Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context

Abstract The study addressed to what extent behavioral engagement and textual integration may differ when undergraduate readers work with identical printed versus digital texts in preparation for an exam versus for pleasure. We expected that working with printed texts would lead to greater engagement and better integration than working with digital texts, but that reading purpose would moderate this effect of reading medium because those reading in preparation for an exam would display greater engagement and better integration regardless of reading medium. Results showed interaction effects of reading medium with reading purpose on the behavioral engagement indicators of reading time and the length of the post-reading written products. For reading time, the interaction involved that students used longer time when reading digital and mixed texts for an exam, compared to reading for pleasure, whereas there were no difference between exam and pleasure oriented reading when reading printed texts. For the length of the written responses, students produced more text when reading printed texts for an exam than when reading printed texts for pleasure, whereas there were no differences in text production between reading for an exam and reading for pleasure when reading digital or mixed texts. Finally, there was an indirect effect of reading purpose on textual integration via text production when students read printed texts: students who read printed texts in preparation for an exam produced longer written responses compared to those who read for pleasure and, in turn, gained a more integrated understanding of the issue in question. These results are discussed in terms of the implications they offer and the avenues they suggest for future research.

[1]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[2]  David R. Olson,et al.  The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading , 1996 .

[3]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Postscript: In pursuit of integration , 2018 .

[4]  P. Alexander,et al.  Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of Empirical Research Reveal , 2017 .

[5]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test , 2014 .

[6]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Corroborating students’ self-reports of source evaluation , 2018, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[7]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  S Epstein,et al.  The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Sven Birkerts,et al.  The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age , 1994 .

[10]  Heiko Rölke,et al.  The time on task effect in reading and problem solving is moderated by task difficulty and skill: Insights from a computer-based large-scale assessment. , 2014 .

[11]  Benjamin C. Heddy,et al.  The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Student Engagement in Science , 2015 .

[12]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts , 2018 .

[14]  Jason L. G. Braasch,et al.  Introduction to Research on Multiple Source Use , 2018 .

[15]  Yvonne Kammerer,et al.  The Future of Learning by Searching the Web: Mobile, Social, and Multimodal , 2018, Frontline Learning Research.

[16]  Paul van den Broek,et al.  Building coherence in web-based and other non-traditional reading environments , 2015 .

[17]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[18]  Yvonne Kammerer,et al.  Fostering secondary-school students' intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[19]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Toward an Integrated Framework of Multiple Text Use , 2019 .

[20]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Advantages of Monte Carlo Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects , 2012 .

[21]  P. Broek,et al.  The role of readers' standards for coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. , 1995 .

[22]  A. Hayes.  Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium , 2009 .

[23]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Students’ Trust in Research-Based Results About Potential Health Risks Presented in Popular Media , 2017 .

[24]  P. Alexander,et al.  Reading Across Mediums: Effects of Reading Digital and Print Texts on Comprehension and Calibration , 2017 .

[25]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Frames and brains: elicitation and control of response tendencies , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  K. Lafreniere,et al.  Social Media, Texting, and Personality: A Test of the Shallowing Hypothesis , 2017 .

[27]  Lauren M. Singer Trakhman,et al.  Profiling reading in print and digital mediums , 2018, Learning and Instruction.

[28]  Sarit Barzilai,et al.  Promoting Integration of Multiple Texts: a Review of Instructional Approaches and Practices , 2018 .

[29]  P. Broek,et al.  The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. , 2002 .

[30]  Ellen A. Skinner,et al.  The Role of Emotion in Engagement, Coping, and the Development of Motivational Resilience , 2014 .

[31]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[32]  Tracy Linderholm.  Reading with Purpose , 2006 .

[33]  Chunyu Hu,et al.  Discourse Connectives in L1 and L2 Argumentative Writing , 2015 .

[34]  J. Guthrie,et al.  Effects of Classroom Practices on Reading Comprehension, Engagement, and Motivations for Adolescents. , 2014, Reading research quarterly.

[35]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature , 1992 .

[36]  Lori A. Stephens,et al.  Examining interest throughout multiple text use , 2019 .

[37]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[38]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[39]  Robert F. Lorch,et al.  The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[40]  Virginia Clinton.  Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2019, Journal of Research in Reading.

[41]  Peter Afflerbach,et al.  Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading , 1996 .

[42]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Self-Regulation and Link Selection Strategies in Hypertext , 2010 .

[43]  K. Stanovich,et al.  On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[44]  C. Elbro,et al.  Cloze Tests May be Quick, But Are They Dirty? Development and Preliminary Validation of a Cloze Test of Reading Comprehension , 2013 .

[45]  Ling Zhai,et al.  Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[46]  Øistein Anmarkrud,et al.  Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension , 2014 .

[47]  Crystal M. Ramsay,et al.  Weighing Opposing Positions: Examining the Effects of Intratextual Persuasive Messages on Students' Knowledge and Beliefs. , 2012 .

[48]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[49]  J. Nietfeld,et al.  Examining the Effects of Task Instructions to Induce Implicit Theories of Intelligence on a Rational Thinking Task: A Cross-Cultural Study , 2017 .

[50]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Cognitive and linguistic features of adolescent argumentative writing: Do connectives signal more complex reasoning? , 2018, Reading and Writing.

[51]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  The role of students’ prior topic beliefs in recall and evaluation of information from texts on socio-scientific issues , 2017 .

[52]  Tami Katzir,et al.  The effect of presentation mode on children's reading preferences, performance, and self-evaluations , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[53]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension , 2018, Educational Research Review.

[54]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .

[55]  K. Stanovich,et al.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks , 2011, Memory & cognition.

[56]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[57]  Matthew T. McCrudden,et al.  Relevance and Goal-Focusing in Text Processing , 2007 .

[58]  Paul van den Broek,et al.  The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. , 1999 .

[59]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[60]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing , 2017 .

[61]  Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler,et al.  The Interplay of Reader Goals, Working Memory, and Text Structure During Reading. , 2014, Contemporary educational psychology.

[62]  Mark Felton,et al.  A Historical Writing Apprenticeship for Adolescents: Integrating Disciplinary Learning With Cognitive Strategies , 2017 .

[63]  Allan Wigfield,et al.  Instructional Contexts for Engagement and Achievement in Reading , 2012 .

[64]  Mary Jane White,et al.  When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. , 2011 .

[65]  P. Alexander,et al.  Effects of Processing Time on Comprehension and Calibration in Print and Digital Mediums , 2019 .

[66]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Investigating cognitive capacity, personality, and epistemic beliefs in relation to science achievement , 2014 .

[67]  Jason L. G. Braasch,et al.  The Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) Model: Basic Assumptions and Preliminary Evidence , 2017 .

[68]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks , 2018, Journal of Research in Reading.