ArticlePDF Available

Understanding Metacognitive Inferiority on Screen by Exposing Cues for Depth of Processing Cues for Depth of Processing


Abstract and Figures

Paper-and-pencil learning and testing are gradually shifting to computerized environments. Cognitive and metacognitive researchers find screen inferiority compared to paper in effort regulation, test performance, and extent of overconfidence, in some cases, with unknown differentiating factors. Notably, these studies used reading comprehension tasks involving lengthy texts, which confound technology-related and cognitive factors. We hypothesized that the medium provides a contextual cue which leads to shallower processing on screen regardless of text length, particularly when task characteristics hint that shallow processing is legitimate. To test this hypothesis, we used briefly phrased yet challenging problems for solving on screen or on paper. In Experiment 1, the time frame for solving the problems was manipulated. As with lengthy texts, only time pressure resulted in screen inferiority. In Experiment 2, under a loose time frame, the same problems were now framed as a preliminary task performed before a main problem-solving task. Only the initial task, with reduced perceived importance, revealed screen inferiority similarly to time pressure. In Experiment 3, we replicated Experiment 1's time frame manipulation, using a problem-solving task which involved reading only three isolated words. Screen inferiority in overconfidence was found again only under time pressure. The results suggest that metacognitive processes are sensitive to contextual cues that hint at the expected depth of processing, regardless of the reading burden involved.
Content may be subject to copyright.
October 2017
Sidi, Y, Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., & Ackerman, R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive
inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction, 51, 61-73.
This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the journal.
It is not the copy of record.
Understanding Metacognitive Inferiority on Screen by
Exposing Cues for Depth of Processing
Yael Sidi, Maya Shpigelman, Hagar Zalmanov, and Rakefet Ackerman
Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Cues for Depth of Processing
Author note
Corresponding Author - E-mail:
The study was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 957/13) and by
the General Research Fund at the Technion. We thank Tirza Lauterman and Tova Michalsky for
insightful comments regarding earlier versions of this paper, and Meira Ben-Gad for editorial
Text-learning studies often find screen inferiority in knowledge and monitoring
Minimizing the reading burden, we used brief but challenging problem-solving tasks
Time pressure and framing the task as preliminary still yielded screen inferiority
Metacognitive processes are sensitive to hints at the expected processing depth
Eliminating screen inferiority is possible by cues calling for in-depth processing
Cues for Depth of Processing
Paper-and-pencil learning and testing are gradually shifting to computerized environments.
Cognitive and metacognitive researchers find screen inferiority compared to paper in effort
regulation, test performance, and extent of overconfidence, in some cases, with unknown
differentiating factors. Notably, these studies used reading comprehension tasks involving
lengthy texts, which confound technology-related and cognitive factors. We hypothesized
that the medium provides a contextual cue which leads to shallower processing on screen
regardless of text length, particularly when task characteristics hint that shallow processing
is legitimate. To test this hypothesis, we used briefly phrased yet challenging problems for
solving on screen or on paper. In Experiment 1, the time frame for solving the problems
was manipulated. As with lengthy texts, only time pressure resulted in screen inferiority. In
Experiment 2, under a loose time frame, the same problems were now framed as a
preliminary task performed before a main problem-solving task. Only the initial task, with
reduced perceived importance, revealed screen inferiority similarly to time pressure. In
Experiment 3, we replicated Experiment 1’s time frame manipulation, using a problem-
solving task which involved reading only three isolated words. Screen inferiority in
overconfidence was found again only under time pressure. The results suggest that
metacognitive processes are sensitive to contextual cues that hint at the expected depth of
processing, regardless of the reading burden involved.
Keywords: Metacognition; Monitoring and control; Human-computer interaction; Problem
solving; Effort regulation; Depth of processing
Cues for Depth of Processing
1. Introduction
Over recent decades, paper-and-pencil work has been shifting to computerized
environments for many types of cognitive tasks in everyday contexts, including learning
(e.g., MOOCs), work-related and academic screening (e.g., the GMAT and SAT), and
surveys, as well as scientific research. This shift has been driven mainly by practical
considerations, such as lower costs, automatic grading, and easy access to a wide audience,
although, of course, computerized environments also allow novel task designs (e.g.,
Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Csapó, Ainley, Bennett, Latour, & Law, 2012;
Dennis, Abaci, Morrone, Plaskoff, & McNamara, 2016; Mason & Suri, 2012; Quellmalz &
Pellegrino, 2009).
While there is no doubt about the important advantages of computerized
environments, the technological revolution compels us to ask what effects the medium
might have on cognitive performance. Research in this area has yielded inconclusive
results. On the one hand, there is evidence for both a subjective preference for paper (e.g.,
Holzinger et al., 2011; Kazanci, 2015; Mizrachi, 2015; Singer & Alexander, 2017; van
Horne, Russell, & Schuh, 2016; Woody, Daniel, & Baker, 2010) and actual better
performance on paper, relative to working on screen (e.g., Ben-Yehudah & Eshet-Alkalai,
2014; Daniel & Woody, 2013; Lin, Wang, & Kang, 2015; Mangen, Walgermo, &
Brønnick, 2013). On the other hand, some studies have found no performance differences
between the two environments, and several even point to screen superiority (e.g., Ball &
Hourcade, 2011; Dennis et al., 2016; Holzinger et al., 2011; Margolin, Driscoll, Toland, &
Kegler, 2013; Murray & Pérez, 2011; Salmerón & García, 2012). Finally, there are studies
Cues for Depth of Processing
which point to a discrepancy between learners’ preference for digital environments and the
actual learning outcomes (e.g., Singer & Alexander, 2017).
The inconsistency in the literature highlights the need for a thorough investigation
of the conditions under which computerized learning should be expected to harm
performance and those that allow eliminating this harmful effect. Our goal in the present
study is to shed new light on conditions that lead to lower performance on screen than on
paper and those that allow eliminating it, under the same technological conditions. To
accomplish this, we used briefly phrased problem solving tasks and compared the results to
the pattern of results found with tasks involving comprehension of lengthy texts, thereby
generalizing and extending previous research.
In the following sections we delineate three types of explanations for the mixed
results. We begin by weighing technological factors versus metacognitive regulation of
mental effort. In particular, we elaborate on cues that legitimate shallow rather than in-
depth processing in reading comprehension and problem solving. We then consider
cognitive load as yet another factor that may contribute to the mixed results. Finally, we
outline our study.
1.1. Technological versus regulatory explanations for screen inferiority
Lower performance on screen, when found, has been often explained in terms of
technological disadvantages associated with electronic devices, such as screen glare, visual
fatigue, and less-convenient navigation along the text relative to parallel task performance
on paper (e.g., Benedetto, Drai-Zerbib, Pedrotti, Tissier, & Baccino, 2013; Moustafa, 2016;
see Leeson, 2006, for a review). However, empirical evidence has been accumulating to
suggest that this explanation is insufficient. First, such lower performance has been found
Cues for Depth of Processing
even with the latest e-books and tablets, which are presumed to overcome these
technological limitations (e.g., Antón, Camarero, & Rodríguez, 2013; Daniel & Woody,
2013; Lin et al., 2015; see Gu, Wu, & Xu, 2015, for a review). Also pointing in the same
direction is the perseverance of a paper preference even among experienced computers'
users and young adults (e.g., Baron, 2013; Holzinger et al., 2011; Kazanci, 2015;
Kretzschmar et al., 2013; Mizrachi, 2015). Finally, in several studies, lower performance
on screen was found in some conditions but not in others (e.g., a pressured vs. loose time
frame to complete a task), despite use of the same task on both media and comparable
samples (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman &
Ackerman, 2014). Technological disadvantages associated with screens should have taken
their effect regardless of the condition. These findings hint that the main source for the
found lower performance on screen may be cognitive in nature, rather than technology-
A potential cognitive explanation that has been gaining empirical support is based
on differences in depth of processing between the media. For example, Daniel and Woody
(2013) compared reading comprehension in e-textbooks and paper textbooks. While they
found no medium effect on test scores, participants in the electronic conditions
demonstrated less efficient work—they had to invest more time to achieve similar
performance levels. Morineau, Blanche, Tobin, and Guéguen (2005) examined e-books and
paper books as contextual cues for retrieval of learned information. They found that the
mere presence of the e-book interfered with recall, while the presence of the paper book
facilitated it. In addition, users' reports on their experience interacting with computerized
environments convey a qualitatively different reading process on computer screens than on
Cues for Depth of Processing
paper, involving more interrupted work, attentional shifts, and multitasking, resulting in
less time devoted to in-depth reading (Daniel & Woody, 2013; Hillesund, 2010; Liu, 2005).
More recently, Mueller and Oppenheimer (2014) compared note taking using a laptop and
regular handwriting. They found across three studies that participants who worked on
screen used more verbatim note taking, compared to participants who worked on paper,
even when participants were instructed not to take verbatim notes. This led to lower success
rates for the screen group on recall and conceptual application questions. The authors
suggested that working on laptops yielded shallower processing than writing on papers.
This explanation has recently received further support from studies dealing with
self-regulated learning. These regulatory processes take place in parallel to the core
cognitive processing during the performance of any cognitive task (e.g., storing information
in memory during learning, interpreting a road sign during navigation, etc.). The
metacognitive framework suggested by Nelson and Narens (1990) emphasizes in particular
the central role of reliable monitoring in effective effort regulation. That is, knowledge
monitoring guides spontaneous decisions regarding chosen learning strategies and
allocation of time to the task. Unreliable monitoring is expected to yield ineffective
regulatory decisions. For instance, overconfidence may mislead a learner to think
prematurely that her study goal has been achieved and that no further activity is required
(see Bjork, Kornell, & Dunlosky, 2013; Winne & Baker, 2013, for reviews). The present
study employs a metacognitive framework, with the aim of illuminating conditions under
which cognitive and metacognitive processes differ between the two media.
Cues for Depth of Processing
1.2. Media effects on Meta-Comprehension
Meta-comprehension is the research domain dealing with metacognitive aspects of
reading comprehension tasks. In a series of meta-comprehension studies, Ackerman and
colleagues found screen inferiority in three measures: the calibration of metacognitive
monitoring in the direction of overconfidence; less effective effort regulation; and lower test
scores (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011; Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman &
Ackerman, 2014). Notably, in all these studies there were also conditions in which screen
inferiority was not found. For instance, Ackerman and Goldsmith (2011) investigated the
effect of time frame on working on screen versus on paper. No significant difference
between the media was found under a limited time frame with a sample from a population
with a strong paper preference. However, when the participants were free to regulate their
learning by themselves, those who studied on screen showed overconfidence and did not
benefit from the extra time they invested, while those who studied on paper improved both
their monitoring calibration and test scores.
Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) replicated this study with a sample of technology-
savvy students, characterized by an attenuated paper preference. They found highly similar
screen inferiority, but only under time pressure. Notably, screen inferiority was found only
when the time limit was known in advance, but not when participants were interrupted
unexpectedly after the same amount of study time. Time pressure has been associated in the
literature with compromising on one’s goal (Thiede & Dunlosky, 1999). This notion leads us
to appreciate the adjustment made by paper participants but not by screen participants.
Specifically, participants who worked on paper improved their learning efficiency without
compromising on their goals when the task characteristics called for it, presumably by
Cues for Depth of Processing
recruiting extra mental effort. Conversely, participants working on screen had similar
efficiency with and without time pressure, even though the time frame was known in
Lauterman and Ackerman (2014) replicated the screen inferiority found by
Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) under time pressure. Subsequently, they demonstrated
two readily applicable methods for overcoming screen inferiority, gaining experience with
the challenging learning task and a requirement to generate keywords summarizing the
essence of the text after a delay (adapted from Thiede, Anderson, & Therriault, 2003). The
findings of this study also suggest that the default processing on screen under time pressure
is shallower than on paper, as an external trigger was required to eliminate screen
inferiority. Importantly, this research suggests that employing simple task characteristics
allow eliminating screen inferiority altogether.
The studies mentioned above examined effects of the medium on cognitive
performance by using reading comprehension tasks, involving texts spread over a whole
page or even several pages (e.g., 1000-1200 words in Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; 858
word in Ben-Yehudah & Eshet-Alkalai, 2014; 1400-1600 words in Mangen et al., 2013).
However, the lengthier the text, the more it is susceptible to the technological
disadvantages associated with screen reading (e.g., eye strain). Thus, these studies
confound technological disadvantages and in-depth processing.
In the present study we addressed this confound by reducing dramatically the room for
technological factors to take effect, without scaling down the cognitive effort required by
the task, by using briefly phrased yet challenging problem solving tasks. In order to delve
Cues for Depth of Processing
into the metacognitive processes involved, we employed the meta-reasoning framework
(Ackerman & Thompson, 2015).
1.3. Media effects on Meta-Reasoning
Meta-Reasoning is an emerging domain applying the metacognitive framework to
problem solving, by examining judgments and regulatory decisions that accompany
performing reasoning challenges (see Ackerman & Thompson, 2015, for a review).
Overall, the general finding in meta-reasoning studies is that problem solvers tend to be
overconfident (Ackerman & Zalmanov, 2012; Prowse Turner & Thompson, 2009;
Shynkaruk & Thompson, 2006). Just as in learning, overconfidence may lead people to
conclude prematurely that they have found a satisfactory solution to the problem and halt
their solving efforts (Ackerman, 2014; Evans, 2006). Given the increasing use of
computerized screening exams and other high-stakes problem-solving contexts, exposing
factors that affect metacognitive processes is important for practical considerations.
However, it also has theoretical importance, as within the meta-reasoning literature most
studies consider cues that are inherent to the task itself (e.g., familiarity of question terms;
Reder & Ritter, 1992), its performance (e.g., answer fluency—the speed with which the
answer is produced; Thompson et al., 2013), or individual differences (e.g., math anxiety,
Morsanyi, Busdraghi, & Primi, 2014). Interactions with external conditions, such as media,
are rarely considered.
Recently, Meyer et al. (2015) reviewed a collection of studies which compared brief
problem solving tasks presented in regular fonts or in hard to read fonts (e.g., easy to read vs.
hard to read). The font manipulation was meant to increase depth of processing (see
Thompson et al., 2013), although it was recently found that in most cases it does not affect
Cues for Depth of Processing
performance (Meyer et al., 2015; see Kühl & Eitel, 2016, for a review). The reviewed studies
were conducted either on screen or on paper. Meyer et al. examined the media as a secondary
factor in their review and concluded that the media did not make a difference and did not
interact with font legibility. Similarly, no global media effect on problem solving was found
by Sidi, Ophir, and Ackerman (2016) with the same brief task, which takes 1-2 minutes to
perform. Notably, in addition to the font legibility manipulation, this study had the media as
a manipulated factor and included confidence ratings in one of the experiments. When
measuring confidence, Sidi et al. found that font legibility affected performance on both
media: Performance was improved on screen by the hard to read fonts, while on paper the
opposite effect was found. Importantly, on screen, confidence ratings were not sensitive to
performance differences between the regular and less-legible fonts, while on paper they
reliably reflected the performance difference between the presentation fonts. This finding
generalizes the finding of less reliable metacognitive monitoring on screen compared to
paper, even in this brief task, as previously found with lengthy texts. In the present study we
aimed to examine the generalizability of this particular insensitivity of confidence ratings to
performance differences on screen, and shed more light on the effects of cues for depth of
processing on screen and on paper.
1.4. Cognitive load
Considering problem solving tasks and working under time pressure brings to the
fore the Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1976), which was not taken into account in the
previous studies examining media effects on effort regulation. This theory has been very
influential in providing guidelines for instructional design for developing problem solving
skills in educational contexts (see Schnotz & Kürschner, 2007, for a review). In particular, it
Cues for Depth of Processing
has been considered in light of recent computerized learning environments which incorporate
elements such as hypertexts and animation within study materials. Notably, the results are
mixed. Höffler and Leutner (2007) found in a meta-analysis a medium-sized overall
advantage of instructional animations over static pictures which was explained in terms of
reducing cognitive load. However, they also found several moderators focusing the found
advantage to representational animations, highly realistic animations, and/or when
procedural-motor knowledge is to be acquired. In line with these findings, other studies
suggested that technology-based features may overload the cognitive system if not employed
carefully (e.g., DeStefano & LeFevre, 2007; Hollender, Hofmann, Deneke, & Schmitz,
2010). For example, animations can potentially increase cognitive load by distracting the
learner from essential information, or due to their transient nature, which requires the learner
to store more information in working memory (Ayres & Pass, 2007). In light of the findings
of media effects on reading comprehension, without any technology-based features, the
present study goes a step back, and considers the option that the mere presentation media is
an interfering factor, generating extraneous load, even in tasks that can be presented in the
same way on screen and on paper.
Cognitive load considerations are particularly relevant for analyzing work under time
pressure. On the one hand, time pressure has been strongly associated with an increase in
extraneous cognitive load and a reduction in performance (Barrouillet, Bernardin, Portrat,
Vergauwe, & Camos, 2007; Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994). On the other hand, there were
also findings of unharmed performance, even under severe time pressure, suggesting on
“good” cognitive load (germane load, Sweller, Van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998). For
instance, Gerjets and Scheiter (2003, study 4) examined the effect of time pressure during the
Cues for Depth of Processing
learning stage of a problem solving task using multiple instructional conditions. Based on the
Cognitive Load Theory, they expected participants under time pressure to skip some of the
instructional material, resulting in lower performance. However, time pressure did not impair
learning in their study. The authors suggested that time pressure can increase germane load,
guiding people to make effective strategic adjustments. This explanation resembles the
metacognitive explanation reviewed above for adjustment to time pressure, which was found
only for paper, but not for screen (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman & Ackerman,
2014). Thus, a similar inferential effect can be made for cognitive load: We suggest that the
media may interact with the effects of time pressure on cognitive load, an idea that as far as
we know was not considered before. Notably, discussions of metacognition in the context of
cognitive load are mostly related to explicit reflection on study strategies (e.g. Valcke, 2002),
which is out of the scope of the present study.
In the present study, we employed a time frame manipulation with problem solving
similarly to that examined before with reading comprehension, as described above. However,
we also employed another manipulation, perceived importance of the task, to examine
whether screen inferiority is associated to an increased cognitive load which occurs under
time pressure, or can be found in other contexts as well.
1.5. Overview of the present study
To minimize the role of technological factors, in Experiment 1 we replicated the time
frame procedure used before with lengthy texts (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman
& Ackerman, 2014), but here we used challenging problem solving tasks, which were briefly
phrased. For differentiating between the cognitive load and the regulatory explanation, in
Experiment 2 we manipulated perceived importance of the task. Lower perceived importance
Cues for Depth of Processing
was expected to serve as another cue for shallow processing that does not involve an increase
in cognitive load. In Experiment 3, we used again the time frame procedure, but with even
shorter problems involving reading only isolated words, for eliminating the reading
comprehension component from the task. We hypothesized that computerized environments
lead people to adapt shallower processing than paper environments under manipulations that
legitimate compromise, regardless of the reading burden or the cognitive load generated by
time pressure. Thus, we expected screen inferiority to be found in all cases involving cues
that legitimate shallower processing, in line with the regulatory explanation.
2. Experiment 1
In order to examine our hypotheses, we chose extremely challenging logic problems
which are brief in terms of their reading burden (see details in the Materials section) which
we adapted from Ackerman, Leiser, and Shpigelman (2013). The text of each problem
included less than 100 words—far less than the several pages used in the reading
comprehension studies mentioned above. We examined the effect of the medium (screen or
paper) and time frame (pressured versus loose) on response time, confidence,
overconfidence, problem-solving efficiency (correct solutions per hour), and ultimate
success rate. Using a similarly technologically-savvy population, we predicted that
Ackerman and Lauterman’s findings of screen inferiority under time pressure and media
equivalence under a loose time frame would be replicated, despite the substantially different
As taking the time frame into account during the task presents a burden in itself both
groups worked under predefined time frames. The time allotted for the loose time frame
(LTF) group was defined based on a previous study that used the same problems with a
Cues for Depth of Processing
sample from the same population (Ackerman et al., 2013). The time frame for the time
pressure (TP) group was 66% of the time allowed for the LTF group. The instructions
presented the time frame as loose or pressured, accordingly. Participants were required to
complete the entire task in the allotted time.
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
One hundred and three undergraduate engineering students at the Technion–Israel
Institute of Technology were randomly assigned to work on screen or on paper, under time
pressure or a loose time frame (N = 22-31 per group; Mage = 24.4, SD = 2.4; 39% females).
Participants reported not having any learning disabilities. Notably, this sample—which was
drawn from the same population as in Ackerman and Lauterman (2012)—is highly familiar
with computerized environments1 and has high cognitive ability (the Technion’s
undergraduate programs typically require SAT scores in the top 20%).
2.1.2. Materials
The materials were six logic problems used with a sample from the same population by
Ackerman et al. (2013, Experiment 2). See Appendix. These problems were designed to be
highly challenging for the target population, with success rates lower than 20%. The
problems consisted of 77 Hebrew words on average.
1 A self-report survey on this population (N = 247), which was conducted parallel to the
present study, revealed that computerized environments are an integral part of the students’
daily life. In particular, participants were accustomed to using computers from childhood
(M = 8.9 years old, SD = 3) and reported currently using them for a large portion of each
day (M = 5.79 hours, SD = 2.7).
Cues for Depth of Processing
2.1.3. Procedure
The experiment was administered in groups of up to eight participants in a small
computer lab. All participants in each experimental session worked under the same condition
and faced all six problems successively, randomly ordered for each participant. For the
screen group, when the “Start solving” button was pressed, the problem appeared on the
screen, with an empty space below for entering the solution. Participants had at their station
blank sheets of paper and pens for scribbling or sketching while solving. Pressing the
“Continue” button exposed a confidence rating scale (0-100%). Participants indicated their
confidence rating by dragging an arrow along the scale. Then they indicated whether they
knew the problem in advance (yes/no) and clicked “Next” to move on to the next problem.
Response time was measured from when participants clicked “Start solving” to when they
clicked the “Next” button.
For the paper group, each problem appeared on a separate page. The pages included
space for scribbling and for writing the answer. A horizontal scale (0-100%) for confidence
ratings appeared at the bottom of the page, similarly to its appearance on the screen, along
with the yes/no “advance knowledge” question. The participants indicated their confidence
rating by marking a vertical line on the scale. The pages were prearranged in a pile for each
participant, upside down; participants turned over one page at a time, and turned each page
over into a second pile when they completed it. So that we could measure response time,
participants clicked “Start solving” and “Next” buttons on an otherwise empty screen at the
start and end of each problem. This was their only interaction with the computer.
In all groups, the participants moved from one problem to the next without returning to
previous ones. The TP participants had 24 minutes to solve the entire problem set, with time
Cues for Depth of Processing
reminders at 5, 20, and 23 minutes. The experimenter emphasized that this time frame was
pressured and that it allowed about 4 minutes per problem. Participants were explicitly
instructed to manage their time to allow solving the entire problem set. For the LTF group,
the time frame was 36 minutes, with reminders at 7, 30, and 35 minutes. The experimenter
explained that this time frame allowed relaxed work, but that participants should pay
attention to the time and ensure they completed the entire problem set.
2.2. Results and discussion
Table 1 summarizes the medium comparisons. It provides a bird’s eye view over all the
measures across the three experiments. The means and analyses’ results appear in the results
report of each experiment, in the figures or in the detailed description.
Table 1. Summary of medium comparisons (S – Screen, P – Paper) in the three experiments.
Experiment and
Confidence Overconfidence
(lower is better)
Efficiency Success
Experiment 1 – Challenging logic problems
Time pressure S P S P S > P S < P S < P
Loose time frame S P S P S P S > P S > P
Experiment 2 – Metacognitive Transfer Paradigm (MTP)
Initial problems S < P S P S > P S P S < P
Transfer problems S < P S P S P S P S P
Experiment 3 – Compound Remote Associate (CRA) problems
Time pressure S P S P S > P S P S P
Loose time frame S P S P S P S P S P
< or > A statistically significant difference, p < .05,
A marginal difference, p = .053
A non-significant statistical difference
Cues for Depth of Processing
Overall the data from Experiment 1, eighteen problems (3%, one per participant)
were known in advance. These problems were removed from the analyses. We started our
analyses by testing for a medium effect on sketching while solving the problems, as a
potential indicator for depth of processing. Sketching was measured as dichotomy—any type
of scribble was considered a sketch and was counted as “yes”, while solving without any
scribble was counted as “no”. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for effect of the Medium
(screen vs. paper) and the Time Frame (TP vs. LTF) on the number of solutions for which
sketches were used revealed no difference between the media, F < 1. Participants scribbled
or sketched to a lesser extent under TP (M = 28%, SD = 34) than under LTF (M = 42%, SD =
34), F(1, 99) = 8.93, MSE = 0.52, p = .004, ηp2 = .083, but there was no interaction with the
medium, F < 1. Thus, working on screen clearly did not lead participants to avoid sketching
as a problem-solving aid. A similar ANOVA on response times revealed only the obvious
difference between the time frames, with shorter response times under TP (M = 2.3 min., SD
= 0.3) than under LTF (M = 3.3 min., SD = 0.5), F(1, 99) = 153.55, MSE = 0.47, p < .001,
ηp2 = .608. Thus, participants took the opportunity to sketch out their solution ideas to a
similar extent regardless of the medium, with no difference in the time they invested in each
Success was scored as correct or incomplete/wrong. As intended, the problems were
highly challenging, resulting in low success rates (M = 20.7%, SD = 15.2); see Figure 1.
Nevertheless, as expected, the pattern of success rates when comparing the four groups was
highly similar to that found by Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) with a reading
comprehension task. An ANOVA as above on success rates revealed no effect of the
medium, F < 1, an effect of the time frame, F(1, 99) = 8.86, MSE = 188.45 , p = .004, ηp2 =
Cues for Depth of Processing
.082, and an interaction effect, F(1, 99) = 14.69, MSE = 188.45, p < .001, ηp2 = .129.
Comparing the time frames on screen revealed lower success rates under TP (M = 11.3%, SD
= 11.7) than under LTF (M = 29.9%, SD = 13.9), t(53) = 5.38, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.38. On
paper, in contrast, the time pressure did not result in a compromise on performance, t < 1.
Comparing the media within each time frame revealed lower success rates on screen (M =
11.3%, SD = 11.7) than on paper (M = 23.5%, SD = 16.8) under TP, t(51) = 3.12, p = .003,
d = 0.89, while the opposite pattern was found under LTF, t(48) = 2.29, p = .026, d = 0.66,
with higher success rates on screen (M = 29.9%, SD = 13.9) than on paper (M = 21.1%, SD =
12.9). The findings suggest that effective problem solving on screen is certainly possible, and
results on screen can even be better than on paper when ample time is provided. However,
time pressure reduced the success rate on screen but not on paper.
Figure 1. Success rates and overconfidence in solutions in Experiment 1.
Confidence is represented by the top of the overconfidence bars. Error bars
represent standard errors of the mean for the bar below them.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Similarly to findings with reading comprehension, confidence ratings did not
necessarily correspond to the differences in success rates. An ANOVA on confidence
revealed only a main effect of the time frame, F(1, 99) = 5.70, MSE = 252.20, p = .019, ηp2 =
.054, reflecting lower confidence under TP compared to LTF. There was no main effect for
medium or an interaction effect (F's < 1). Overconfidence was calculated by comparing
mean confidence ratings to mean success rates for each participant across the entire task. All
groups showed a large degree of overconfidence, all ps < .001. To clarify the differential
effects of the medium and time frame on the correspondence between confidence and
success rates, we conducted an ANOVA on overconfidence. This analysis revealed no main
effects for either the medium or time frame, both Fs < 1, but an interaction effect, F(1, 99) =
4.60, MSE = 350.58, p = .034, ηp2 = .044. Comparing the time frames within each medium
revealed a marginal difference on screen, t(53) = 1.96, p = .054, d = 0.55, with a tendency for
greater overconfidence under TP (M = 33.0, SD = 16.4) compared to LTF (M = 24.4, SD =
15.4), while on paper, the time frame groups did not differ, t = 1.19, p = .240, d = 0.35.
Comparing the media within each time frame revealed that under TP, overconfidence was
greater on screen (M = 33, SD = 16.4) than on paper (M = 23.1, SD = 18.4), t(48) = 2.04, p =
.046, d = 0.58, while under LTF there was no such difference, t = 1. Thus, the pattern of
screen inferiority under time pressure but not under a loose time frame found before with
reading comprehension tasks (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Lauterman & Ackerman,
2014) was replicated here with briefly phrased but challenging logic problems.
In order to examine time management as a metacognitive control strategy, efficiency
was calculated as the number of correct solutions per hour. An ANOVA on efficiency
revealed no statistically significant main effects, F's < 1, but an interaction effect, F(1, 99) =
Cues for Depth of Processing
17.05, MSE = 3.57, p < .001, ηp2 = .147. On screen, participants were less efficient under TP
(M = 1.7, SD = 1.8) than under LTF (M = 3.3, SD = 1.6), t(53) = 3.43, p = .001, d = 0.95. On
paper, in contrast, the work was more efficient under TP (M = 3.8, SD = 2.7) than under LTF
(M = 2.3, SD = 1.3), t(46) = 2.50, p = .016, d = 0.74. A comparison between the media
within each time frame revealed that under TP, work on screen was less efficient (M = 1.7,
SD = 1.8) than on paper (M = 3.8, SD = 2.7), t(51) = 3.33, p = .002, d = 0.95, while under
LTF, the pattern was reversed ,with more efficient work on screen (M = 3.3 , SD = 1.6) than
on paper (M = 2.7, SD = 1.3), t(48) = 2.15, p = .015, d = 0.73. Thus, high efficiency on
screen can be achieved, but time pressure hinders it. On paper, in contrast, time pressure
encourages efficient work.
To summarize, Experiment 1 replicated with a briefly phrased problem-solving task
the findings of Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) with lengthy reading comprehension tasks.
This outcome provides further evidence that although cognitive processing can be effective
on screen, and sometimes even better than it is on paper, time pressure impedes cognitive
processing on screen in particular. As for metacognitive monitoring, the insufficient
adjustment of confidence ratings to performance variations, found only on screen, suggests
that monitoring on screen was less tuned to factors that affect performance and to
performance itself. Importantly, overconfidence was most apparent for screen solvers under
time pressure. These findings generalize the findings of Sidi et al. (2016), in which the
comparison within each medium was between fluent and disfluent fonts. Finally, with
respect to effort regulation, while in a reading comprehension task (Ackerman & Lauterman,
2012) efficiency on screen remained constant in both time frames, here time pressure
Cues for Depth of Processing
reduced efficiency on screen. The high efficiency on paper in the time pressure condition
highlights the faulty regulation of effort on screen.
3. Experiment 2
In Experiment 1, as predicted, time pressure resulted in screen inferiority, that is inferior
monitoring, efficiency, and success rates on screen compared with paper. However, as
described above, time pressure has been suggested to be a factor that increases cognitive
load, as it consumes mental resources required for performing effectively on cognitive tasks
(e.g., Barrouillet et al., 2007; Burgess, 2010). Higher mental load might interact with media
and generate screen inferiority, regardless of processing depth. Thus, in Experiment 2 we
examined whether screen inferiority would generalize to another task-inherent cue that
legitimates shallow processing but does not impose extraneous mental load—namely, low
perceived importance of the task.
The same problems used in Experiment 1 were used for this experiment. These
problems were introduced by Ackerman et al. (2013) in the context of what we here call the
Metacognitive Transfer Paradigm (MTP). In this paradigm, participants attempt to solve a
highly challenging initial problem, read an explanation of how to solve it, and then face a
transfer problem that is similar to the first one (see details in the Materials section and an
example in Appendix). As part of the MTP, participants rate their confidence in their
solutions to the initial and the transfer problems immediately after providing each solution.
The critical MTP characteristic for the present study was that solution explanations
for the initial problems were provided immediately after the attempt to solve them, and
participants knew this in advance. To examine the spontaneous mode of work in each media,
we did not ascribe levels of importance to the different phases of the task. Yet, we
Cues for Depth of Processing
hypothesized that this manipulation would lead participants to deduce that these problems
were a preliminary phase, and that the main task was applying the explanation to the transfer
problems. We expected this framing to lead participants who worked on screen to perceive
shallow processing of the initial problems as legitimate, but less so on paper. Notably, in
Experiment 1 the time frame was manipulated between participants, while in this experiment
the importance manipulation took place within participants.
All participants solved the problems under a loose time frame, in the same manner as
the parallel condition in Experiment 1, which did not generate screen inferiority. We
hypothesized that the effects of the importance manipulation would be more pronounced on
screen than on paper, and that as in Experiment 1, they would take the form of greater
overconfidence, lower efficiency, and lower success rates on screen compared with paper.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
Seventy-two undergraduate students from the same population as in Experiment 1 were
randomly assigned to work on screen or on paper (N = 34 and 38 per group; 53% females).
3.1.2. Materials
The six sets taken from Ackerman et al. (2013, Experiment 2) and used in Experiment
1 were used in the present experiment. Each included an initial problem, an explanation of
how to solve it, and a transfer problem (see example in the Appendix). There were 77, 100,
and 96 words on average in the initial problems, explanations, and transfer problems,
Cues for Depth of Processing
3.1.3. Procedure
The setting and procedure were similar to those of Experiment 1, but adapted for the
three phases as in Ackerman et al. (2013). All participants were instructed as to the entire
procedure in advance.
For the screen group, clicking a “Start solving” button brought up the initial problem,
with an empty space below for entering the solution. After entering the solution the
confidence rating scale (0-100%) was displayed. The following screen presented the problem
title and the solution explanation. When done reading, a comprehension rating scale
appeared, which looked like the confidence scale. On the third screen the transfer problem
appeared, very much like the initial problem. For both the initial and transfer problems,
participants were also asked whether they had known the problem in advance (yes/no). Also,
as in Experiment 1, participants had blank sheets of paper and pens at their station for
scribbling or sketching.
For the paper group, each phase of the procedure was presented on a separate page.
The pages for the initial and transfer problems included space for scribbling and for writing
the answer. The pages were prearranged in a pile for each participant, upside down. As in
Experiment 1, participants picked up one page at a time, turning each finished page face
down in a second pile. Time was documented for each phase much as in Experiment 1—i.e.,
via the “Start solving,” “Continue,” and “Next” buttons on the screen, which was otherwise
empty for the paper group.
The participants had an hour to solve the entire problem set. The instructions included
an explicit statement that this time allowed relaxed work, but that participants should keep
Cues for Depth of Processing
track of the time and ensure they completed the full problem set. Time reminders were
announced at 30 and 50 minutes, with a final warning at 59 minutes.
3.2. Results and discussion
The effects of the medium are summarized in Table 1. Fifteen problem sets for which
the initial or transfer problems were marked as known in advance (3% of the total, one per
participant) were removed from the analyses. An ANOVA of the effects of the Medium
(screen vs. paper) and Phase (initial vs. transfer) on the number of solutions in which
participants used sketches while solving revealed two main effects and a statistically
significant interaction—for the medium, F(1,70) = 17.0, MSE = 957, p < .001, ηp2 = .195; for
the phase, F(1,70) = 5.40, MSE = 183.2, p = .023, ηp2 = .072; and for the interaction effect,
F(1,70) = 5.40, MSE = 184.2, p = .023, ηp2 = .072. The participants used sketches in 15%
(SD = 21.6) of the initial problems solved on screen and in 41% (SD = 27.9) of those solved
on paper. There was also less use of sketching when solving the transfer problems on screen
(M = 15%, SD = 19.1) compared with on paper (M = 31%, SD = 25.3). The interaction effect
stemmed from the lack of difference between the phases on screen, t < 1, while on paper the
difference between the phases was statistically significant, t(37) = 3.09, p = .004. Thus, only
the paper group showed a difference similar to that found in Experiment 1, when comparing
between TP and LTF.
In this experiment, there was vast opportunity for regulation of time. Comparing the
medium groups in the time they invested in the three phases revealed a main effect of the
medium, with less time invested on screen than on paper, F(1,70) = 12.73, MSE = 0.99, p =
.001, ηp2 = .154. See Figure 2. There was also a difference between the phases, F(2, 140) =
245.34, MSE = 0.92, p < .001, ηp2 = .778, stemming from shorter time invested in reading the
Cues for Depth of Processing
explanations than in solving the initial and transfer problems, which did not differ, t(71) =
1.45, p = .15. The interaction effect was not statistically significant, F(2, 140) = 1.60, MSE =
0.92, p = .21, ηp2 = .022, suggesting that participants invested less time on screen than on
paper during all three phases. Notably, the shorter time invested on screen is associated with
the reduced use of sketches compared with the paper group. The following analyses examine
whether these medium effects are associated with metacognitive monitoring and/or success
Figure 2. Experiment 2: Aggregated time investment in the three phases for screen and
for paper. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean for the bar below them.
As intended, the overall success rate in the initial problems was low (M = 18.05%,
SD = 17.6), but success rates improved in the transfer problems (M = 31.62%, SD = 20.5).
See Figure 3. An ANOVA of Medium (screen vs. paper) × Phase (initial vs. transfer)
revealed no main effect of the medium, F < 1, a strong main effect of phase, F(1, 70) =
27.88, MSE = 247.13, p < .001, ηp2 = .28, and an interaction effect, F(1, 70) = 4.02, MSE =
Cues for Depth of Processing
247.13, p = .049, ηp2 = .054. The interaction stemmed from greater improvement from the
initial (M = 13.7, SD = 13.9) to the transfer problems (M = 32.8, SD = 17.1) on screen, t(33)
= 6.06, p < .001, d = 1.04, compared with paper, t(37) = 2.11, p = .042, d = 0.34 (Minitial =
21.9, SD = 19.8; Mtransfer = 30.5, SD = 23.2). Comparing the media within each phase
revealed screen inferiority only in the initial problems. Success rates in the initial problems
were lower on screen (M = 13.7, SD = 13.9) than on paper (M = 21.9, SD = 19.8), t(70) =
2.01, p = .044, d = 0.48, while there was no difference between the two in the transfer
problems, t < 1. Thus, the pattern of success rate differences found in Experiment 1 with and
without time pressure was replicated here without time pressure, by presenting the same
problems as an initial—and therefore presumably less important—phase before the main
Figure 3. Success rates and overconfidence in initial and transfer solutions in
Experiment 2. Confidence is represented by the top of the overconfidence bars. Error
bars represent standard errors of the mean for the bar below them.
Cues for Depth of Processing
As evident in Figure 3, a pronounced overconfidence was found in all conditions (all
ps < .001). An ANOVA on confidence revealed only a main effect of the phase, F(1, 70) =
6.33, MSE = 248.37, p = .014, ηp2 = .083, reflecting lower confidence in the initial solutions
(M = 52.8, SD = 17.25) than in the transfer solutions (M = 59.5, SD = 20.87), but no effect
for the medium or an interaction effect, both Fs < 1.
As in Experiment 1, confidence did not necessarily correspond with success rates. A
parallel analysis on overconfidence clarifies the differential effects of phase and medium on
the correspondence between confidence and success rates. This ANOVA revealed a main
effect of the medium, F(1, 70) = 4.38, MSE = 327.65, p = .04, ηp2 = .059, with greater
overconfidence on screen (M = 34.7, SD = 2.2) than on paper (M = 28.4, SD = 2.1). There
was also a main effect of the phase, F(1, 70) = 8.18, MSE = 230.12, p = .006, ηp2 = .11,
pointing to participants’ attenuated overconfidence in their solutions to the transfer
problems—a result which highlights the failure of participants’ confidence ratings to rise in
keeping with the actual extent of their improvement after reading the explanations. However,
there was also an interaction effect, F(1, 70) = 3.96, MSE = 261.31, p = .042, ηp2 = .058. This
stemmed from the greater overconfidence seen on screen (M = 40.9, SD = 15.9) than on
paper (M = 29.4, SD = 15) in the initial problems, t(70) = 3.17, p = .002, d = 0.76 with no
difference between the media for the transfer problems, t < 1. Thus, overconfidence was
greater on screen in the initial problems compared with all other conditions, as was the case
under time pressure in Experiment 1.
The overall shorter time spent working on screen compared with on paper (Figure 2)
may hint at shallower processing on screen throughout the process. However, success rates in
Cues for Depth of Processing
the transfer problems were parallel in both media. To calculate efficiency, we added the time
invested in studying the explanations to the time spent on the transfer problems, because it is
impossible to distinguish between the contributions of these two phases to performance in
the transfer problems. An ANOVA as above on efficiency revealed no main effect of the
medium, F < 1, a main effect of phase, F(1, 70) = 16.07, MSE = 3.60, p < .001, ηp2 = .19,
stemming from better efficiency in the transfer phase than in the initial phase, and an
interaction effect, F(1, 70) = 9.92, MSE = 3.60, p = .002, ηp2 = .124. In the initial problems,
efficiency was not statistically different in both media, t < 1, suggesting that the lower
success rate on screen resulted from a premature decision to stop investing effort, most likely
due to overconfidence, rather than less efficient work. Notably, in the transfer phase,
efficiency was marginally better on screen (M = 4.2, SD = 2.2) than on paper (M = 3.1, SD =
2.4), t(70) = 1.97, p = .053, d = 0.47. This high efficiency on screen was achieved despite
minimal use of sketches and with less time invested than on paper.
In sum, using the MTP with no time constraints exposed that even when reducing
extraneous cognitive load, the screen group was less successful and more overconfident than
the paper group in the initial problems, despite the fact that they showed marginally better
efficiency and similar success rates in the transfer problems. Thus, the screen group
benefited from studying the explanations more than the paper group. The finding of no
medium effects on solving the transfer problems suggests that screen inferiority is not
inevitable, and further supports the explanation that screen performance is more susceptible
to task characteristics.
4. Experiment 3
Cues for Depth of Processing
In Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, we found that time pressure and framing problems as a
preliminary phase of the task generated screen inferiority in terms of metacognitive
monitoring and success rates. However, these tasks still involved some reading
comprehension, which is a complex multi-level process (Kintsch, 1998) that may be
affected by characteristics of the presentation medium. In Experiment 3 we examined
whether these results generalize even when using a challenging task that involves reading
only a few isolated words, without higher-order text comprehension. We used the
compound remote associates (CRA) task, which involves reading only three separated
words. The task is to find a fourth word which forms a compound word or two-word phrase
with each word separately. For example, for the triplet PINE/CRAB/SAUCE the correct
solution is APPLE (for additional examples, see Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003). These
problems are considered insight problems, although a recent analysis suggests that
insightful solving of these problems involves the same mechanisms as involved in non-
insightful solving, including working memory and attention (Chein & Weisberg, 2014).
Hypothesizing that time pressure cues shallower processing on screen compared with both
time pressure on paper and a loose time frame on screen regardless of the reading burden
involved, we predicted a replication of Experiment 1’s results and those of previous reading
comprehension studies.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants
One hundred and thirteen undergraduates (51% females) were randomly assigned to
work on screen or on paper and to a pressured or loose time condition (26-30 participants per
Cues for Depth of Processing
4.1.2. Materials
The 34 CRA problems used by Ackerman and Zalmanov (2012) were used here as
well. Two of the problems were used for demonstration, and the first two problems within
the time frame were for self-practice.
4.1.3. Procedure
The printed instruction booklet informed participants that they would face 34 problems
of varying difficulty, and detailed the procedure for each problem. On both media, the
solving started when participants pressed a “Start” button on an empty screen. For the screen
group this brought up a problem, with the three words presented on one line and a designated
space for the solution below them. Participants provided their confidence rating in the same
manner as in the previous experiments. For the paper group, each problem was printed on a
separate page with its confidence rating scale. The general procedure was identical to that of
the previous experiments, and the problems were randomly ordered for each participant.
All participants were invited for a 30-minute session. The actual time frames for the 32
problems that followed the first two practice problems were set by pretesting. In the pretest,
participants (N = 30) were instructed to solve the problems as fast as they could, with no
external time frame. This procedure resulted in a mean of 35 seconds (SD = 7.4) per problem
(about 19 minutes in total). In light of this finding, the time frame in the present study was
set at 16 minutes for the time pressure condition and 24 minutes for the loose time condition.
The time pressure group was explicitly informed that the task was to solve the problems
under time pressure and that they should allow about half a minute for each problem. It was
also emphasized that they were expected to complete all the problems, despite the short time
frame. The experimenter informed the participants when 5, 10, and 15 minutes had elapsed.
Cues for Depth of Processing
The loose time frame group was informed that the allotted time should allow them to work at
ease, but that they should still keep track of the time and ensure they finished the entire task.
The elapsed time was announced at 10, 20, and 23 minutes.
4.2. Results and Discussion
The medium effects are summarized in Table 1, together with the results of the previous
experiments. The participants provided meaningful solution words (rather than answers like
‘xxx’ or ‘don’t know’) for 99% of the problems, indicating that they sincerely attempted to
solve the problems.
Over all analyses there were no effects of the medium, with a single exception—
overconfidence. A two-way ANOVA of Medium (screen vs. paper) x Time Frame (TP vs.
LTF) on solving time revealed no medium effects, Fs < 1, except for the trivial shorter time
under TP (M = 27.5 seconds, SD = 3.73) compared to LTF ( M = 40.4 seconds, SD = 5.76),
F(1, 109) = 200.36, MSE = 23.41, p < .001, ηp2 = .65. This finding replicates the pattern
found in Experiment 1 with a similar manipulation but a different task.
To examine the main research question, we performed three two-way ANOVAs on
success rates, confidence, and overconfidence. The results are displayed in Figure 4. For
success rates, only a main effect of the time frame was found, F(1, 109) = 7.67, MSE =
145.68, p = .007, ηp2 = .07, indicating that TP harmed performance (M = 45.8, SD = 13.7)
compared to LTF (M = 52, SD = 9.7). There was no main effect for medium or an interaction
effect, F's < 1. Confidence showed a highly similar pattern of results, F(1, 109) = 8.54, MSE
= 148.36, p = .004, ηp2 = .07 for time frame, with lower confidence under TP (M = 64, SD =
10.1) than under LTF (M = 57.2, SD = 13.7).
Cues for Depth of Processing
There were no main effects on overconfidence, Fs < 1. However, there was an
interaction effect, F(1, 109) = 5.52, MSE = 109.72, p = .021, ηp2 = .05. A comparison
between the media with respect to overconfidence showed greater overconfidence on screen
(M = 13.9, SD = 11.8) than on paper under TP (M = 8.6, SD = 9.6), t(57) = 2.21, p = .032, d
= 0.50, while under LTF, overconfidence did not significantly differ between the two media,
t(52) = 1.14, p = .26, d = 0.33. Importantly, these effects stemmed from the fact that screen
participants showed no difference for confidence between the time frames, t(55) = 1.22, p =
.23, d = 0.36, despite having less success under TP (M = 44.2, SD = 13) than under LTF (M =
52, SD = 9.6), t(55) = 2.65, p = .01, d = 0.69. For paper participants, in contrast, this pattern
was reversed: lower confidence under TP (M = 56.2, SD = 14.6) compared to LTF (M = 65.7,
SD = 8.8), t(54) = 2.89, p = .006, d = 0.79, with no statistically significant success rate
difference, t(54) = 1.33, p = .19, d = 0.36.
Figure 4. Success rates and overconfidence in solutions in Experiment 3.
Confidence is represented by the top of the overconfidence bars. Error bars
represent standard errors of the mean.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Finally, an ANOVA on efficiency revealed a main effect only for the time frame, as
participants worked more efficiently under TP (M = 1.7, SD = 0.6) compared to LTF (M =
1.3, SD = 0.3), F(1, 109) = 19.81, MSE = 0.22, p < .001, ηp2 = .15. Unlike in the previous
experiments, there was no main effect of the medium and no interaction effect, both Fs < 1.
In sum, as expected, we found greater overconfidence on screen than on paper under
time pressure even with stimuli that entailed reading only three isolated words, although no
efficiency or success rate differences were found. It is evident that regardless of the reading
burden, the reliability of the monitoring process is consistently more affected by task
characteristics on screen than on paper.
5. General Discussion
In the present study we aimed to identify causes for screen inferiority in challenging
tasks that require self-regulated effort investment, while minimizing confounding effects of
reading burden, high-order reading comprehension, and cognitive load. To accomplish this,
we conducted three experiments in which participants faced briefly phrased problems in
either a computerized environment or a paper environment. This allowed us to expose
conditions that generate screen inferiority, as detailed below. Overall, the study illuminates
the medium, time pressure, and importance framing as factors affecting metacognitive
monitoring, effort regulation, work efficiency, and performance.
5.1. Disentangling factors that account for medium effects on metacognitive and
cognitive processes
As described above (see also Sidi et al., 2016, for a review), researchers have previously
maintained that extensive reading on screen is associated with technology-related barriers,
Cues for Depth of Processing
and offered this as an explanation for screen inferiority. However, accumulated evidence
raised the possibility that regulatory processes may serve as an alternative explanation. In all
experiments in the present study, conditions which were expected to encourage in-depth
processing, namely a loose time frame and higher perceived importance, yielded no screen
inferiority—or even screen superiority—in monitoring accuracy, efficiency, and/or success
rates (see Table 1). Thus, effective task performance on screen is certainly possible.
Nevertheless, screen inferiority remained in the presence of task characteristics that we
hypothesized to legitimate shallow processing, even with absolutely minimal reading burden.
In Experiment 1, we replicated with briefly phrased problems Ackerman and
Lauterman’s (2012) findings with lengthy texts. The finding of lower success rates under
time pressure than under a loose time frame is consistent with a stream of the reasoning
literature which associates time pressure with less-effective cognitive processing (Evans &
Curtis-Holmes, 2005; Evans et al., 2009). However, the time pressure effect was only
evident for the screen group, while the paper group did not compromise. Indeed, the paper
group even demonstrated improved efficiency in the face of time pressure. These findings
have two important implications. First, they should set off alarm bells for the research
community, in that the medium in which studies were conducted (screen or paper) may turn
out to have had hitherto unremarked effects on at least some known findings. Second, they
testify to the possibility of effective self-regulation when conditions allow it (as was the case
with the paper group in our experiment). These findings can be added to those pointing to
conditions that allow highly effective regulation of reading comprehension and strategic
problem solving under time pressure (Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012; Gerjets & Scheiter,
2003; Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014). A notable finding in Experiment 1 was the superiority
Cues for Depth of Processing
of working on screen under the ample time condition in terms of success and efficiency.
However, as this finding was limited to one condition in Experiment 1, future research is
required to draw conclusions regarding the specific conditions under which working on
screen can actually benefit problem solvers.
In Experiment 2, we used the MTP procedure adapted from Ackerman et al. (2013) to
generalize the conditions that lead to screen inferiority while reducing the cognitive load
associated with time pressure (e.g. Barrouillet, Bernardin, Portrat, Vergauwe, & Camos,
2007; Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994). The same task that did not generate screen inferiority
under a loose time frame in Experiment 1 was now framed as a preliminary step in a
sequence. We hypothesized that this change in framing would legitimate shallow processing.
While we did not explicitly measure the perceived importance of the two task phases nor
cognitive load, the findings demonstrate the distinct effect of reframing the task on screen
versus paper. Namely, results in a within-participant design were screen inferiority in
overconfidence and success rates in the initial problems, but not in the transfer problems.
There are some procedural considerations to note regarding this experiment. First, the
MTP procedure does not allow counterbalancing the problems. Specifically, the “initial”
problems always appear prior to the “transfer” problems due the task’s nature. One could
argue that the transfer problems may not have yielded screen inferiority if presented first.
However, the main finding regards the comparison between the framings of the same
problems as the main task in Experiment 1 and as a preliminary phase in Experiment 2.
Second, in Experiment 2 participants invested less time on screen than on paper in all phases.
Future research is called to further investigate the conditions that generate medium effects on
regulation of time, in addition to effects on monitoring, efficiency, and outcomes. Finally,
Cues for Depth of Processing
the importance manipulation may have affected participants' motivation. Specifically,
perhaps perceiving the transfer problems as the more important aspect of the task, raised the
motivation to succeed in them. Thus, it is possible that increased motivation for success may
be a moderating factor for screen inferiority. Future research is required to determine the
contribution of motivation to processing depth on screen.
In Experiment 3, we eliminated high-order reading comprehension altogether by
using the CRA problems. Unlike in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 which involved reading
comprehension, here performance and efficiency were not affected by the medium,
suggesting on a possible interaction with text length or higher-order processing. Importantly
though, there was still greater overconfidence on screen than on paper under time pressure,
but not under a loose time frame. In addition, there was lower sensitivity of confidence
ratings to performance variations between the time conditions, as found before with font
readability (Sidi et al., 2016). It may be argued that reaching similar efficiency and
performance for both media is satisfactory, even if a monitoring bias remains. However,
monitoring biases are profoundly problematic, since they are expected to misguide future
regulatory decisions (e.g., Metcalfe & Finn, 2008).
Overall, the results support our hypothesis that working on screen is highly sensitive
to task characteristics that signal legitimacy for shallow processing, and this affects both
metacognitive and cognitive processes. On paper, in contrast, the default mode of work is
characterized by in-depth processing, even in the presence of such task characteristics. One
possible explanation for this stems from the different type of interactions that characterize
these media. Namely, the typical interactions on screen involve brief reading of e-mails,
social networking posts, forums, etc. This daily computerized interaction promotes
Cues for Depth of Processing
differentiated reading behavior from paper, with more selective reading, browsing, and
scanning (Liu, 2005; Mizrachi, 2015). Another possible explanation relates to how people
perceive the two media. Going long back, considering television screens versus paper-based
sources of information, Salomon (1984) suggested that the mental effort invested while
learning from any medium depends on its perceptions of ease and seriousness. Despite the
difference in the electronical modality we consider, this explanation seems relevant to
computerized environments as well and accords our interpretation of the conditions that lead
to screen inferiority.
Our proposed account of conditions under which it is possible to eliminate screen
inferiority can shed light on previous findings. For instance, Eden and Eshet-Alkalai (2013)
described as surprising their finding of equivalence between the media in a text editing task.
In light of the present study, it appears that text editing may trigger in-depth processing,
explaining the found equivalence. To take another example, Norman and Furnes (2016)
replicated the limited time frame condition used in Ackerman and Lauterman (2012) and
found equivalence between the media in both overconfidence and performance, rather than
screen inferiority. However, they did not make it clear whether the time frame used was
pressured or loose for the given task in their population.2 According to the present study,
only if the time frame was perceived by the participants as pressured would we expect it to
hint at legitimacy for shallower processing on screen and generate screen inferiority.
2 Other methodological differences may also account for the discrepancy between the findings of
Norman and Furnes (2016) and Ackerman and Lauterman (2012). In the former, (1) multiple and
repeated judgments were measured; (2) both study media were used in the same session, in a
within-participant design which may generate awareness to the media and affect the results; (3)
memory for details was measured but not higher-order comprehension; (4) the analyses were done
after controlling for subjectively reported effort despite its strong relevant to self-regulation; and (5)
any medium preference in the population was unknown.
Cues for Depth of Processing
5.2. Theoretical implications
Combined, our findings allow theoretical analysis of factors that affect metacognitive
processes in general, and in meta-reasoning, in particular. This broader contribution is
especially important for the nascent field of meta-reasoning research, since not much is
known about the factors which affect monitoring and effort regulation in this context (see
Ackerman & Thompson, 2015).
In presenting the meta-reasoning framework, Ackerman and Thompson (2015)
attempted to draw both parallels and distinctions between meta-memory (metacognitive
aspects of memorizing word lists), meta-comprehension (metacognitive aspects of reading
comprehension tasks), and meta-reasoning processes (metacognitive aspects of problem
solving). Several empirical studies have already identified processes which differ among
these domains (Ackerman, 2014; Thompson et al., 2013). The present study, like previous
work in this research line, shows highly similar patterns of results for meta-comprehension
and meta-reasoning processes.
A close look at Table 1 reveals that in all three experiments, confidence ratings were
blind to medium effects on performance. If the medium were the only manipulated factor, we
could conclude that confidence is an insensitive measure which fails to reflect variations in
performance. However, in most cases, confidence ratings were sensitive to the other factors
we manipulated. Confidence varied with perceived importance of the task, in a within-
participant design (Experiment 2), but also with time frame, in a between-participants design
(Experiment 1 in both media and Experiment 3 on paper, but not on screen). Previous studies
point to higher sensitivity of monitoring to within-participant variations than to variations
between groups (e.g., Koriat, Ackerman, Adiv, Lockl, & Schneider, 2014). We found
Cues for Depth of Processing
confidence to be particularly sensitive to our manipulations, but not to differences between
the media. These findings are in line with the cue utilization approach to metacognitive
monitoring (Koriat, 1997), which suggests that correspondence between monitoring and
performance stems from utilization of heuristic cues for confidence which reliably reflect
variations in performance (see Koriat, 2008). The metacognitive literature often highlights
that monitoring is more sensitive to experience-based cues derived from processing each
item than to cues external to the itemized task, like repeated memorizing of the same list
(Koriat, Sheffer, & Ma’ayan, 2002). The present line of research adds the work environment
to the set of external cues that are not adequately taken into account when monitoring one’s
likelihood of success.
The association between monitoring reliability and depth of processing found in the
present study suggests that under proper conditions certain cues can trigger deeper
processing than people tend to engage in spontaneously. To our knowledge, all previous
empirical evidence for this association is in the domain of reading comprehension (see
Thiede, Griffin, Wiley, & Anderson, 2010, for a review). Notably, most of this previous
research dealt with a different aspect of monitoring reliability than the present study, namely,
resolution. Resolution, or relative accuracy, is a measure of the extent to which monitoring of
knowledge discriminates between better and less well-known items.
The present study deals with calibration, or absolute accuracy, where mean
confidence ratings are compared with success rates on the complete task; in the example
above, calibration would be good if the student expected to get about 80 percent of the
questions correct across the entire exam, and did so. Overconfidence thus reflects poor
calibration. Lauterman and Ackerman (2014) presented evidence that calibration could be
Cues for Depth of Processing
improved (i.e., overconfidence reduced) on screen using a study strategy that had previously
been found to improve resolution—namely, writing keywords summarizing the gist of a
given text after studying it. The present study adds that cues inherent in the task can also
affect calibration, but that this improvement depends on the work medium. These findings
are intriguing in several respects. First, as mentioned above, the present findings represent
the first association between depth of processing and monitoring reliability observed in the
context of problem solving. Second, the finding that cues inherent in the task may improve
calibration raises the question of whether this is also true in reading comprehension tasks,
possibly providing another source of commonality between meta-comprehension and meta-
reasoning processes. Finally, the present findings bolster the idea that the medium is a
consistent cue which interacts with other cues to generate effects on metacognitive processes.
All these issues deserve further research aimed at extending our understanding of the
involved metacognitive processes.
In conclusion, the present study emphasizes the importance of distinguishing cues
that legitimate shallow processing from those which trigger in-depth processing. More
broadly, we highlight the susceptibility of metacognitive processes to contextual cues.
5.3. Practical implications
The shift from paper-based to computer-based work is obviously unavoidable. In
light of this fact, the apparent persistence of screen inferiority despite the most recent
technological advances is troubling. As such, it behooves us to give deep thought to possible
effects of the medium on common daily-life and educational tasks, many of which have real
consequences for the individuals and institutions involved (e.g., work and educational
screening exams). Indeed, our study highlights conditions that allow avoiding screen
Cues for Depth of Processing
inferiority. We demonstrated that using task-inherent cues which call for depth of processing,
or avoiding those that legitimate shallow processing, may make the difference between
perpetuating screen inferiority and overcoming it, or even achieving screen superiority.
The present findings suggest implications for designing computerized environments
for learning, assessment, and daily tasks. Most important, designers should take into account
the types of task characteristics that might result in inferior performance. One such example
is time pressure. Many testing environments operate on the basis of strict time frames,
including SAT tests (deDonno, Rivera-Torres, Monis, & Fagan, 2014), GED tests (GED
Testing Service, 2002) and some MOOCS (e.g., Mœglin & Vidal, 2015; Severance, 2013).
Following our findings, time pressure in these digital settings might produce biased
assessments of participants’ abilities. The good news is that supplementing the task with cues
that support in-depth processing can encourage participants to engage in effective processing
even in computerized environments. The potential association we considered between
cognitive load and time pressure may point to developing additional methods for eliminating
screen inferiority, based on methods developed for reducing cognitive load, in particular
those found effective in the context of e-learning (see Kirschner, Ayres, & Chandler, 2011
and van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005, for reviews).
At the global level, the present study is part of an endeavor to increase the flow of
knowledge from experimental cognitive psychology into educational research (de Bruin &
van Gog, 2012). It has already been shown that applying insights gleaned from experimental
metacognitive studies to educational contexts, although sometimes challenging, is feasible
(e.g., Baars, Vink, van Gog, de Bruin, & Paas, 2014; Metcalfe, Kornell, & Son, 2007;
Redford, Thiede, Wiley, & Griffin, 2012; Roebers, Schmid, & Roderer, 2009; van Loon, de
Cues for Depth of Processing
Bruin, van Gog, van Merriënboer, & Dunlosky, 2014). We designed the present study to be
as close as possible to educational settings, by using task types and environments that are
common in such contexts, without losing the advantages of the well-controlled laboratory
setting. This should contribute to the relevance of the findings with respect to appropriate
conditions for effective computerized work and cues for depth of processing. We hope that
educational researchers will continue our cognitive research and pave the way for applying
the insights it has yielded in classrooms.
Taking another perspective, the present study may shed light on cases in which
students struggle with demanding tasks, and suggest possible strategies for improving their
effort regulation. For instance, it is well-established that school students find verbal math
problems highly challenging (e.g., Morsanyi et al., 2014; Múñez, Orrantia & Rosales,
2013). It is possible that many situations in which students encounter such problems
involve computerized environments and time pressure, and/or a framing of problems as
training toward a future exam. This insight may lead educators to adjust the learning
environment so as to provide cues that hint at the importance of the task and avoid those
which hint at legitimacy for shallow processing. Taking this even further, it is well-
established that up-to-date pedagogy needs to be adjusted to computerized environments,
and that tasks cannot simply be transferred from traditional study environments to
computerized ones (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). However, there
are no clear guidelines as to how to do this effectively (see Cheung & Slavin, 2013, for a
review). We hope that the conclusions from the present study regarding cues for depth of
processing will inspire the development of pedagogical guidelines for effective
computerized learning.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Ackerman, R. (2014). The diminishing criterion model for metacognitive regulation of time
investment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1349–1368.
Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On
screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or
on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time
pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 18161828.
Ackerman, R., Leiser, D., & Shpigelman, M. (2013). Is comprehension of problem
solutions resistant to misleading heuristic cues? Acta Psychologica, 143(1), 105
Ackerman, R. & Thompson, V. (2015). Meta-Reasoning: What can we learn from meta-
memory. In A. Feeney & V. Thompson (Eds.), Reasoning as Memory (pp. 164-
178). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Ackerman, R., & Zalmanov, H. (2012). The persistence of the fluency–confidence
association in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 1189–
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers and Education,
52, 154–168.
Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Rodríguez, J. (2013). Usefulness, enjoyment, and self-image
congruence: The adoption of e-book readers. Psychology & Marketing, 30(4),
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive
load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 695-700.
Baars, M., Vink, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of training self-
assessment and using assessment standards on retrospective and prospective
monitoring of problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 33, 92–107.
Ball, R., & Hourcade, J. P. (2011). Rethinking reading for age from paper and computers.
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(11), 1066–1082.
Baron, N. S. (2013). "But still it moves": Screens, print, and reading. Selected Papers of
Internet Research, 3, 15.
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and
cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 570-585.
Benedetto, S., Drai-Zerbib, V., Pedrotti, M., Tissier, G., & Baccino, T. (2013). E-readers
and visual fatigue. PloS One, 8(12), 17.
Ben-Yehudah, G., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2014). The influence of text annotation tools on
print and digital reading comprehension. In Y. Eshet, A. Caspi, N. Geri,
Y. Kalman, V. Silber-Varod, & Y. Yair (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Chais
Conference for Innovation in Learning Technologies (pp. 28–35). Raanana, Israel:
Open University Press.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs,
techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417–444.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote
associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
35(4), 634639.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6(1), 35.
Burgess, D. J. (2010). 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), 246-257.
Chein, J. M., & Weisberg, R. W. (2014). Working memory and insight in verbal problems:
Analysis of compound remote associates. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 6783.
Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology
applications on mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis.
Educational Research Review, 9, 88113.
Csapó, B., Ainley, J., Bennett, R. E., Latour, T., & Law, N. (2012). Technological issues
for computer-based assessment. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.),
Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 143230). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of
electronic vs. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23.
de Bruin, A. B., & van Gog, T. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation:
From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22(4),
deDonno, M. A., Rivera-Torres, K., Monis, A., & Fagan, J. F. (2014). The influence of a
time limit and bilingualism on Scholastic Assessment Test performance. North
American Journal of Psychology, 16(2), 211224.
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A
review. Computers in human behavior, 23(3), 1616-1641.
Dennis, A. R., Abaci, S., Morrone, A. S., Plaskoff, J., & McNamara, K. O. (2016). Effects
of e-textbook instructor annotations on learner performance. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education, 28(2), 221-235..
Eden, S., & EshetAlkalai, Y. (2013). The effect of format on performance: Editing text in
print versus digital formats. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5),
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and
evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395.
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias:
Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4),
Evans, J. St. B. T., Handley, S. J., & Bacon, A. M. (2009). Reasoning under time pressure:
A study of causal conditional inference. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 7783.
GED Testing Service. (2002). Who took the GED? GED Statistical Report. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as
moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from
hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.
Gu, X., Wu, B., & Xu, X. (2015). Design, development, and learning in e-textbooks: What
we learned and where we are going. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(1), 25
Hillesund, T. (2010). Digital reading spaces: How expert readers handle books, the Web
and electronic paper. First Monday (Online), 15(4). Retrieved from
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-
analysis. Learning and instruction, 17(6), 722-738.
Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., & Schmitz, B. (2010). Integrating cognitive load
theory and concepts of human–computer interaction. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(6), 1278-1288.
Holzinger, A., Baernthaler, M., Pammer, W., Katz, H., Bjelic-Radisic, V., & Ziefle, M.
(2011). 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), 563570.
Kazanci, Z. (2015). University students’ preferences of reading from a printed paper or a
digital screenA longitudinal study. International Journal of Culture and
History, 1(1), 5053.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory
research: The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1),
Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization
approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
126, 349–370.
Koriat, A. (2008). Subjective confidence in one's answers: The consensuality principle.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4),
Koriat, A., Ackerman, R., Adiv, S., Lockl, K., & Schneider, W. (2014). The effects of goal-
driven and data-driven regulation on metacognitive monitoring during learning: A
developmental perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1),
Koriat, A., Sheffer, L., & Ma'ayan, H. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning
curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(2), 147162.
Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., &
Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort:
Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital
media. PloS One, 8(2), e56178.
Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes
and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 1-13.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Lauterman, T., & Ackerman, R. (2014). Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and
calibration. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 455463.
Leeson, H. V. (2006). The mode effect: A literature review of human and technological
issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 124.
Lin, C. L., Wang, M. J. J., & Kang, Y. Y. (2015). The evaluation of visuospatial
performance between screen and paper. Displays, 39, 2632.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment. Journal of Documentation,
61(6), 700–712.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus
computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of
Educational Research, 58, 61–68.
Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer
screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms?
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical
Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 123.
Metcalfe, J., & Finn, B. (2008). Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to
study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 174–179.
Metcalfe, J., Kornell, N., & Son, L. K. (2007). A cognitive-science based programme to
enhance study efficacy in a high and low risk setting. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 743–768.
Meyer, A., Frederick, S., Burnham, T., Guevara Pinto, J. D., Boyer, T. W., Ball, L. J.,
Pennycook, G., Ackerman, R., Thompson, V., & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Disfluent
fonts don’t help people solve math problems. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144(2), e16-e30.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mizrachi, D. (2015). Undergraduates' academic reading format preferences and behaviors.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 301–311.
Mœglin, P., & Vidal, M. (2015). 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), 282–289.
Morineau, T., Blanche, C., Tobin, L., & Guéguen, N. (2005). 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),
Morsanyi, K., Busdraghi, C., & Primi, C. (2014). 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), 1-13.
Moustafa, K. (2016). Improving PDF readability of scientific papers on computer screens.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(4), 319-323.
Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard
advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 23, 1159–
Cues for Depth of Processing
Múñez, D., Orrantia, J., & Rosales, J. (2013). The effect of external representations on
compare word problems: Supporting mental model construction. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 81(3), 337355.
Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming: Are we ready? Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 4960.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new
findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125141.
Norman, E., & Furnes, B. (2016). The relationship between metacognitive experiences and
learning: Is there a difference between digital and non-digital study
media? Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 301309.
Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the
training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational psychology review, 6(4), 351-
Prowse Turner, J. A., & Thompson, V. A. (2009). The role of training, alternative models,
and logical necessity in determining confidence in syllogistic reasoning. Thinking
& Reasoning, 15(1), 69100.
Quellmalz, E. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323(5910),
Reder, L. M., & Ritter, F. E. (1992). What determines initial feeling of knowing?
Familiarity with question terms, not with the answer. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(3), 435451.
Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping
improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and
Instruction, 22(4), 262–270.
Roebers, C. M., Schmid, C., & Roderer, T. (2009). Metacognitive monitoring and control
processes involved in primary school children's test performance. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 749–767.
Salmerón, L., & García, V. (2012). 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), 3350.
Salomon, G. (1984). 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), 647-658.
Severance, C. (2013). MOOCs: An Insider's View. Computer, 46(10), 93-96.
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load
theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.
Shynkaruk, J. M., & Thompson, V. A. (2006). Confidence and accuracy in deductive
reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 34(3), 619632.
Sidi, Y., Ophir, Y., & Ackerman, R. (2016). Generalizing screen inferiority: Does the
medium, screen versus paper, affect performance even with brief
tasks? Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 15-33.
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading
digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 85(1), 155-172.
Sweller, J. (1976). The effect of task complexity and sequence on rule learning and
problem solving. British journal of Psychology, 67(4), 553-558.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive
monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 66-
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). 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), 10241037.
Thiede, K. W., Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Anderson, M. C. (2010). Poor
metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse
Processes, 47(4), 331–362.
Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., &
Ackerman, R. (2013). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as
metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition, 128(2), 237251.
Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: updating the theory?. Learning and Instruction, 12(1),
van Horne, S., Russell, J., & Schuh, K. L. (2016). The adoption of mark-up tools in an
interactive e-textbook reader. Educational Technology Research and Development,
64(3), 407-433.
van Loon, M. H., de Bruin, A. B., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Dunlosky, J.
(2014). Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations?
The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica,
151, 143–154.
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design
implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(3), 5–13.
Winne, P. H., & Baker, R. S. (2013). The potentials of educational data mining for
researching metacognition, motivation and self-regulated learning. JEDM-Journal
of Educational Data Mining, 5(1), 1–8.
Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students
prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948.
Cues for Depth of Processing
Appendix - Example of the problems used in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
The following problem was used as a main task in Experiment 1 and as an initial problem
in Experiment 2:
Joe and Dan are old friends who have not met for many years. As they catch up,
Joe asks Dan how many kids he has. “Three,” answers Dan. “And how old are
they?” says Joe.
“Well,” says Dan, “the product of their ages is 36.” “Hmm,” says Joe, “can you
give me a little more information?” “Okay,” says Dan. “The sum of their ages is
exactly the number of beers we had today.” “That helps,” says Joe, “but it’s not
quite enough.”
“Okay,” says Dan. “So I’ll add that the elder two have green bikes.” Joe now
knows how old the kids are. How?
Transfer problem used for the initial problem above in Experiment 2:
Joe and Dan are old friends who have not met for many years. Joe asks Dan:
“What are the ages of your three kids?” Dan answers, “None of the children are
less than two years old, and the sum of their ages is 14.” “Can you give me more
information?” says Joe. So Dan adds, “The product of their ages is exactly the
house number of this pub.” “That’s not enough,” says Joe.
“Okay,” says Dan. “I’ll add that my young twins’ names are Milly and Julie.”
Joe now knows how old the kids are. How?
... In conclusion, triangulation of interviews with classroom observations is a very useful method and, in our study, a reliable method to validate teachers' perceptions of their teaching. This finding is in contrast to the gap often reported in the literature between participants' perceptions and performance of tasks completed in digital settings (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Porat et al., 2018;Sidi et al., 2015Sidi et al., , 2017. Such differences between our study and previous ones can be explained by two factors. ...
... Students were encouraged to search for information independently, while performing metacognitive evaluations to ensure the relevance and credibility of the information they found. This is consistent with several reports in the literature on the importance of teaching metacognitive skills to maximise student learning in digital settings (Ackerman & Goldsmith, 2011;Ackerman & Lauterman, 2012;Lauterman & Ackerman, 2014;Sidi et al., 2017). The advanced instructional strategies that teachers described included also teaching of higher-order thinking skills that support deep and thorough learning of complex topics, and how to present multifaceted information effectively with the appropriate digital tools. ...
This study mapped instructional strategies that promote core digital literacies, as conceptualized by three theoretical frameworks: the digital competencies (DC) model (Eshet-Alkalai, 2004; 2012) the five core-competencies (5C) model (Hwang, Lai, & Wang, 2015) and the DigComp framework (Ferrari, 2013). Findings from a large qualitative sample of 65 Israeli elementary and middle-school teachers-experts in technology-enhanced pedagogy, demonstrated that their perspectives in semi-structured interviews were mostly consistent with their actual behavior observed in classrooms. Teachers overemphasized certain competencies (searching for knowledge, photo-visual thinking, socio-emotional learning, constructing knowledge), while others competencies were significantly less common (real-time thinking, branching literacy and problem-solving skills). Based on bottom-up coding, we identified unique characteristics of digital literacy , suggested several modifications of the DC, 5C and DigComp frameworks , and mapped the level of instructional strategies (foundational, intermediate, or advanced) used to develop students' digital literacies. We discuss the implications of the findings for educational theory and practice. ARTICLE HISTORY
... One possibility could be the instructions and context used in this study. One reason proposed for better reading performance on paper over screens is that paper provides a contextual cue that the text is important and should be focused on (Sidi et al., 2017). In contrast, screens provide a contextual cue that the text is likely easy and only needs to be processed in a shallow manner (Delgado & Salmeron, 2021). ...
Full-text available
Both medium (paper or screens) and interest have been noted as important factors in learning from reading text, but connections between them have not been examined. The purposes of this study are to examine whether reading medium and interest, both individual and situational, interact to predict performance on a reading assessment and whether medium affects situational interest. College students (N = 206) reported their individual interest in the content of a textbook excerpt, were randomly assigned to read a textbook excerpt from paper or screen, and then reported their situational interest in the textbook excerpt. Based on the findings of this study, individual interest did not interact with medium to predict reading performance; however, situational interest was more predictive of performance when reading from screens than from paper. Medium did not influence situational interest.
... Green et al. [12] suggest that the presentation of numerical information in graphs and tables shortens students' response time compared to data described in plain text. Sidi et al. [31] minimized the burden of reading in their study, and they tested short demanding logical problems. Their outcomes confirmed a significantly lower success rate of students taking tests on a computer. ...
Full-text available
The recent months have shifted contact teaching to the online environment and distance learning and students are dealing more and more with digital materials in various e-learning systems. The question is whether the online electronic materials are as effective as their printed versions for the students using them for self-study purposes. This paper presents research focusing on university students' work with an electronic and printed version of a mathematics workbook. The main research focuses on differences regarding error rate, the number of used hints, and the time they need to spend to solve 111 mathematical problems covering four topics of their introductory course of Mathematics such as limits, graphs, differentiation, and applications of derivatives. One hundred fifty-seven university students participated in the research working with sets of mathematical problems with multi-choice answers taken from the Khan Academy, including step-by-step hints. At the same time, the students were recording their errors, time, and the number of used hints using a questionnaire. The electronic sets were transformed into an electronic workbook and afterward into a printed version of this workbook. Obtained data were analysed using the Random Mixed Model as it enables to mix the used mathematical problems with different variance. The most exciting finding of this research was that the students working with the electronic version of the workbook work significantly faster but at the expense of errors. Students working with the interactive version of the workbook used significantly fewer hints.
... Originally developed in survey research and educational testing, a "mode effect" describes the following phenomenon: a respondent may answer the same question differently depending on how a survey is administered (e.g., online vs. phone) (Hochstim, 1967;Leeson, 2006). Although discussion continues about mode effects' underlying mechanism (Kreuter et al., 2008;Sidi et al., 2017), contextualized magnitude (Carpenter and Alloway, 2019;Washburn et al., 2017), and adjustment methods (Kolenikov and Kennedy, 2014), a consensus has been reached that mode effects can impair survey validity. For instance, Tourangeau et al. (2000) compiled six studies investigating illicit drug use with self-administered and intervieweradministered surveys. ...
... Across three meta-analyses (Clinton, 2019;Delgado, Vargas, Ackerman, & Salmerón, 2018;Kong, Seo, & Zhai, 2018), reading comprehension was better from paper than from screens. One proposed reason for this is that paper is associated with serious learning, and screens are associated with shallow processing (Sidi, Shpigelman, Zalmanov, & Ackerman, 2017). Moreover, readers engage in more multitasking when reading from screens compared with paper (Baron et al., 2017;Mizrachi, 2015). ...
Background: Multitasking while reading is a commonplace activity. Many studies have been conducted examining the effect of multitasking on reading comprehension and times. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to consolidate the empirical findings on reading comprehension and times in order to understand the overall effect of multitasking on reading. Characteristics of the reading situation, comprehension assessment, and the secondary task were examined to determine if they varied the effect of multitasking. Methods: A systematic search of studies on multitasking and reading was conducted. Only studies that used random assignment and had participants reading independently were included. This screening yielded a total of 22 independent studies (20 reports) that met inclusion criteria, with 20 studies on reading comprehension and 9 studies on reading times. Most of the studies involved adults reading expository texts. Results: Based on Robust Variance Estimation (RVE) analyses, multitasking had a negative effect on reading comprehension (g = -0.28, p = .002). The effect was similar after outliers were removed, (g = -0.26, p = .001). Based on moderator analyses, this negative effect may only occur when time was limited because the reading pace was controlled by the experimenter (g = -0.54, p < .001) as there was not a reliable effect when reading was self-paced (g = -0.14, p = .10). Multitasking during reading lead to longer reading times (g = 0.52, p < .001). Conclusions: Multitasking during reading is detrimental to reading comprehension when time is limited. When readers control their own pace of reading, multitasking lengthens the time for the reading task. Therefore, multitasking while reading is less efficient than focusing attention on the primary task of reading.
Full-text available
Characterizing a learning environment from static and interactive worked examples of calculus problems using the cognitive load learning approach and the APOS theory- The term "cognitive load" refers to the amount of information that working memory can handle during real-time learning. Cognitive load occurs when more information is routed to working memory than it can comfortably handle. The amount of information that working memory is capable of containing is defined by the magic number 7±2. When individuals are confronted with new information, their working memory is limited both in capacity and in time. Working memory can simultaneously store about 7±2 items of information for a period of no more than 30 seconds and process 4±1 information items. Cognitive load can improve or delay learning. The goal of designing learning materials is to reduce unnecessary load, usually external, and to choose tasks with optimal built-in load that are neither too easy nor too difficult for the individual learner. Such a design challenges learners to mobilize the required cognitive resources to help them build knowledge schemes in long-term memory. The aim of this study was to examine static and interactive worked examples calculus problems in order to characterize and identify the process undergone by graduate students who are also mathematics teachers when dealing with problem-solving. This characterization involved a double focus: on the extent of the participants' cognitive load and on their development of conceptual mathematical knowledge in calculus in accordance with APOS theory. The research literature suggests that investigating worked examples lowers experts' performance and increases their cognitive load. To make the current research relevant to the study group, I showed static and interactive worked examples of non-routine mathematical problems to participants. The problems were taken from databases and internet sites that support mathematics curricula around the world. Israeli student teachers usually do not encounter such examples in the Israeli curriculum, but they need to become familiar with and examine them in order to develop their didactic and mathematical knowledge. The environment was designed to make teachers aware of content that from the outset demands high cognitive load. The hypothesis of the current study was that exploring unconventional solutions through interactive structured applets constitutes a supportive environment for reducing cognitive load. The study was conducted among two groups of students in graduate studies programs that teach mathematics at the highest level of Israeli high schools. The research findings show that using worked examples in interactive tools is effective in helping teachers adapt themselves while monitoring a dynamic mathematical solution and has the potential to reduce cognitive load in real time. This adaptation finds expression in the option of interactivity, so that students who learn from the solution are not obligated to analyze all the parts of the solution simultaneously. Instead, at every stage of observing the solution they can process and analyze a different part of the solution as they choose. This learning environment was found to be effective in developing in-depth understanding of critical concepts in calculus, to promote fruitful discussions on methods for teaching for key concepts in calculus and to generate didactic ideas and strategies for non-routine problem solving processes among teachers (and their students).
Negative Results
Full-text available
This is a "file drawer" paper, we were not able to find a home for it. The study finds no effect of digital device (laptop, smartphone) on gesture rate or gesture type. Read with a grain of salt since unpublished!
Full-text available
Media multitasking became increasingly popular over the past decade. As this behavior is intensely taxing cognitive resources, it has raised interest and concerns among academics in a variety of fields. Consequently, in recent years, research on how, when, and why people media multitask has strongly emerged, and the consequences of the behavior for a great variety of outcomes (such as working memory, task performance, or socioemotional outcomes) have been explored. While efforts are made to summarize the findings of media multitasking research until date, these meta, and literature studies focused on specific research subdomains. Therefore, the current study adopted a quantitative method to map all studies in the broad field of media multitasking research. The bibliometric and thematic content analyses helped us identifying five major research topics and trends in the overall media multitasking domain. While media multitasking research started by studying its prevalence, appearance, and predictors, early research within the domain was also interested in the impact of this media consumption behavior on individuals' cognitive control and academic performance. Later on in 2007, scholars investigated the implications of media multitasking on the processing of media- and persuasive content, while its impact on socioemotional well-being received attention ever since 2009. Our analyses indicate that research within the field of media multitasking knows a dominant focus on adolescents, television watching, and cognitive depletion. Based on these findings, the paper concludes by discussing directions for future research.
Students are often overconfident in educational settings and struggle to differentiate between well-learned and poorly-learned concepts. The present article reviews current research on strategies that help students assess their understanding, with a focus on research using authentic educational tasks and materials. We propose a framework for these strategies that we refer to as wait-generate-validate. The wait-generate-validate strategies can give students a more objective measure of their learning from lectures, understanding of course concepts, text comprehension, problem-solving ability, and test preparedness. These strategies have been shown to lead to more effective study decisions and greater learning. Lastly, we translate the reviewed research into practical tips for students and teachers and conclude with recommendations for future research regarding how students judge their learning in diverse educational contexts.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Learning in a digital environment can be challenging for students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A previous study on digital text comprehension, conducted in conditions that favor good self-monitoring skills, found comprehension differences between higher-education students with and without ADHD, but only for digitally-displayed texts. The current study examined a possible role for cognitive flexibility and sustained attention in these differences. Higher-education students (48 with ADHD and 98 matched controls) read an expository text in print or digital format without time constrains, then they predicted their success on a subsequent comprehension test (metacognitive-monitoring), and then completed the test. Sustained attention and cognitive flexibility were assessed. In the digital format, reading comprehension and monitoring scores were significantly lower in the ADHD group relative to the control group. In the printed format, the ADHD group invested more time in learning, as compared to controls, and there were no differences in reading comprehension or monitoring. As expected, the ADHD group had significant deficits in sustained attention and cognitive flexibility relative to controls. A moderated mediation model showed that these deficits fully mediated group differences in reading comprehension, while text format moderated the effect of sustained attention on comprehension. Namely, poor sustained attention impaired comprehension of the digital text but not that of the printed text. These findings indicate that learning from digital text is challenging for students with a deficit in sustaining attention. Moreover, conditions that allow self-regulation of learning may exacerbate differences in scholastic achievements between students with and without ADHD.
Full-text available
With additional features and increasing cost advantages, e-textbooks are becoming a viable alternative to paper textbooks. One important feature offered by enhanced e-textbooks (e-textbooks with interactive functionality) is the ability for instructors to annotate passages with additional insights. This paper describes a pilot study that examines the effects of instructor e-textbook annotations on student learning as measured by multiple-choice and open-ended test items. Fifty-two college students in a business course were randomly assigned either a paper or an electronic version of a textbook chapter. Results show that the e-textbook group outperformed the paper textbook group on the open-ended test item, while both groups performed equally on the multiple-choice subject test. These results suggest that the instructional affordances that an interactive e-textbook provides may lead to higher-level learning.
Full-text available
This study explored differences that might exist in comprehension when students read digital and print texts. Ninety undergraduates read both digital and print versions of newspaper articles and book excerpts on topics of childhood ailments. Prior to reading texts in counterbalanced order, topic knowledge was assessed and students were asked to state medium preferences. After reading, students were asked to judge under which medium they comprehended best. Results demonstrated a clear preference for digital texts, and students typically predicted better comprehension when reading digitally. However, performance was not consistent with students’ preferences and outcome predictions. While there were no differences across mediums when students identified the main idea of the text, students recalled key points linked to the main idea and other relevant information better when engaged with print. No differences in reading outcomes or calibration were found for newspaper or book excerpts.
Full-text available
Textbook options are expanding and the electronic text is poised to become prevalent in the college classroom. Cost pressures are driving this trend even as the academic value of e-textbooks has yet to be established. Limited research is available that examines the effectiveness of the e-textbook as a learning tool. This paper presents the results of a study that compares student performance in two sections of an online course, one using an e-textbook and the other using a paper-based text. No significant difference in student performance was found. However, until e-textbook format and features are standardized and business models generate sizable cost savings, e-textbook adoption is likely to evolve slowly.
Full-text available
Metacognitive monitoring affects regulation of study, and this affects overall learning. The authors created differences in monitoring accuracy by instructing participants to generate a list of 5 keywords that captured the essence of each text. Accuracy was greater for a group that wrote keywords after a delay (delayed-keyword group) than for a group that wrote keywords immediately after reading (immediate-keyword group) and a group that did not write keywords (no-keyword group). The superior monitoring accuracy produced more effective regulation of study. Differences in monitoring accuracy and regulation of study, in turn, produced greater overall test performance (reading comprehension) for the delayed-keyword group versus the other groups. The results are framed in the context of a discrepancy-reduction model of self-regulated study. Many models of self-regulated learning can be classified as discrepancy-reduction models (e.
According to disfluency theory, introducing difficulties on a perceptual level (e.g. harder-to-read text) can function as a metacognitive cue that one does not have mastery over materials, hence stimulating deeper processing and fostering performance. Such positive effects of disfluency have received much attention; however, only a few published studies were able to replicate them, with several (unpublished) studies finding no or even negative effects of disfluency. Thus, the first aim of this special issue was to accumulate empirical evidence in (dis-)favor of disfluency to better estimate the real size of the overall effect. Additionally, to know not only whether, but also when and how disfluency might foster metacognition and learning, the second aim was to test potentially moderating and mediating variables. Applying this rationale, six manuscripts were assembled in this special issue, comprising 13 experiments with a total of more than 1,000 participants. Experimental tasks ranged from solving short syllogisms to recalling word lists and understanding complex expository texts. All 13 experiments failed to show overall better performance due to disfluency and there was only little evidence of moderation, suggesting the effect either to be marginal or to be bound to specific (partially unknown) conditions. Results and conclusions from these experiments will be commented by two leading experts in the field of metacognition and learning. In this introduction to the special issue, we will provide a summary of the six manuscripts as well as a brief review of related research.
Researchers have more often examined whether students prefer using an e-textbook over a paper textbook or whether e-textbooks provide a better resource for learning than paper textbooks, but students’ adoption of mark-up tools has remained relatively unexamined. Drawing on the concept of Innovation Diffusion Theory, we used educational data mining techniques and survival analysis to examine time to adoption of highlights, notes, annotations, bookmarks, and questions in an interactive e-textbook reader. We found that the only tool that more than half of the participants used was highlighting. Students who purchased a printed copy of the textbook had longer average times to using notes and annotations. Because most of the more interactive tools were used by a relatively small number of students, regression modeling of the factors associated with tool usage was difficult. However, there was evidence that the likelihood of using the tools decreased as the semester progressed, and that students’ self-reported reading behaviors and grade point average were predictive of the time to using the mark-up tools. An interaction between bookmark usage and amount of reading was positively associated with course grades, suggesting that a strategy of bookmarking with frequent reading could assist students to learn content successfully. The implications of this research are that (1) instructors may need to more directly scaffold the adoption of interactive e-textbook tools that are touted as boosts to student learning and (2) promoting adoption early, shortly after students begin reading the e-textbook, is critical for students to acclimate to using the tool. © 2016, Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Reading scientific papers in portable document format (PDF)-columned formats on computer screens is sometimes daunting and unfriendly. This is mainly due to the fact that PDF-columned texts are often truncated from the top or the bottom of pages so that readers have to scroll up–down repeatedly in the same page to get the whole text read. To make the reading process as smooth as possible, PDF viewers should be designed as responsive tools with responsive layouts that should automatically adapt the amount of readable text to the sizes of the displaying monitors so that readers will not waste time in repetitive vertical and horizontal scrolling movements within the same page. Here, I discuss such a problem-solving proposal that could be implemented in PDF viewers to improve the readability of PDF-columned texts and to make the reading process as flexible and painless as possible.