Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing

Sidi, Yael; Shpigelman, Maya; Zalmanov, Hagar; Ackerman, Rakefet

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002

Cited by 78 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The contextual cue provided by the medium on which information is presented may explain the differences in performance and calibration accuracy when reading text from paper and screens. In a comparison of solving word problems displayed on paper or screens, framing a task as challenging lead to similar calibration for task performance by medium (Sidi et al, ). In other words, the participants may have perceived the medium as an indication of the difficulty of the problems, with the paper medium being indicative of more challenge than the electronic medium, unless they were prompted to consider the problems as challenging in both media.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the meta-analytic findings that calibration accuracy (metacognitive awareness of performance) is better when reading text from paper compared to screens, the difference in performance could be due to better calibration accuracy. Readers may be processing text from screens less efficiently based on poor calibration accuracy, as they think they are understanding the text better than they actually are (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Sidi, Ophir, & Ackerman, 2016), which could lead to detriments in performance when reading from screens (Sidi, Shpigelman, Zalmanov, & Ackerman, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinton

2019

Journal Research in Reading

270

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. Methods A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance (k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time (k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration (k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens. Results Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper (g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts (g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts (g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately (g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time (g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens (g = .20). Conclusions Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinton

2019

Journal Research in Reading

270

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The perceived overconfidence of digital learners in their achievements is well-known from other fields of research, such as in reading studies, in which digital readers are often overconfident in their performance with digital reading compared to print reading (Ackerman and Goldsmith 2011;Eshet-Alkalai and Geri 2007;Lauterman and Ackerman 2014;Sidi, Ophir, and Ackerman 2016;Sidi et al 2017). However, in accordance with the second hypothesis, students from the face-to-face condition perceived learning to be easier and more interesting (emotional aspect) than students from the online learning environments (one-way and two-way videoconferencing conditions).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do medium naturalness and personality traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of face-to-face and synchronous e-learning

Blau¹,

Weiser²,

Eshet-Alkalai³

2017

Research in Learning Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This controlled experiment examined how academic achievement and cognitive, emotional and social aspects of perceived learning are affected by the level of medium naturalness (face-to-face, one-way and two-way videoconferencing) and by learners' personality traits (extroversion-introversion and emotional stabilityneuroticism). The Media Naturalness Theory explains the degree of medium naturalness by comparing its characteristics to face-to-face communication, considered to be the most natural form of communication. A total of 76 participants were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: face-to-face, one-way and two-way videoconferencing. E-learning conditions were conducted through Zoom videoconferencing, which enables natural and spontaneous communication. Findings shed light on the trade-off involved in media naturalness: one-way videoconferencing, the less natural learning condition, enhanced the cognitive aspect of perceived learning but compromised the emotional and social aspects. Regarding the impact of personality, neurotic students tended to enjoy and succeed more in face-to-face learning, whereas emotionally stable students enjoyed and succeeded in all of the learning conditions. Extroverts tended to enjoy more natural learning environments but had lower achievements in these conditions. In accordance with the 'poor get richer' principle, introverts enjoyed environments with a low level of medium naturalness. However, they remained focused and had higher achievements in the face-to-face learning.

show abstract

“…Likert scales also allow examining correlations between various responses of the same individual and across individuals (e.g., Stupple, Ball, & Ellis, 2013). More precise confidence ratings, such as those collected as a percentage (0-100% confidence) or ratio (e.g., number of items judged to be correct relative to the total number of items), allow comparisons between mean confidence and actual success rates (e.g., Pennycook et al, 2017;Sidi, Shpigelman, Zalmanov, & Ackerman, 2017). Such absolute ratings by percentage or ratio allow examining calibration in terms of over-and underconfidence.…”

Section: Box 1 Levels Of Heuristic Cues For Metacognitive Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We can see that it is the presence of item-level cues which interferes with cues based on task characteristics, because the latter have a stronger effect when participants provide judgments without an opportunity to attempt the tasks themselves (e.g., when assessing the difficulty of finding an answer presented by others) than when they can use their first-order experience (Kelley & Jacoby, 1996;Mitchum & Kelley, 2010). In one line of research, Ackerman and colleagues (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012;Sidi et al, 2017) examined two task characteristics in both text learning and problemsolving tasks: time frame (working under time pressure versus a loose time frame) and medium (encountering the task on a computer screen versus on paper). They found that on paper participants performed equally well in both time frames (with and without time pressure), while participants working on screens performed as well only under free time regulation.…”

Section: Level 2: Task Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heuristic Cues for Meta-Reasoning Judgments

Ackerman

2019

Psihol. teme (Online)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metacognitive research aims to explain how people regulate their effort when performing cognitive tasks, to expose conditions that support reliable monitoring of chance for success, and to provide a basis for developing improvement guidelines. The essence of the domain is that monitoring drives control: people continually self-assess their chance for success before, during, and after performing a cognitive task, and use these judgments to guide their effort-allocation decisions (e.g., whether to reconsider an answer option, change strategy, seek help, or give up). Thus, factors that underlie metacognitive judgments affect the efficiency with which people perform cognitive tasks. This paper focuses on meta-reasoning – the monitoring and control processes that apply to reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making tasks. So far, relatively little is known about heuristic cues used for inferring meta-reasoning judgments. This paper reviews the known heuristic cues and offers methodological guidelines for a critical reading of existing research and for designing high-quality studies that will advance this important domain.

show abstract

Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing

Cited by 78 publications

References 78 publications

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

How do medium naturalness and personality traits shape academic achievement and perceived learning? An experimental study of face-to-face and synchronous e-learning

Heuristic Cues for Meta-Reasoning Judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About