Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children's reading of informational material

Reading and Writing

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-19

  Kerr, Matthew A ^a   Symons, Sonya E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b ACADIA UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 31744436728     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. An organism that is visible from space. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://www.pitara.com
2. Baccino, T. & Pynte, J. (1994). Spatial coding and discourse models during text reading. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 143-155.
3. Carver, R.P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
4. Carver, R.P. (1997). Reading for one second, one minute, or one year from the perspective of rauding theory. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 3-43.
5. Castelhano, M.S. & Muter, P. (2001). Optimizing the reading of electronic text using rapid serial visual presentation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20, 237-247.
6. Cataldo, M.G. & Oakhill, J. (2000). Why are poor comprehenders inefficient searchers? An investigation into the effects of text representation and spatial memory on the ability to locate information in text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 791-799.
7. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
8. Clark, R.E. & Sugrue, B.M. (1990). North American disputes about research on learning from media. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 507-519.
9. Cocklin, T.G., Ward, N.J., Chen, H. & Juola, J.F. (1984). Factors influencing readability of rapidly presented text segments. Memory and Cognition, 12, 431-442.
10. Creed, A., Dennis, I. & Newstead, S. (1987). Proof-reading on VDU's. Behaviour and Information Technology, 6, 3-13.
11. Dillon, A., Richardson, J. & McKnight, C. (1990). The effects of display size and text splitting on reading lengthy text from screen. Behaviour and Information Technology, 9, 215-227.
12. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297-1326.
13. Duffy, T.D. & Bednar, A.K. (1991). Attempting to come to grips with alternative perspectives. Educational Technology, 31(9), 12-15.
14. Eklundh, K.S. (1992). Problems in achieving a global perspective of the text in computer-based writing. Instructional Science, 21, 73-84.
15. Fry, E.B. (1975). Fry readability scale. Provincetown, Rhode Island: Jamestown.
16. Gould, J.D. & Grischkowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hard copy and with cathode-ray tube (crt) computer terminals. Human Factors, 26, 323-337.
17. Jacobson, M.J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P. & Kolar, C. (1995). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4, 321-364.
18. Jacobson, M.J. & Spiro, R.J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301-333.
19. Jonassen, D.H. (1993). Effects of semantically structured hypertext knowledge bases on users' knowledge structures. In C. McKnight, A. Dillon & J. Richardson (Eds.). Hypertext: A psychological perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Ellis Horwood.
20. Jong, M.T. de & Bus, A.G. (2002). Quality of book-reading for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in a regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 145-155.
21. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
22. Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
23. McKnight, C., Dillon, A. & Richardson, J. (1990). A comparison of linear and hypertext formats in information retrieval. In R. McAleese & C. Green (Eds.), State of the art. Oxford: Intellect.
24. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
25. Moseley, D., Mearns, N. & Tse, H. (2001). Using computers at home and in the primary school: Where is the value added? Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 31-46.
26. Muter, P., Kruk, R.S., Buttigieg, M.A. & Kang, J.T. (1988). Reader-controlled computerized presentation of text. Human Factors, 30, 473-486.
27. Muter, P., Latremouille, S.A., Treurniet, W. C. & Beam, P. (1982). Extended reading of continuous text on television screens. Human Factors, 24, 501-508.
28. Muter, P. & Maurutto, P. (1991). Reading and skimming from computer screens and books: The paperless office revisited? Behaviour and Information Technology, 10, 257-266.
29. Piolat, A., Roussey, J. & Thunin, O. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 565-589.
30. Rahman, T. & Muter, P. (1999). Designing an interface to optimize reading with small display windows. Human Factors, 41, 106-117.
31. Rouet, J.-F. (1992). Cognitive processing of hyperdocuments: When does non-linearity help? In D. Lucarella, J. Nanard, M. Nanard, & P. Paolini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Hypertext. New York, New York: Academic Press.
32. Slosson, R.L. & Nicholson, C.L. (1990). Slosson Oral Reading Test - revised. East Aurora, New York: Slosson Educational Publications. The art of deception (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://www.pitara.com
33. Wenger, M.J. & Payne, D.G. (1996). Comprehension and retention of nonlinear text: Considerations of working memory and material-appropriate processing. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 93-130.
34. Wilkinson, R.T. & Robinshaw, H.M. (1987). Proof reading: VDU and paper text compared for speed, accuracy and fatigue. Behaviour and Information Technology, 6, 125-133.