{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021331058020477817, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2063492063492065, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reexamining the modality effect from the perspective of Baddeley ' s working memory model

Cognitive load theory is widely accepted by instructional designers, since it provides a theoretical foundation of designing guidelines for constructing learning material in a way that enhances learning. According to this theory, learning will be impaired if the learning material causes a cognitive overload. Since the capacity of working memory is very limited, the theory assumes that presenting different sources of information in the same modality (e. g. only visually) easily results in a split-attention effect, which leads to poor learning performance. To avoid this, a method suggested by cognitive load theory is to present information in different modalities (e. g. auditory text plus visual displays). In this article, I would like to address the issue of the effects of presentation-modality on information processing from the perspective of Baddeley’s working memory model. I shall shortly report a study which yields evidence supporting my argument that the modality effect proposed by cognitive load theory should be revised or at least, needs further modification.