Profiling reading in print and digital mediums

Abstract Real-time processing behaviors and processing time for 57 undergraduates reading information texts in print and digitally were used to identify distinct performance profiles. Students underlined the printed text as they read and followed along with their cursor when reading digitally. Immediately after reading, students answered three comprehension questions for each text about the main idea, key points, and other information and judged their performance on the comprehension test. Four profiles were identified using deeper and more surface-level processing behaviors and reading time for both mediums (i.e. Regulators, Plodders, Gliders, and Samplers) and comprehension and calibration (i.e., self-assessment accuracy) data were analyzed by medium and profile. An overall medium effect for comprehension, along with various profile differences were identified. No overall calibration difference by medium was found, although various effects by profile were identified. Implications of outcomes for future research on reading in print and digitally are forwarded.

[1]  Roger Bakeman,et al.  Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis , 1986 .

[2]  Asher Koriat,et al.  The intricate relationships between monitoring and control in metacognition: lessons for the cause-and-effect relation between subjective experience and behavior. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[4]  S. Barzilai,et al.  The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints , 2015 .

[5]  Michael J. Timms.  Letting Artificial Intelligence in Education Out of the Box: Educational Cobots and Smart Classrooms , 2016, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[6]  J. Cromley,et al.  Flexible strategy use by students who learn much versus little from text: Transitions within think-aloud protocols , 2016 .

[7]  J. Vermunt,et al.  Patterns in Student Learning: Relationships Between Learning Strategies, Conceptions of Learning, and Learning Orientations , 2004 .

[8]  Ulrich Schroeders,et al.  Equivalence of Screen Versus Print Reading Comprehension Depends on Task Complexity and Proficiency , 2017 .

[9]  P. Alexander,et al.  Reading Into the Future: Competence for the 21st Century , 2012 .

[10]  W. Dunn,et al.  The sensory profile: a discriminant analysis of children with and without disabilities. , 1998, The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association.

[11]  Wayne A. Wickelgren,et al.  Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics , 1977 .

[12]  Luke K. Fryer,et al.  Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy convergences across a year at university , 2018, The British journal of educational psychology.

[13]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Profiling the Differences in Students' Knowledge, Interest, and Strategic Processing , 1998 .

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

[15]  Michele Knobel,et al.  Researching New Literacies: Web 2.0 Practices and Insider Perspectives , 2007 .

[16]  Johanna K. Kaakinen,et al.  Individual Differences in Reading To Summarize Expository Text: Evidence from Eye Fixation Patterns. , 2002 .

[17]  David Gijbels,et al.  How are learning strategies reflected in the eyes? Combining results from self‐reports and eye‐tracking , 2018, The British journal of educational psychology.

[18]  Nicola Ariasi,et al.  Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study , 2011 .

[19]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  A Multidimensional Investigation of Deep-level and Surface-level Processing , 2016 .

[20]  P. V. Meter,et al.  College Students' Theory of Note-Taking Derived From Their Perceptions of Note-Taking , 1994 .

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

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

[23]  Hakan Dündar,et al.  Tablet vs. Paper: The Effect on Learners' Reading Performance , 2012 .

[24]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Trust But Verify: Examining the Association Between Students' Sourcing Behaviors and Ratings of Text Trustworthiness , 2017 .

[25]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? q , 2004 .

[26]  P. Alexander,et al.  Cognitive Affective Engagement Model of Multiple Source Use , 2017 .

[27]  R. Sternberg.  Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? , 1998 .

[28]  Vincent Donche,et al.  A Learning Patterns Perspective on Student Learning in Higher Education: State of the Art and Moving Forward , 2017, Educational Psychology Review.

[29]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Calibration: What Is It and Why It Matters? An Introduction to the Special Issue on Calibrating Calibration. , 2013 .

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

[31]  Garry Falloon,et al.  Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[32]  Thomas Sanocki,et al.  Enhancing Calibration of Comprehension , 1987 .

[33]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  An eye-movement analysis of the refutation effect in reading science text , 2017, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[34]  R. Mayer.  Cognitive Theory and the Design of Multimedia Instruction: An Example of the Two‐Way Street Between Cognition and Instruction , 2002 .

[35]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension , 2013 .

[36]  M. Prensky.  Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1 , 2001 .

[37]  P. Petegem,et al.  The development of learning patterns of student teachers: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study , 2009 .

[38]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Profiling Individual Differences in Student Motivation: A Longitudinal Cluster-Analytic Study in Different Academic Contexts. , 2005 .

[39]  John Biggs,et al.  INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP DIFFERENCES IN STUDY PROCESSES , 1978 .

[40]  Mary C. Dyson,et al.  The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on the understanding of text read from screen , 2000 .