Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper.

Abstract

Despite immense technological advances, learners still prefer studying text from printed hardcopy rather than from computer screens. Subjective and objective differences between on-screen and on-paper learning were examined in terms of a set of cognitive and metacognitive components, comprising a Metacognitive Learning Regulation Profile (MLRP) for each study media. Participants studied expository texts of 1000-1200 words in one of the two media and for each text they provided metacognitive prediction-of-performance judgments with respect to a subsequent multiple-choice test. Under fixed study time (Experiment 1), test performance did not differ between the two media, but when study time was self-regulated (Experiment 2) worse performance was observed on screen than on paper. The results suggest that the primary differences between the two study media are not cognitive but rather metacognitive--less accurate prediction of performance and more erratic study-time regulation on screen than on paper. More generally, this study highlights the contribution of metacognitive regulatory processes to learning and demonstrates the potential of the MLRP methodology for revealing the source of subjective and objective differences in study performance among study conditions.

Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance

“…Textbooks contain narrative and expository text, from which students are expected to draw conclusions based on careful reading (Margolin, Driscoll, Toland, & Kegler, 2013). Recent studies examining the screen reading of narrative and expository text show that college level readers comprehend the same level of information from screen reading as they do from paper reading (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Connell, Bayliss, & Farmer, 2012;Eden & EshetAlkalai, 2013;Green, Perera, Dance, & Myers, 2010;Indiana State University, 2013;Margolin et al, 2013;Niccoli, 2015).…”

“…Consequently, previous research has not reported any significant difference between paper and electronic textbooks because the media alone (paper versus screen) have few distinctions when it comes to learning (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Connell, Bayliss, & Farmer, 2012). In contrast, this study investigates the learning effects of one feature of enhanced e-textbooks, looking at the impact of instructor annotations on student performance.…”

How Design Science Research Helps Improve Learning Efficiency in Online Conversations

“…Drawing on this line of reasoning, Carr (2010) shows that the fragmentary nature of hypertext reduces students' sustained reading and results in shallow reading. Given these problems, Ackerman and Goldsmith (2011) emphasize printed text as more suitable for effective learning and digital reading as a tool for skimming email, news, and notes.…”

Learning From News on Different Media Platforms: An Eye-Tracking Experiment

“…An exploration of the mediators of learning from the news may provide answers as to why competing findings have dominated the online news learning literature until now (Eveland & Garrett, 2014;Mitchelstein & Boczkowski, 2010). Changes in learning from different types of news might be explained by a multitude of variables, such as metacognitive beliefs about the "seriousness" of printed newspapers (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011), ergonomic considerations about reading on a screen (Blehm et al, 2005;Mangen et al, 2013), as well as motivation and ability to process (Eveland, Shah, & Kwak, 2003). In our study, we want to highlight an observable and highly relevant mediator for the model of news effects on learning: attention to news content (Leckner, 2012;Van Cauwenberge, d'Haenens, & Beentjes, 2015).…”

“…For instance, studies have shown that news websites lead to rapid and shallow reading, while printed newspapers encourage effortful learning (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Mangen, Walgermo, & Brønnick, 2013). This difference is likely reliant on a number of variables, such as metacognitive beliefs about the medium, ergonomics, preexisting knowledge, or the ability and motivation to process news (e.g., Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Blehm, Vishnu, Khattak, Mitra, & Yee, 2005;Mangen et al, 2013;Rhee & Cappella, 1997). Yet, we want to highlight another relevant mediator variable: visual attention to news content as an observable predecessor and likely predictor of news processing and learning (Eveland, 2001).…”