Top

Published in:

01-04-2021 | Dyslexia

The influence of the multimedia and modality principles on the learning outcomes, satisfaction, and mental effort of college students with and without dyslexia

Authors: Kara Dawson, Jiawen Zhu, Albert D. Ritzhaupt, Pavlo Antonenko, Kendra Saunders, Jiahui Wang, Linda Lombardino

Published in: Annals of Dyslexia | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the application of the multimedia and modality principles on cued-recall, recognition, and mental effort of college students with and without dyslexia. The study used a Multimedia (Image Present vs. Image Absent) × Modality (Narration vs. Onscreen Text) × Dyslexia (Dyslexia vs. Non-Dyslexia) 3-way factorial design with each independent variable serving as a between-subject condition. A total of N = 148 participants (73 with dyslexia and 75 without dyslexia) were recruited from five different institutions of higher education in the Southeastern United States and systematically assigned to one of four multimedia learning conditions. After assessing our data for statistical assumptions, we employed factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models on each dependent measure. Our findings show a reverse modality effect for students with dyslexia who performed better than their peers without dyslexia in Onscreen Text conditions. Although performance was better across groups and conditions when images were present, there were no significant interactions related to the multimedia condition. Similarly, there were no significant interactions related to mental effort even though learners with dyslexia exhibited high instructional efficiency in the Onscreen Text-Image Present condition while learners without dyslexia exhibited low task involvement in the Onscreen Text-Image Absent condition. Our results provide theoretical implications and important avenues for future research and practice as related to how multimedia learning influences students with dyslexia. We also suggest studies that could inform the eventual design of adaptive and personalized multimedia learning solutions for learners with dyslexia.

Aleven, V., McLaughlin, E. A., Glenn, R. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2017). Instruction based on adaptive learning technologies. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2nd ed., pp. 522–560). New York, NY: Routledge.

Alsobhi, A. Y., Khan, N., & Rahanu, H. (2015). Personalised learning materials based on dyslexia types: Ontological approach. Procedia Computer Science, 60, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.110.CrossRef

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2019). Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 32, 1149–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z.CrossRef

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory: The interface between memory and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.281.CrossRef

Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.CrossRef

Barron, A. E. (2004). Auditory instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 949–978). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beacham, N. A., & Alty, J. L. (2006). An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Computers & Education, 47(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.006.CrossRef

Brante, E. W., & Holmqvist, M. (2017). Reading from multimedia materials: Benefits of non-congruent pictures on reading comprehension for dyslexia readers. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 16.

Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2^nd Edition (pp.174-205). Cambridge University Press.

Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013176309260.CrossRef

Carroll, J. M., Maughan, B., Goodman, R., & Meltzer, H. (2005). Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: Evidence for comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00366.x.CrossRef

Casalis, S., Leuwers, C., & Hilton, H. (2013). Syntactic comprehension in reading and listening: A study with French children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(3), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412449423.CrossRef

Cavalli, E., Duncan, L. G., Elbro, C., El Ahmadi, A., & Colé, P. (2017). Phonemic—morphemic dissociation in university students with dyslexia: an index of reading compensation? Annals of Dyslexia, 67(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-016-0138-y.CrossRef

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.CrossRef

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and brain sciences, 24(1), 87–114.CrossRef

Del Tufo, S. N., & Earle, F. S. (2020). Skill profiles of college students with a history of developmental language disorder and developmental dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(3), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420904348.CrossRef

Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 585–612. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0458.CrossRef

Edyburn, D. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.1.7.CrossRef

Flesch, R. (1949). The art of readable writing. New York: Harper.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling and penmanship (5th ed.). Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service.

Glaser, R. (1991). The maturing of the relationship between the science of learning and cognition and educational practice. Learning and instruction, 1(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(91)90023-2.CrossRef

Grigorenko, E. L., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Wagner, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000452.CrossRef

Harrar, V., Tammam, J., Pérez-Bellido, A., Pitt, A., Stein, J., & Spence, C. (2014). Multisensory integration and attention in developmental dyslexia. Current Biology, 24(5), 531–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.029.CrossRef

Hinshelwood, J. (1909). Four cases of congenital word-blindness occurring in the same family. British Medical Journal, 2, 1229–1232.

Houbart, J. C., Quiniou, S., Berthaut, M., Daille, B., & Salomé, C. (2019). Automatic segmentation of texts into units of meaning for reading assistance. arXiv preprint arXiv, 1910.05014.

Jordan, A. (2019). How technology supports empowerment, equality, and efficiency: Voices of students with dyslexia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida.

Kennedy, M. J., & Boyle, J. R. (2017). The promise and problem with technology in special education: Implications for academic learning. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), The handbook of special education (pp. 606–614). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRef

Kim, S., & Lombardino, L. (2017). Exploring the effects of narration and pictures on learning for students with reading deficits. Clinical Archives of Communication Disorders, 2(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.21849/cacd.2017.00136.CrossRef

Kim, S., & Lombardino, L. (2019). Multimedia learning: Contributions of learners’ verbal abilities and presentation modalities. International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research, 18(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.1.6.CrossRef

Kim, S., Lombardino, L. J., Cowles, W., & Altmann, L. J. (2014). Investigating graph comprehension in students with dyslexia: An eye tracking study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(7), 1609–1622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.043.CrossRef

Kim, S., Wiseheart, R., & Walden, P. (2018). Do multimedia instructional designs enhance learning in college students with dyslexia? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(4), 351–365.

Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7.CrossRef

Kirschner, P. A., & Kirschner, F. (2012). Mental Effort. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_226.CrossRef

Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395.CrossRef

Knoop-van Campen, C. A., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). The modality and redundancy effects in multimedia learning in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 24(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1585.CrossRef

Knoop-van Campen, C. A., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2020). Effects of audio support on multimedia learning processes and outcomes in students with dyslexia. Computers & Education, 150, 103858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103858.CrossRef

Košak-Babuder, M., Kormos, J., Ratajczak, M., & Pižorn, K. (2019). The effect of read-aloud assistance on the text comprehension of dyslexia and non-dyslexia English language learners. Language Testing, 36(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218756946.CrossRef

Lallier, M., Donnadieu, S., & Valdois, S. (2013). Developmental dyslexia: exploring how much phonological and visual attention span disorders are linked to simultaneous auditory processing deficits. Annals of Dyslexia, 63(2), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0074-4.CrossRef

LaVoie, N., Parker, J., Legree, P. J., Ardison, S., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2020). Using latent semantic analysis to score short answer constructed responses: Automated scoring of the consequences test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(2), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419860575.CrossRef

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787.CrossRef

Lombardino, L. (2012). Assessing and differentiating reading and writing disorders: multidimensional model. New York, NY: Delmar/Cengage Learning.

Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2^nd Edition (pp.227-246). Cambridge University Press.

Marinelli, C. V., Angelelli, P., Di Filippo, G., & Zoccolotti, P. (2011). Is developmental dyslexia modality specific? A visual-auditory comparison of Italian dyslexics. Neuropsychologia, 49(7), 1718–1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.050.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00027-0.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 43–71). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design principles. Journal of educational psychology, 91(2), 358–368.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.CrossRef

McGonnell, M., Parrila, R., & Deacon, H. (2007). The recruitment and description of university students who self-report difficulty acquiring early reading skills. Exceptionality Education International, 17(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v17i2.7602.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900305.CrossRef

Nobel, P. A., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Retrieval processes in recognition and cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 384–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.384.CrossRef

Olander, M. H., Brante, E. W., & Nyström, M. (2017). The effect of illustration on improving text comprehension in dyslexia adults. Dyslexia, 23(1), 42–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1545.CrossRef

Orton, S. T. (1925). “Word blindness” in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 581–613.CrossRef

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.CrossRef

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504795.CrossRef

Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419.CrossRef

Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.CrossRef

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Paivio, A. (1991). Images in mind: the evolution of a theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Ramus, F., & Ahissar, M. (2012). Developmental dyslexia: The difficulties of interpreting poor performance, and the importance of normal performance. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1-2), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2012.677420.CrossRef

Raveh, M., & Schiff, R. (2008). Visual and auditory morphological priming in adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 221–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430801917068.CrossRef

Ring, J. J., Avrit, K. J., & Black, J. L. (2017). Take flight: The evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-017-0151-9.CrossRef

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Gomes, N. D., & Barron, A. E. (2008). The effects of time-compressed audio and verbal redundancy on learner performance and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2434–2445.CrossRef

Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kealy, W. A. (2011). Conjoint processing of time-compressed narration in multimedia instruction: The effects on recall, but not recognition. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 203–221.CrossRef

Rodriguez, M., & Albano, A. (2017). The College Instructor’s Guide to Writing Test Items: Measuring Student Learning. Taylor & Francis.

Rose, D. H., Johnston, S. C., & Vanden Boogart, A. E. (2013). Theme editors’ introduction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 39(4), 7–10.

Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(647), 658–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.CrossRef

Sawyer, S. F. (2009). Analysis of variance: the fundamental concepts. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy, 17(2), 27E–38E. https://doi.org/10.1179/jmt.2009.17.2.27E.CrossRef

Scheiter, K., Schubert, C., & Schüler, A. (2018). Self-regulated learning from illustrated text: Eye movement modeling to support use and regulation of cognitive processes during learning from multimedia. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12175.CrossRef

Scheiter, K., Schubert, C., Schüler, A., Schmidt, H., Zimmermann, G., Wassermann, B., Krebs, M., & Eder, T. (2019). Adaptive multimedia: Using gaze-contingent instructional guidance to provide personalized processing support. Computers and Education., 139, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.005.CrossRef

Schneps, M., Chen, C., Pomplun, M., Wang, J., Crosby, A., & Kent, K. (2016). Re-inventing reading: Rapid multi-channel processing of language accelerates reading. Journal of Vision, 16(12), 462. https://doi.org/10.1167/16.12.462.CrossRef

Schneps, M. H., Thomson, J. M., Chen, C., Sonnert, G., & Pomplun, M. (2013). E-readers are more effective than paper for some with dyslexia. PloS one, 8(9), e75634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075634.CrossRef

Schneps, M. H., Thomson, J. M., Sonnert, G., Pomplun, M., Chen, C., & Heffner-Wong, A. (2013). Shorter lines facilitate reading in those who struggle. PloS one, 8(8), e71161. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071161.CrossRef

Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N., Wendling, B. J., & LaForte, E. M. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of cognitive abilities. Riverside.

Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18(7), 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.506441.CrossRef

Shaywitz, S. (2008). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York, NY: Random House.

Singh, A. M., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 848–853. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2885.CrossRef

Stampoltzis, A., & Polychronopoulou, S. (2009). Greek university students with dyslexia: An interview study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903020195.CrossRef

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.CrossRef

Taylor, M., Duffy, S., & Hughes, G. (2007). The use of animation in higher education teaching to support students with dyslexia. Education + Training, 49(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910710729857.CrossRef

Tejero, P., Pi-Ruano, M., & Roca, J. (2020). Better read it to me: Benefits of audio versions of variable message signs in drivers with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 70(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-020-00199-6.CrossRef

Thomas, A. O., Antonenko, P. D., & Davis, R. (2016). Understanding metacomprehension accuracy within video annotation systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.014.CrossRef

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency:(TOWRE-2). Pearson Clinical Assessment.

Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational psychologist, 43(1), 16–26.CrossRef

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing: CTOPP. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

Wang, J., Dawson, K., Saunders, K., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Antonenko, P. P., Lombardino, L., et al. (2018). Investigating the effects of modality and multimedia on the learning performance of college students with dyslexia. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(3), 182–193.CrossRef

Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). The individual differences in working memory capacity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 615–636). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & DeFries, J. C. (2000). Twin study of the etiology of comorbidity between reading disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 96(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-8628(20000612)96:3<293::AID-AJMG12>3.0.CO;2-C.CrossRef

Wilson, B. A., & Oxford, M. A. (2015). Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1001_1.CrossRef

Wiseheart, R., Altmann, L. J., Park, H., & Lombardino, L. J. (2009). Sentence comprehension in young adults with developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0028-7.CrossRef

Witteman, M. J., & Segers, E. (2010). The modality effect tested in children in a user-paced multimedia environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00335.x.CrossRef

Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational psychologist, 24(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2.CrossRef

Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004.CrossRef

Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of learning disabilities, 51(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688170.CrossRef

Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2013). Dyslexia laws in the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 63(2), 133–153.CrossRef

Zhu, J., Dawson, K., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2020). Investigating how multimedia and modality design principles influence student learning performance, satisfaction, mental effort, and visual attention. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 29(3), 265–284.

Title: The influence of the multimedia and modality principles on the learning outcomes, satisfaction, and mental effort of college students with and without dyslexia
Authors: Kara Dawson
Jiawen Zhu
Albert D. Ritzhaupt
Pavlo Antonenko
Kendra Saunders
Jiahui Wang
Linda Lombardino
Publication date: 01-04-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Dyslexia
Published in: Annals of Dyslexia / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0736-9387
Electronic ISSN: 1934-7243
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-021-00219-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The influence of the multimedia and modality principles on the learning outcomes, satisfaction, and mental effort of college students with and without dyslexia

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Two aspects of psychological functioning in undergraduates with a history of reading difficulties: anxiety and self-efficacy

Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis

Relationships between test anxiety and metacognition in Chinese young adults with and without specific learning disabilities

Suprasegmental but not segmental phonological awareness matters in understanding bilingual reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese and English: a 3-year longitudinal study

Improving reading skills in children with dyslexia: efficacy studies on a newly proposed remedial intervention—repeated reading with vocal music masking (RVM)

Professor C. K. Leong: in memoriam