I know that it could be different for each situation, but when I was gathering data from participants in the pilot phase of my study, I've realized that if I explain the instructions aloud it could be more effective than letting them read those. Now my supervisor insists that I refer to a scientific document for this. the experiment was designed with a masking paradigm and the instructions contained content with positive and negative reinforcement.
Does anyone know any reference?
If the participants have hearing problems, reading is better.
I prefer to let them read the instructions because it guarantees that every one gets the same instructions. I always let them ask me for clarification if they are still unsure though. As a participant I often felt people rushed through the instruction very quickly and it wasn't very clear what to do until I started the task.
There is a very rich literature on the advantages of reading aloud versus silent reading. In which age group are you interested?
There are advantages and disadvantages to explaining instructions instead of providing a written form. It may be easier to notice which part is unclear for them in a face-to-face interaction because of the social feedback, so the experimenter can easily adjust and spend more time on problematic parts. On the other hand this exposes the study to the potentially problematic human factor: you cannot be sure you presented the instructions exactly the same to all the participants (and there are many papers showing the effects of different wording of instructions in experiments, just google-scholar them). For the sake of creating for everyone as similar conditions as possible, written instructions are definitely better.
Here's how I balance it in my experiments: I always let participants read the instructions themselves and then encourage them to ask questions. Since some participants (stress, anxiety, fear of being perceived negatively) may feel uncomfortable asking for clarifications, I also repeat (often with a visual aid, like a 1-slide presentation of how a trial looks like) the key parts anyway. From my experience this often clears up doubts without making participants admit they didn't understand something. Also, I always include an additional screen after a training block informing participants that they can now ask the experimenter additional questions if they (still) find anything unclear. Finally, I program the training in such a way that I get a constant feedback on the performance of a given participant, so that if I see there's an obvious problem with following the instructions in the task, I go back to them after the training and make sure all doubts are cleared up.
Dear Albert Ziegler ;
In this project, participants were typically developed adults. Thanks for your help.
Dear Magdalena Matyjek ;
I think this is an accurate and useful protocol. I'll use it in my future projects.
thank you.
Dear S. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist and Robert Udale ;
Thanks for your advices.
I think you can safely write that research shows an overall gain with oral presentation for both students with and without disabilities. References you can quote on this are
1) DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/ktkv-3279 Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/18
2)
and especially this meta‐analysis of Research on the read aloud accommodation
https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12040
Wishing you fun with your research, Mohammad
Dear Albert Ziegler ;
I'll use these two references. thank you so much for your help.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Statistical Techniques
- Meta-Analysis