Investigating the role of user engagement in digital reading environments

CHIIR 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 71-80

  O'Brien, Heather L ^a   Freund, Luanne ^a   Kopak, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Digital reading environments; User engagement

Indexed keywords

STUDENTS;

CLASS ASSIGNMENTS; COMPREHENSION; DIGITAL READING; LEARNING OUTCOME; UNIVERSITY STUDENTS; USER ENGAGEMENT; USER EXPERIENCE; USER STUDY;

EDUCATION;

EID: 84974589171     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2854946.2854973     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (47)

1. Adler, M. J. 1940. How to Read a Book: The Art of Getting a Liberal Education. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
2. Brown, J. A., Fishco, V. V., and Hanna, G. 1993. Nelson-Denny Reading Test: Manual for Scoring and Interpretation. Riverside Pub, Rolling Meadows, IL.
3. Chung, D. S. 2008. Interactive features of online newspapers: Identifying patterns and predicting use of engaged readers. J J Comput Mediat Commun, 13, 658-679.
4. Cole, C. and Mandelblatt, B. (2000). Using Kintsch's discourse comprehension theory to model the user's coding of an informative message from an enabling information retrieval system. JASIS&T, 51(11), 1033-1046.
5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
6. Cull, BW. 2011. Reading revolutions: Online digital text and implications for reading in academe. First Monday, 16 (6).
7. Denny, P. 2013. The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 763-772). ACM. DOI= 10.1145/2470654.2470763.
8. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
9. Dillon, A. 1992. Reading from paper versus screens: An empirical review of the literature. Ergonomics, 35, 1297-1326.
10. Eysink, T. H. S. and De Jong, T. 2012. Does instructional approach matter? How elaboration plays a crucial role in multimedia learning. J Learn Sci, 21(4), 583-625.
11. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., and Stevens, J. 2004. The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. J Exp Educ, 72, 93-114.
12. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Paris, A. H. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res, 74, 59-109.
13. Fredricks, J. A., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J. and Mooney, K. 2011. Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. Greensboro, NC. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/rel-20110 98.pdf.
14. Freund, L., Kopak, R. & O'Brien, H. L. (in press). The effects of textual environment on reading comprehension: implications for searching as learning. J Inform Sci.
15. Gwizdka, J. 2014. Characterizing relevance with eye-tracking measures. In Proceedings of the Information Interaction in Context Symposium (pp. 58-67). ACM.
16. Grafsgaard, J. F. (2014). Multimodal Affect Modeling in Task-Oriented Tutorial Dialogue. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, North Carolina.
17. Hu, P. J.-H. and Hui, W. 2012. Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effect on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Deci Support Syst, 53, 782-792.
18. Jacques, R. D. 1996. The nature of engagement and its role in hypermedia evaluation and design. Unupblished doctoral dissertation, South Bank University, London.
19. Jacques, R., Preece, J. and Carey, T. 1995. Engagement as a design concept for multimedia. Cdn J. Educ. Comm. 24, 1, 49-59.
20. Kelly, D. 2009. Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3(1-2), 1-224.
21. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
22. Kintsch, W. 2009. Learning and constructivism. In Tobias, Sigmund and Duffy, Thomas M. (Eds), Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? (pp. 223-241). Routledge, New York, NY.
23. Kopak, R. and Chiang, C 2007. Annotating and linking in the Open Journal Systems. First Monday, 12 (10). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1961/1838
24. Lalmas, M., O'Brien, H., and Yom-Tov, E. 2014. Measuring User Engagement. Morgan Claypool Pub.
25. Liu, Z. 2006. Reading behavior in the digital environment: changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. J Doc, 61(6), 700-712.
26. Marshall, C. 2009. Reading and Writing the Electronic Book. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 1:1, pp. 185. Morgan Claypool Pub.
27. McCay-Peet, L., Lalmas, M., and Navalpakkam, V. 2012. On saliency, affect and focused attention. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 541-550). ACM.
28. Maynard S. and McKnight, C. 2001. Children's comprehension of electronic books: An empirical study. New Rev Children's Lit. Libr., 7, 29-53.
29. McNamara, D. S. and Shapiro, A. M. 2005. Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. J Educ Comput Res, 33(1), 1-29.
30. McNamara, D. S. and Magliano, J. P. 2009. Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 51, (pp. 297-284). Elsevier Science, New York, NY.
31. O'Brien, H. L. Translating Theory into Methodological Practice. In H. L. O'Brien and P. Cairns (Eds). Why Engagement Matters: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives and Innovations on User Engagement with Digital Media. Springer, forthcoming.
32. O'Brien, H. L. 2011. Exploring engagement in online news interaction. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science and Technology, New Orleans, LA.
33. O'Brien, H. L., and Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. JASIS&T, 59(6), 938-955.
34. O'Brien, H. L. and Toms, E. G. 2013. Measuring engagement in search systems using the User Engagement Scale (UES). Inform Process Manag, 49(5), 1092-1107.
35. O'Brien, H. L. and Toms, E. G. 2010. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement in ecommerce environments. JASIS&T, 61(1), 50-69.
36. Pearson, J., Buchanan, G. and Thimbleby, H. 2013. Designing for Digital Reading. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 5(4), 1-135.
37. Royer, J. M., Greene, B. A. and Sinatra, G. M. 1987. The sentence verification technique. J Reading, 30(5), 414-422.
38. Schutte, N. S. and Malouff, J. M. 2007. Dimensions of reading motivation: Development of an adult reading motivation scale. Read Psychol, 28(5), 469-489.
39. Shannon S. and Winterman B. 2012. Student comprehension of primary literature is aided by companion assignments emphasizing pattern recognition and information literacy. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship http://istl.library.ucsb.edu/12-winter/refereed3.html
40. Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., Hou, H.-T., and Chen, P.-F. 2010. Designing an electronic guidebook for learning engagement in a museum of history. Comput Hum Behav, 26, 74-83.
41. Vakkari, P. (2001). A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: a summary and generalisation of a longitudinal study. J Doc, 57(1), 44-60.
42. Van Dijk, T. A. 1980. Story comprehension: An introduction. Poetics, 9(1), 1-21.
43. Webster, J. and Ahuja, J. S. 2006. Enhancing the design of web navigation systems: The influence of user disorientation on engagement and performance. MISQ, 30(3), 661-678.
44. Webster, J. and Ho, H. 1997. Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. ACM SIGMIS Database, 28(2), 63-77.
45. Whitman, L. 2013. The Effectiveness of Interactivity in Multimedia Software Tutorials. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
46. Wiebe, E. N., Lamb, A., Hardy, M., and Sharek, D. 2014. Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: Investigation of the User Engagement Scale. Comput Hum Behav, 32, 123-132.
47. Wilson, M. J., and Wilson, M. L. (2013). A comparison of techniques for measuring sensemaking and learning within participant generated summaries. JASIS&T, 64(2), 291-306.