Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 51, Issue , 2017, Pages 61-73

  Sidi, Yael ^a   Shpigelman, Maya ^a   Zalmanov, Hagar ^a   Ackerman, Rakefet ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Depth of processing; Effort regulation; Human computer interaction; Metacognition; Monitoring and control; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009787661     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. deDonno, M.A., Rivera-Torres, K., Monis, A., Fagan, J.F., The influence of a time limit and bilingualism on Scholastic Assessment Test performance. North American Journal of Psychology 16:2 (2014), 211–224.
2. Ackerman, R., The Diminishing Criterion Model for metacognitive regulation of time investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143:3 (2014), 1349–1368.
3. Ackerman, R., Goldsmith, M., Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 17:1 (2011), 18–32.
4. Ackerman, R., Lauterman, T., Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior 28:5 (2012), 1816–1828.
5. Ackerman, R., Leiser, D., Shpigelman, M., Is comprehension of problem solutions resistant to misleading heuristic cues?. Acta Psychologica 143:1 (2013), 105–112.
6. Ackerman, R., Thompson, V., Meta-Reasoning: What can we learn from meta-memory. Feeney, A., Thompson, V., (eds.) Reasoning as memory, 2015, Psychology Press, Hove, UK, 164–178.
7. Ackerman, R., Zalmanov, H., The persistence of the fluency–confidence association in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19:6 (2012), 1189–1192.
8. Angeli, C., Valanides, N., Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education 52 (2009), 154–168.
9. Antón, C., Camarero, C., Rodríguez, J., Usefulness, enjoyment, and self-image congruence: The adoption of e-book readers. Psychology & Marketing 30:4 (2013), 372–384.
10. Ayres, P., Paas, F., Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology 21:6 (2007), 695–700.
11. Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., Paas, F., Effects of training self-assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction 33 (2014), 92–107.
12. Ball, R., Hourcade, J.P., Rethinking reading for age from paper and computers. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27:11 (2011), 1066–1082.
13. Baron, N.S., “But still it moves”: Screens, print, and reading. Selected Papers of Internet Research 3 (2013), 1–5.
14. Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., Camos, V., Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33:3 (2007), 570–585.
15. Ben-Yehudah, G., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., The influence of text annotation tools on print and digital reading comprehension. Eshet, Y., Caspi, A., Geri, N., Kalman, Y., Silber-Varod, V., Yair, Y., (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th chais conference for innovation in learning technologies, 2014, Open University Press, Raanana, Israel, 28–35.
16. Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., Baccino, T., E-readers and visual fatigue. PloS One 8:12 (2013), 1–7.
17. Bjork, R.A., Dunlosky, J., Kornell, N., Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology 64 (2013), 417–444.
18. Bowden, E.M., Jung-Beeman, M., Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35:4 (2003), 634–639.
19. de Bruin, A.B., van Gog, T., Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction 22:4 (2012), 245–252.
20. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6:1 (2011), 3–5.
21. Burgess, D.J., Are providers more likely to contribute to healthcare disparities under high levels of cognitive load? How features of the healthcare setting may lead to biases in medical decision making. Medical Decision Making: An International Journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 30:2 (2010), 246–257.
22. Chein, J.M., Weisberg, R.W., Working memory and insight in verbal problems: Analysis of compound remote associates. Memory & Cognition 42:1 (2014), 67–83.
23. Cheung, A., Slavin, R.E., The effectiveness of educational technology applications on mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 9 (2013), 88–113.
24. Csapó, B., Ainley, J., Bennett, R.E., Latour, T., Law, N., Technological issues for computer-based assessment. Griffin, P., McGaw, B., Care, E., (eds.) Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, 2012, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 143–230.
25. Daniel, D.B., Woody, W.D., E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic vs. print texts. Computers & Education 62 (2013), 18–23.
26. Dennis, A.R., Abaci, S., Morrone, A.S., Plaskoff, J., McNamara, K.O., Effects of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 28:2 (2016), 221–235.
27. DeStefano, D., LeFevre, J.A., Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in human behavior 23:3 (2007), 1616–1641.
28. Eden, S., Eshet-Alkalai, Y., The effect of format on performance: Editing text in print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology 44:5 (2013), 846–856.
29. Evans, J.St.B.T., The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13:3 (2006), 378–395.
30. Evans, J.St.B.T., Curtis-Holmes, J., Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 11:4 (2005), 382–389.
31. Evans, J.St.B.T., Handley, S.J., Bacon, A.M., Reasoning under time pressure: A study of causal conditional inference. Experimental Psychology 56:2 (2009), 77–83.
32. GED Testing Service, Who took the GED?. GED Statistical Report, 2002, American Council on Education, Washington, DC.
33. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational psychologist 38:1 (2003), 33–41.
34. Gu, X., Wu, B., Xu, X., Design, development, and learning in e-textbooks: What we learned and where we are going. Journal of Computers in Education 2:1 (2015), 25–41.
35. Hillesund, T., Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web and electronic paper. First Monday (Online), 15(4), 2010 Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2762/2504.
36. Höffler, T.N., Leutner, D., Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and instruction 17:6 (2007), 722–738.
37. Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., Schmitz, B., Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior 26:6 (2010), 1278–1288.
38. Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V., Ziefle, M., Investigating paper vs. screen in real-life hospital workflows: Performance contradicts perceived superiority of paper in the user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 69:9 (2011), 563–570.
39. van Horne, S., Russell, J., Schuh, K.L., The adoption of mark-up tools in an interactive e-textbook reader. Educational Technology Research and Development 64:3 (2016), 407–433.
40. Kazanci, Z., University students' preferences of reading from a printed paper or a digital screen―A longitudinal study. International Journal of Culture and History 1:1 (2015), 50–53.
41. Kintsch, W., Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York.
42. Kirschner, P.A., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., Contemporary cognitive load theory research: The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior 27:1 (2011), 99–105.
43. Koriat, A., Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126 (1997), 349–370.
44. Koriat, A., Subjective confidence in one's answers: The consensuality principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34:4 (2008), 945–959.
45. Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., Schneider, W., The effects of goal-driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143:1 (2014), 386–403.
46. Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., Ma'ayan, H., Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131:2 (2002), 147–162.
47. Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PloS One, 8(2), 2013, e56178.
48. Kühl, T., Eitel, A., Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning 11:1 (2016), 1–13.
49. Lauterman, T., Ackerman, R., Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014), 455–463.
50. Leeson, H.V., The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing 6:1 (2006), 1–24.
51. Lin, C.L., Wang, M.J.J., Kang, Y.Y., The evaluation of visuospatial performance between screen and paper. Displays 39 (2015), 26–32.
52. Liu, Z., Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of Documentation 61:6 (2005), 700–712.
53. van Loon, M.H., de Bruin, A.B., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J.J., et al. Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica 151 (2014), 143–154.
54. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., Brønnick, K., Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research 58 (2013), 61–68.
55. Margolin, S.J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M.J., Kegler, J.L., E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?. Applied Cognitive Psychology 27 (2013), 512–519.
56. Mason, W., Suri, S., Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods 44:1 (2012), 1–23.
57. van Merriënboer, J.J., Ayres, P., Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 53:3 (2005), 5–13.
58. Metcalfe, J., Finn, B., Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15:1 (2008), 174–179.
59. Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., Son, L.K., A cognitive-science based programme to enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19:4–5 (2007), 743–768.
60. Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T., Guevara Pinto, J.D., Boyer, T.W., Ball, L.J., et al. Disfluent fonts don't help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144:2 (2015), e16–e30.
61. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108:6 (2006), 1017–1054.
62. Mizrachi, D., Undergraduates' academic reading format preferences and behaviors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41:3 (2015), 301–311.
63. Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., Guéguen, N., The emergence of the contextual role of the e-book in cognitive processes through an ecological and functional analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62:3 (2005), 329–348.
64. Morsanyi, K., Busdraghi, C., Primi, C., Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced cognitive reflection: A potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to susceptibility to biases. Behavioral and Brain Functions 10:1 (2014), 1–13.
65. Moustafa, K., Improving PDF readability of scientific papers on computer screens. Behaviour & Information Technology 35:4 (2016), 319–323.
66. Mueller, P.A., Oppenheimer, D.M., The pen is mightier than the keyboard advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science 23 (2014), 1159–1168.
67. Múñez, D., Orrantia, J., Rosales, J., The effect of external representations on compare word problems: Supporting mental model construction. The Journal of Experimental Education 81:3 (2013), 337–355.
68. Murray, M.C., Pérez, J., E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready?. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 8 (2011), 49–60.
69. Mœglin, P., Vidal, M., Managing time, workload and costs in distance education: Findings from a literature review of Distances et Médiations des Savoirs (formerly Distances et Savoirs). Distance Education 36:2 (2015), 282–289.
70. Nelson, T.O., Narens, L., Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 26 (1990), 125–141.
71. Norman, E., Furnes, B., The relationship between metacognitive experiences and learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study media?. Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016), 301–309.
72. Paas, F.G., Van Merriënboer, J.J., Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational psychology review 6:4 (1994), 351–371.
73. Quellmalz, E.S., Pellegrino, J.W., Technology and testing. Science 323:5910 (2009), 75–79.
74. Reder, L.M., Ritter, F.E., What determines initial feeling of knowing? Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18:3 (1992), 435–451.
75. Redford, J.S., Thiede, K.W., Wiley, J., Griffin, T.D., Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction 22:4 (2012), 262–270.
76. Roebers, C.M., Schmid, C., Roderer, T., Metacognitive monitoring and control processes involved in primary school children's test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79:4 (2009), 749–767.
77. Salmerón, L., García, V., Children's reading of printed text and hypertext with navigation overviews: The role of comprehension, sustained attention, and visuo-spatial abilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research 47:1 (2012), 33–50.
78. Salomon, G., Television is“ easy” and print is“ tough“: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of educational psychology 76:4 (1984), 647–658.
79. Schnotz, W., Kürschner, C., A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review 19:4 (2007), 469–508.
80. Severance, C., MOOCs: An Insider's view. Computer 46:10 (2013), 93–96.
81. Shynkaruk, J.M., Thompson, V.A., Confidence and accuracy in deductive reasoning. Memory & Cognition 34:3 (2006), 619–632.
82. Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., Ackerman, R., Generalizing screen inferiority: Does the medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief tasks?. Metacognition and Learning 11:1 (2016), 15–33.
83. Singer, L.M., Alexander, P.A., Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education 85:1 (2017), 155–172.
84. Sweller, J., The effect of task complexity and sequence on rule learning and problem solving. British journal of Psychology 67:4 (1976), 553–558.
85. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J., Paas, F.G., Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review 10:3 (1998), 251–296.
86. Thiede, K.W., Anderson, M., Therriault, D., Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of educational psychology 95:1 (2003), 66–73.
87. Thiede, K.W., Dunlosky, J., Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25:4 (1999), 1024–1037.
88. Thiede, K.W., Griffin, T.D., Wiley, J., Anderson, M.C., Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes 47:4 (2010), 331–362.
89. Thompson, V.A., Turner, J.A.P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L.J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., et al. The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition 128:2 (2013), 237–251.
90. Prowse Turner, J.A., Thompson, V.A., The role of training, alternative models, and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 15:1 (2009), 69–100.
91. Valcke, M., Cognitive load: Updating the theory?. Learning and Instruction 12:1 (2002), 147–154.
92. Winne, P.H., Baker, R.S., The potentials of educational data mining for researching metacognition, motivation and self-regulated learning. JEDM-Journal of Educational Data Mining 5:1 (2013), 1–8.
93. Woody, W.D., Daniel, D.B., Baker, C.A., E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education 55:3 (2010), 945–948.