Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper
Ackerman and Goldsmith set out to find where the cost of reading on a screen comes from, given that learners generally prefer paper. Participants read expository passages on screen or on paper and, for each passage, predicted how well they would do on a later multiple-choice test. When study time was fixed, performance was similar on the two media. When participants controlled their own study time, those reading on screen scored lower. The authors place the main difference in metacognition rather than cognition: screen readers predicted their performance less accurately and managed their study time less consistently. The paper also offers a method for working out why performance differs between study conditions.
Ackerman and Goldsmith set out to find where the cost of reading on a screen comes from, given that learners generally prefer paper. Participants read expository passages on screen or on paper and, for each passage, predicted how well they would do on a later multiple-choice test. When study time was fixed, performance was similar on the two media. When participants controlled their own study time, those reading on screen scored lower. The authors place the main difference in metacognition rather than cognition: screen readers predicted their performance less accurately and managed their study time less consistently. The paper also offers a method for working out why performance differs between study conditions.
Written from the abstract, University of Haifa repository record.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18-32. doi:10.1037/a0022086