (1999). Improving practices for students with hearing impairments. Exceptional Children, 65(4), 537-554.

Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.

Holzberg, C. S. (2004). Web site accessibility. Technology & Learning, 24(3), 48.

Koskinen, P. S., & Wilson, R. M. (1993). Captioned video and vocabulary learning: An innovative practice in literary instruction. Reading Teacher, 47(1), 36-43.

Marschark, M. (2006). Intellectual functioning of deaf adults and children: Answers and questions. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 70-89.

Rao, S. M., & Gagie, B. (2006). Learning through seeing and doing: Visual supports for children with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(6), 26-33.

Scherer, M. J. (2005). Assistive technology in education for students who are hard of hearing or deaf. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 393-409). Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin: Knowledge by Design.

Stahl, S., & Aronica, M. (2002). Digital text in the classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(2), 57-59.

Vesel, J. (2005). Signing science! Andy and Tonya are just like me! They wear hearing aids and know my language!?. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(8), 30-35.

Zazove, P., Meador, H. E., Derry, H. A., Gorenflo, D. W., Burdick, S. W., & Saunders, E. W. (2004). Deaf persons and computer use. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(5), 376-384.

Last Updated: 02/01/2011

Select this then click anywhere on the page to start reading text Play Pause Stop