28.7 Auditory Learning Vs. Print Presentations

Since the general topic of multichannel presentations is covered in another chapter (see 29.3), it will not be discussed here. However there is some value to examining the specific question of the effects of learning the same material by listening or by reading. Olsen and Bruner (1974) stated that, "Each form of experience, including the various symbol systems tied to the media, produces a unique pattern of skill for dealing with or thinking about the world" (p. 149). Similarly, Salomon (1979) stated that, "Media's ways of structuring and presenting information-that is, their symbols systems-are media's most important attributes when learning and cognition are considered and should serve as the focus of our inquiry" (p. 216). These seem to imply that there should be some cognitive difference between listening to or reading a text.

This notion seems to contradict Clark's well-known hypothesis that media do not influence achievement. After an extensive review of the literature, Clark (1983) concluded that, "The best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition" (p. 445). He has defended his position by arguing that even where apparent differences are detected, they are rendered dubious by various forms of confounding. Some of the forms of confounding that Clark cited are the novelty effect, the "John Henry Effect," unequal instructional strategies, unequal opportunity to learn, and unequal quality of instructional design.

A comparison of learning from print or audio seems to provide a convenient test of Clark's hypothesis, because it is relatively easy to control both content and instructional strategy. Since both audio and print are used to convey verbal information, the essential difference between a print or audio presentation (if otherwise equal in quality) is precisely the medium of delivery.

28.7.1 Audio and Print

Reading and listening seem to demand the same underlying linguistic competence (Mosenthal, 1976-77). In general, comparisons of learning from audio and print have shown no difference, as Clark would predict. Nugent (1982) and Rohwer and Harris (1975) found no differences for children, while Nasser and McEwen (1976) found no difference for college students. Needless to say, this assumes that the printed text is within the reading ability of the student.

Other research on reading and listening sometimes suggests an advantage for dual-channel presentation. Some studies showed that recall was higher when the very same material was read and heard than when it was presented in one channel alone (Hartman, 1961; Nasser & McEwen, 1976). However, Nugent (1982) found no advantage with children for print plus audio over either print or audio alone.

Recent research in England may shed light on this question. The research has largely been done by a pair of scholars, Furnham and Gunter, and their colleagues while studying the effects of mass communication on the recall of factual information. These researchers are apparently unaware of Clark's hypothesis and thus have not addressed it.

Although Furnham and Gunter have found a variety of results under differing conditions, they have consistently found that subjects remember material presented in the print medium better than identical material presented in the audio medium or the audiovisual medium. Gunter (1987) concluded that this was due to the inherent capacities of these different media to convey knowledge. These differences were found for samples drawn from populations of schoolchildren, university students, military personnel, and nonstudents. Across these categories, the most consistent result was that subjects remember better from print materials than audio or audiovisual materials. Table 28-1 (adapted from Furnham, Gunter & Green, 1988) illustrates their findings.

Furnham and Gunter's research methodology may be best exemplified by their 1986 article (Gunter, Furnham. & Leese, 1986 ). An approximately 5-minute television broadcast was delivered to university students in three groups. Group I received the TV broadcast in its normal form. (We are not concerned with this treatment here, but it is included for completeness.) Group 2 received the broadcast with audio only. Group 3 received a transcribed script of the broadcast. Time was held constant in all treatments. Memory was tested with free recall, cued recall, and multiple-choice questions, in that order. Results, as reported above, indicated that retention was always superior with print materials. Note that the content was designed for TV and that the print condition was the least "natural." These methods and results are typical. It is important to note that because these methods appear to be more rigorous than many of the earlier studies, and because the results have been replicated many times, they should be given greater weight.

Although Furnham and Gunter repeatedly found significant differences in achievement with print and audio, their work may have confounding factors. It is important to examine it in terms of Clark's list of possible confounds. First, it seems that the "John Henry" effect, the unequal instructional strategies, and the unequal quality of design arguments can be dismissed as irrelevant. No teacher was involved, so the "John Henry" effect cannot have occurred. Second, the content delivered was identical in terms of text and time; therefore no differing strategy or quality could be involved. Again, remember that in many cases the print version was derived from an audioscript, so, if anything, the print version should have been "inferior" in quality.

Different media may not be equally "novel" or familiar. But in this case, it is unlikely that either print or audio would be perceived as novel, so this objection seems weak.

Possibly, reading may be superior to listening because of greater opportunity to learn. Although Furnham and Gunter held total time constant, it is normal that people can read faster than an announcer speaks. Thus the subjects in the print condition may have been able to read the text more than once. Clark mentions this "reviewability" problem in his original article, but this objection seems to be unwarranted. If print is inherently "reviewable," then it is precisely this quality of the medium itself which influences student achievement. Thus media do influence achievement.

In a recent study, Tripp (1994) tested the differences between audio and print in a direct comparison that attempted to hold other factors constant, including reviewability and novelty, by presenting the same text by computer through either the audio or video (printed text) medium while holding speed and reviewability. As with Furnham and Gunter, the students who read the text remembered significantly more correct semantic units than the students who heard the passage, Clark (personal communication) has suggested that affective factors such as those mentioned by Salomon (1984) may account for the differences, but my students expressed the belief that learning from "tapes" was more difficult than learning from "books." Contrary to Salomon, they also expressed the belief that they would also expend more effort with books. Thus, if these attributions transfer to audio and text presented by computer, Students may have tried harder with text, but there was no external indication of this. In any case, whether achievement differences are attributable to intrinsic qualities of the medium or student attributions of intrinsic qualities, or an interaction between the two, in this highly controlled case student achievement did vary as a function, of the medium of delivery to the detriment of the audio presentation.

Given the robust results demonstrated by Furnham and Gunter and replicated by Tripp with differing content and audiences, it seems that it must be concluded that print is superior to audio as a presentational medium, when the content to be delivered is to be held constant.

28.7.2 Conclusions about Auditory Instruction

There is a considerable body of evidence that audio presentations, through a variety of technologies, can be at least as effective as other forms of instruction, and audio-based media may be usable when other media or live presentations are impossible or impractical. However, the Furnham and Gunter studies indicate that when audio and print are identical and time is held constant, people learn more from print. Under normal instructional circumstances, however, this is not the case. Typically, audio presentations are adapted to suit the instructional situation. Under these modified conditions, there is no reason to doubt the effectiveness of audio. The best example of this is Postlethwaite's audio-tutorial method which uses audiotapes as a kind of programmed guide in a larger instructional system. This system has been widely implemented and may serve as a model for other forms of individualized instruction. Finally, although there has been a great deal of interest in compressed speech for instructional purposes and it has been demonstrated to be effective, its practical applications are limited.